The Argument from Motion proves that God exists.

Thank you very much for such a warm welcome into this debate. I will be proceeding to work through your reasoning, as best I can, but I fear I may have some issues with interpretation. I have a bit of an issue with how the argument is presented here. The premises and conclusions here seem, frankly, much too vague in their use of language. In accordance with this, I have given my best interpretation of the first few premises and the very first conclusion here. Please correct me if I am mistaken. P1: Some things are moved (or changed). P2: If something is in the process of changing to state F, it is potentially state F, but not actually state F. P3: If something changes a thing to be in state F, then the thing acted upon is actually in state F, and the mover (something) is in a state where the truth of the thing being in state F is genuine. C1: If something were to change itself to be in state F (i.e. if it were be both the changed and the instigator of that change), then it would be both potentially in state F, but not actually in that state, and also actually in state F (conjunction, modus ponens, P1-3). If this interpretation is inappropriate, I welcome you to correct me accordingly, but supposing that this interpretation is valid, your very first conclusion is obviously false. Your second and third premise indicate certain pathways along a process; if something is in the process of -being- "state F" it is, by definition, not already in that state, yet if it is changed -to be- in state F, then it is in state F. In these two points, you are making a clear distinction between the terms "being", and "be", and this distinction is important, and the only reason we are willing to accept those premises. In other words, they are not interchangeable phrases. In your first conclusion, you ignore this distinction, and claim that these two premises support the conclusion, when the reality is that only one premise supports half of the conclusion. To put it plainly, in the beginning of your first conclusion, you state " If something were to move itself to be F...", in other words, if the thing is already in state F, or if it is in the "be" position, then it is potentially but not actually F, which is not true. The second clause of your conclusion is true, because you are claiming that it is F, but the first clause is not, because you are using "to be F", which is attached to your third premise, interchangeably with "in the process of becoming F", which is connected to your second premise, but which does not apply here because we have already established that the thing is already in state F. I apologize, because I realize reading that can be confusing, so I will try to speak even more clearly here. Your first conclusion is relying on your second premise, but your second premise only applies to that conclusion if the 'thing' in question is in the process of being changed to F. You very clearly state, at the beginning of that conclusion, that the 'thing' is in state F, not in the process of becoming state F, and, under that circumstance, you can not apply the conclusions embedded in your second premise to your first conclusion. If this conclusion is false, then so is C2. If C2 is false, so is C3, and your whole argument basically falls apart.