Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

Pro's arguments are entirely logical fallacies. Logical fallacy #1- Argumentum ad nauseam Pro believes repeating his same refuted arguments over and over gives them credibility. . http://rationalwiki.org... Logical fallacy #2- shifting the burden of proof. . http://www.rationalresponders.com... "They have yet to explain why either of the premises should be doubted though. " Not my job pro needs to show why the premises are true. " If they think that something does not need something else to change it, in order for it to change then they should explain why that should be doubted. " Again pro asks me to prove a negative. "Now Con may think that this is a weak analogy. Except, again all that Con needs to do is explain why the analogy does not sufficiently demonstrate why an infinite dependency is impossible. " No pro needs to show why the analogy sufficiently demonstrates his point. Logical fallacy #3- Weak analogy . http://www.logicalfallacies.info... My opponent makes weak analogies and is sticking to his guns that the analogies prove his premises. "an ice cube can't melt itself, it must be melted by a heat source" "something like a sack cannot be pulled by an infinitely long rope. Rather, the sack must be pulled by a finite length rope that is connected to something else that is not itself being pulled. " "Imagine a bomb exploding on the ground after it shot up an infinite number of feet into the air. Obviously the bomb would never be able to return to the ground because an infinite cannot be completed, which is exactly what the bomb would have to do in order to return to the surface of the earth. " "black can't make itself white" Logical fallacy #4- straw-man fallacy " Now Con may think that something can give itself a contrary, but they never explained why it is reasonable to suppose for instance that an ice cube can melt itself" " it! It is logically absurd for an ice cube to melt itself" Logical fallacy #5- non sequitur fallacy Barker, Stephen F. (2003) [1965]. "Chapter 6: Fallacies". The Elements of Logic (Sixth ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 160"169. ISBN 0-07-283235-5. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Logical fallacy #6- false dichotomy Pro claims if his premises are correct there are only 2 reasonable conclusions. Either an unmoved mover that can be considered god created the universe or an unmoved mover that can't be considered god created the universe. The truth is there is an infinite number of other possibilities. Just about every sentence pro has written contains numerous logical fallacies all of which I've pointed out in previous rounds but named in this one. I wish I could sit here and name all his logical fallacies but I only have so much space to write. So I'll move on to addressing pro's new argument. "As far as the conclusion, I had tried to explain that too, but Con wrote it off in their first rebuttal. I'll try again to explain why the changeless source should be thought of as a personal God. The unchanging source "chooses" to produce change, so naturally the unchanging source is a personal source. " Here pro acts as if I gave his argument any credibility by implying that I agreed a changeless source created the universe. Pro argues that his theoretical unchanging source should be considered a personal god because it chooses to produce change. He never explains how he came to the conclusion that the source of creation chose to create. My best guess is that it's just wild speculation. Pro has given no valid reasons to take his conclusions serious.