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

I want to start off by addressing what the definition of a monotheistic God is based on the context my opponent put it in. I do have to make a few assumptions of the definitions, because my opponent did not make them, but I will try to be reasonable with the definitions. The reason I am taking proper care to make sure the definitions are clear is because I could be making arguments against myself should my opponent offer a definition outside of how they would normally be applied, since the meaning of the word God can be so varied. God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The key words in that definition is supreme being. Which would imply an intelligent creator God, and not just some natural force without intelligence which happened to create our universe without any rhyme, reason or motive. A house divided Let me proceed to attack my opponents arguments with his own words. " The continual actualization of things must ultimately depend on a source which has no room for potential, and so is fully actual" But such a source is not possible based on my opponents own arguments. How did this source get actualized "1. Something cannot actualize itself. " And "2. An infinite causal dependency is impossible. " My opponent states those 2 rules as fact, then proceeds to break his own rules by bringing in a self actualized being who is infinite. Assumptions Here is a list of assumptions my opponent makes without explanation. 1. " The continual actualization of things must ultimately depend on a source which has no room for potential, and so is fully actual" Assumption a- The continual actualization of things must ultimately depend on a (single) source. Assumption b- The source has no room for potential. Why can't the source be only partially actualized? 2. " Considering that potential being does not formally exist until actualized, the fully actual source must conceive of what 'the things in potential states' will be actualized as" Before pointing out the assumptions in this statement I want to point out, that this argument is conveniently applied to the universe but once again conveniently doesn't apply to the God for some unexplained reason. Assumption a- Potential being does not formally exist until actualized. this assumption is that things don't exist until fully actualized. I would like to point out to my opponent by his logic the universe doesn't exist because it isn't yet fully actualized. Assumption b- the fully actual source The assumption here is a fully actual source, pro provides no evidence of a fully actual source. Assumption c- must conceive of what 'the things in potential states' will be actualized as. Why must it be able to conceive of the actualized state to set things in motion? Why must it have the ability to conceive at all? These obvious questions have not been answered. 3. " Furthermore, this fully actual source is the source of existence and so cannot be a divided thing (ie. there can only be one source of existence), and so the source must be singular. This whole statement is an assumption Assumption a- A fully actual source exists Assumption b- This fully actual source is the source of existence. Assumption c- This source can't be divided. Assumption d- There can only be one source of existence. Assumption e- that source must be singular 4. " Also, since the source does not have room for potential, it does not change and therefore does not diminish. " Assumption a- The source has no room for potential. Assumption b-- The source does not change. Assumption c- The source does not diminish. Pro is just using ridiculous assumptions to make his arguments. He is hoping all his leaps of logic will just be overlooked. What Must be Proven " So, if one wants to show that the argument is false, then they must explain why the premises of the argument should be doubted or demonstrate that the fully actual source should not neccesarily be viewed as God as understood by a monotheistic framework. " The premises are faulty because the premises even if correct does not justify the conclusion. , and actually disprove the conclusion they are meant to justify. Premise 1. Something cannot actualize itself. Premise 2. An infinite causal dependency is impossible. Conclusion- a self actualized being with infinite causal dependency created the universe. If the premises are correct then it is impossible for that conclusion to be drawn from them. Both these premises are assumptions based on personal experience. We don't know that something can't actualize itself or that infinite causal dependency is impossible. It's possible time is circular. It's possible that the universe continually destroys itself and then is reborn. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... There is no reason to believe in a fully actualized source. If a fully actualized source created the universe then he wouldn't be fully actualized because the process of creating implies that the source is still in the process of actualizing.