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

Con is apparently upset because I take the premises of the argument to be undeniable. They have yet to explain why either of the premises should be doubted though. They act as if I have yet to prove the premises to be true, except in my mind I gave sufficient enough (at least for discussion, which is what I was intending) reason to think that the premises are true. What else do they want? 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. I gave the reasoning of P1: "Now P1 is correct because again, something cannot give itself a contrary (ie. an ice cube can't melt itself, it must be melted by a heat source)" 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. Again, one can't simply say"No you have to prove it", when I did prove it! It is logically absurd for an ice cube to melt itself. All that Con needed to do was explain why it's not absurd or why it's not absurd in all situations. Con said that both premises wrre supported with weak analogies, except here I didn't give an analogy, I gave an example and explained it. The same thing with P2, I had said: "P2 is correct because again, 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." 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. I will further explain the premises. P1 is true because something can't produce for itself what it doesn't already have (eg. black can't make itself white). P2 is true because if something receives an effect, the effect can't be received from an infinite line of causes because the effect of the causes would never be able to return to the finally effected source. I use analogies for this because it is easy to see why an infinite dependency is absurd. 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. Likewise an infinitely long rope can't pull something because there couldn't be a transfer of energy through the rope to the sack, as nothing could be waiting at the other end to pull the rope, since the rope is infinite feet. 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. Con stated "That's ridiculous. How can a changeless cause of change, change its self? Clearly if its changing it's self then it's changing. Why should I even have to point out the absurdity of your statements and contradictory nature of your claims?" Except I never said that the source changes itself. I said that it produces change. Now, Con may think that is strange, and I will grant that it's not something that we can conceive of properly, but that does not make it impossible. In fact if the premises are accepted then the conclusion follows.