God exists

While I originally asked that my opponent be approved before beginning this debate, my reasons for requesting this have become unecessary, so I ask voters to kindly overlook this. Definition of "God": I realized that I did not present a definition of what I mean by "God. " This demands clarification on my part. I shall be arguing for the God of classical theism, particularly that of Thomas Aquinas as established by The First Way. Thus, by God I mean "purely actual, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, perfect substance. "A summary of The First WayI shall summarize The First Way thus:P1: IF everything which is moved is moved by another, THEN there is a causal chain which regresses. P2: IF there is a causal chain which regresses, THEN it cannot regress infinitely and must be finite. P3: IF the causal chain is finite, THEN it terminates in a first, unmoved, purely actual mover. P4: Everything which is moved is moved by another. C: Therefore, there is a first, unmoved, purely actual mover. This is a logically valid argument. Act vs. potencyEssential to understanding what is meant by "motion" is the act/potency disctinction. If something is in act, it means it actually has certain qualities. For example, I have a pair of headphones sitting on my desk. They are actually black, actually made of plastic, actually lying here on my desk, etc. However, there are also certain potencies or potentials which the headphones possess. They could potentially be melted, potentially be stomped on, potentially placed on my head, potentially play music, etc. So, for something to move, is for a potential to become actual. Which is why Aquinas says:"For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. " [1]It should be noted that by "motion" is meant any sort of change whatsoever. Defense of P4From our distinction of act and potency, we can see the defense of Premise 4. For something to move itself, would be for a potential to raise itself to actuality. However, this seems blatantly false. How could something which is merely a potential actualize itself? Since a potential has no causal abilities whatsoever, it seems absurd to attribute any sort of actions to it. Furthermore, this contradicts our experience. Defense of P1P1 also seems intuitively true. If my headphones are moved across the desk by my hand, then there is a regressing causal chain. The headphones, being moved by my hand, which is moved by my hand muscles, moved by my arm muscles, etc. etc. All of which involve a potential being raised to actuality by something else actual. Defense of P2P2 may be misleading. A distinction must be made between causal series ordered per accidens, and ordered per se. In a per accidens causal series, each member has causal abilities of its own, regardless of the existence of prior members. For example, my grand father begets my father, who in turn begets me. I have the causal ability to beget a son, and their continued existence is not necessary. A per se causal series would be a series in which each member is only instrumental. For example, if my hand suddenly disappeared in the example given above, the headphones would not be able to cause anything else, since they would stop moving. While a per accidens series may, for the sake of argument, regress infinitely, a per se causal series cannot. If this were the case, a paintbrush could paint by itself if the handle were infinitely long. Defense of P3P3 seems uncontroversial. If the causal series can't be infinite, then it terminates in a first unmoved mover. The only thing which could terminate this is that which is purely actual, without any admixture of potency. If the unmoved mover did have some degree of potency which spoke to its being, it would demand some further actualizer, and would not be the unmoved mover. Timeless, immaterial, omnipotent and perfectIt should be obvious that the unmoved mover is immaterial. For whatever is physical has some sort of potentials. However, the unmoved mover, being purely actual, has no potentials. Thus, the unmoved mover cannot be material, and must be immaterial. Furthermore, if the unmoved mover is immaterial, and absolutely unable to be moved, then it must be timeless, since to be in space and time implies changeability and materiality. The unmoved mover is also omnipotent. Omnipotence is nothing else other than the ability to raise some potential to actuality. But as purely actual, the unmoved mover clearly can and does raise potencies to actuality. Finally, the unmoved mover must be perfect. To be imperfect would mean to lack something, which one might possibly gain. In other words, to be imperfect means to have certain potentials. But the unmoved mover has no potentials, being purely actual, and thus is perfect. ConclusionSorry this is short. Over to Con! [1] . http://www.newadvent.org...;