This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

1. Constraints Yeah, the First Cause is constrained by its own essence. It's essence = existence. However, this Existence doesn't include holes, gaps, or imperfections (I define evil as a privation, a hole). The First Cause does have certain tendencies. I mean constrain from outside the First Cause, not within the essence. That's why I said the principle of non-contradiction, to not contradict the essence. By (7)-(13a), this proves that it isn't utterly incoherent if true. Also, the First Cause becomes coherent if we understand better the definition of existence, as well as what this existence is not. A hole exists in the sense that it is related to what does exist. The principle of non-contradiction is a logical principle, so it is constrained by logic. I define constrain to be a limit. P1: Proof of no exterior constraints: If God is perfect in every way (by P2, later on), then there are no exterior constraints. 2. Perfection You misuse the term equivocation when you probably meant to say univocation. (See comments, (*1)) Does perfect imply immutable? It does because perfection is the highest state, a maximum, a supremum, which can't be changed with respect to what is claimed to be perfect without it becoming imperfect. This is because perfect refers to a quality on a spectrum like numbers. In Math, with the function: y = sin(x), there are infinitely many x's that you can give me that give the highest value for y of 1. If two things are perfect in an aspect, they differ in what isn't defined as perfect. To say there are two perfects or maximums of one line or dimension sounds like a contradiction. +2 and -2 aren't both maximums in the set {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2}. Does immutable imply perfect? Maybe. The First Cause is perfect in terms of its qualities. P2: Proof of perfection: If God is Existence, meaning God has power over everything that exists, then God, by definition, is the source of all things, and therefore has the highest perfection of all things. Those things that God created must share in that perfect in some way, as otherwise, something comes from nothing, contradicting my R2 proof. P3: Proof of immutability: Perfection in all things implies immutability. So, by P2, God is immutable. You bring up a very interesting point in bringing up Pantheism. P4: I have a definite attack on Pantheism. Later on in this round, I give an argument for finite-time. If that is the case, then God didn't always exist, and so what caused the Universe, and God to begin to exist? Something doesn't come from nothing, and shown in my R2 proof (I discuss what you said about this proof later on). (*2) I agree with your definition of perfection you give here. 3. Change/Existence You commit the inductive fallacy here. You are saying that since it is not noticed here, you then conclude that it is impossible. However, there is death, where a living thing ceases to biologically function! There is a part of it that changes to nothing. Not only that, but that part is essential to it. Also, the only way to change an essence of a thing is to destroy that essence, which occurs. For the thing to cease to exist in terms of matter disappearing, well, that's a different thing. P5: However, this whole thing started when you said in R3: "However, dropping out of existence doesn't count as a change." This means IF something ceased to exist, not, "Is it possible for a thing to cease to exist entirely, for all its parts?" Well, I claim that your quote is a contradiction. If one does (logical) not change, then one stays the same. However, one then has to say that a thing existing and the thing not existing are completely the same thing, which is a contradiction. Your saying that "something can't change into nothing" is clearly a failed attempt at obfuscation, and you are either a fool or seriously ignorant in your misleading on multiple occasions. 4. Intelligence and the First Cause You clearly are misleading again right here. I never said E=mc^2 proved my claim, but that it disproves your rebuttal to my claim. I'm not reducing a philosophical point to a physical principle, but am saying that your physical example contradicts a physical principle, and is therefore not a valid example of reality. Removing physics from physical things is like removing philosophy from wisdom (philosophy means love of wisdom), so I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't want to claim that my answer steps on a Nobel Prize Winning Physicist and all those thereafter who agree with him, unless you're ready to go there. For the paint bucket, it wasn't an intrinsic property from you. However, we can ask what caused the paint bucket to exist, since it didn't cause itself to exist. We can keep asking this until we get to the first cause. You raise a good question concerning unintelligent processing creating something intelligent. That doesn't disprove a First Cause being unintelligent, it just means that it is possible though unlikely for a random thing to produce something that has an orderly form. I can shuffle cards, but there is still the possibility that I get all the cards in order from Ace to King, suits in their order. That doesn't disprove a First Cause or intelligibility, but is merely a notable result of randomness. P6: The First Cause causes us to have an intellect, and so it must also have intellect. Once again, my R2 proof (*3) says that we can't have something from nothing. Therefore, an intellect must come from somewhere. Since all things must have a First Cause (since something can't be caused from nothing by R2 proof and by a finite-causal chain from my (2, 2a, 2b) in R1), we get our intelligence, as well as our personhood from the First Cause. (*3) Now, if the power is potentially there for a being to become intelligent and personal, then this power must come from somewhere, and since something can't come from nothing, it has to come from a First Cause that is Intelligence and is Personhood, since the First Cause must be simple. However, in order to give something potential, one has to have that property, in order for that potential to become actual. A potential thing can only become actual by an act. Potency can't cause potency to become act. So, the First Cause must be Act and only Act, as potency implies imperfection and change. 5. Actual Infinity So you couldn't see that your C is my P4? Just change my P4 to C, I meant it to be C. I think you can see it, you're just whining about syntax errors. My P2 is in math terms, which is hard for non-math people to understand, so I should change it. P2: ~A exists. (Replace C with H, to not confuse it with conclusion) P3: H is an orderly chain, consisting only of elements in ~A, that is infinitely long. P4: A is an element of H (by construction of H). Your representation of A and H should be changed to reflect what I said in R4 about it (the syntax). Your premises don't represent my argument fully, mainly P2, but they also miss my other premises. I am saying that A both exists and doesn't exist, which is a contradiction. 6. Causality So you found my R2 proof. You talk as if you disproved my proof did before you even give your reasoning. That doesn't give a good impression. However, I just realized that it did it in this paragraph before revision. As for your attempt in terms of the logical not, you fail to recognize that the not doesn't move from the subject to the object, but to the verb. "Any single dog did not eat that bone" is the same as "No dog ate that bone." "Nothing was done" -> Anything/a single thing was not done (done is the verb). When you say "A is caused by nothing", I can rephrase it to be, "nothing causes A", do the operation, "Anything does not cause A", then put it back into its original way, "A is not caused by anything." Same with: "A bone was not eaten by the dog" -> "No bone was eaten by the dog." (*4) 7. Conclusion (*5)