This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

(i) Can the First Cause cease to exist? (7) Well, the First Cause has to be infinite, meaning that it isn't limited by something, else the thing that is limiting it would be the First Cause. This is because the limiting thing would have to have existence before it can limit. (8) Now, since the First Cause is initially (for now) infinite, then the First Cause is perfect. However, perfect implies that a thing can't change, because change means that something gets or loses something that it previously had. Therefore, the First Cause can't be limited (or limit itself), because that would mean that it would be imperfect, meaning that it can change to gain something it didn't have. (9) The First Cause must also be simple, meaning not composed of parts, because if it were composed of parts, then this means that one part has something that the other part doesn't have, which implies change, implying imperfection. (10) So, since this First Cause cannot change because it is perfect, the First Cause cannot cease to exist (the first thing my opponent wanted me to show). (11) Since the first cause is simple, if it shows an attribute in any way, then it must be that attribute (and it has to possess it perfectly and infinitely as well). (12) Well, since we know that a cause must come to a First Cause, we can deduce qualities of a cause that come from its own nature (which it can't give itself) and attribute it to the First Cause ultimately. (12a) Otherwise, there is an attribute that exists outside of the First Cause, but the definition of the First Cause is that it causes all things that exist, so that attribute must ultimately come from the First Cause, else the First Cause is not Existence (and not perfect). (13) If we say that humans by nature are good, have an intellect and will, and have power to do things, then these things can be attributed to God in a perfect way. Otherwise, we would have to say that something comes from nothing, but then this goes against the idea of First Cause as Existence (see 12a) (the second thing my opponent wanted me to show). (13a) If the idea of evolution is true, then one has to keep in mind 12a. Okay. Notice how much this stuff relies on my first 6 points. My opponent can point out the points in 7-13a where he disagrees, but he doesn't need to comment on the points that we are already arguing about in 1-6 (unless you have some new insight or other good reason to comment). My opponent can point out his points where we disagree on, from 1-6 onto 7-13a. Now to comment on my opponent's Round 2 response. Premise 1: Please tell me clearly what I am vague about, don't just complain and be vague about my vagueness (let me know which questions I missed). I gave you an argument saying that it isn't possible for effects to not have causes. As a side note, I pointed out that if it did, there would be no subject in that sentence. I don't think this is a question of vagueness. You understand what I mean by cause and effect. It is more of a question of the theory itself. Premise 2a: Alright, so, I start by assuming the opponent's argument, that there is an infinite cause-effect chain, label it A (= {c1, c2, c3"} ). Then, I can construct a sequence C of increasingly large chains of what the cause-effect chain is not equal to. You can call it C, but the important thing to note is that C = ~A by definition, as this is what the cause-effect chain isn't entirely made up of. Then, ~A = { {c1}, {c1, c2}, {c1, c2, c3}, "}. Since this goes on infinitely long, A gets included in ~A, which means that the cause-effect chain is entirely made up of what it can't be entirely made up of. This is a contradiction. What I meant about the ~Aristotle part is that you're changing the definition of logical ~ if you don't say that Socrates is everything other than Aristotle, meaning that your use of the word "not" is not the correct terminology that I am using, meaning that there is an equivocation in the use of the word "not", which your argument must rectify before it can say that our "not's" are equal. https://www.google.com... I also didn't say that your argument couldn't hold because of this, but rather that your skills can be refined. Just because you can't see the contradiction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Once again, your skills can be refined. I didn't say A and C are the exact same chain. I said A was in C (so A was in ~A, which leads to a contradiction). You are right, A and C are different things that are infinitely long, I agree. However, what matters is that I can find a ~A and an A, which are exactly the same chain, except for the fact of whether they exist or not, hence the identity crisis. Premise 4: I gave an argument later on in my statement saying that it would be a contradiction to have an effect without a cause. To the argument that there is an effect without a cause is like trying to prove that there is no teapot in space (in our Solar System). If I can't really disprove it, it doesn't mean it's there. It would be like asking me to disprove leprechauns (this is an atheist's argument against theism that I am using to try to prove theism, lol). That being said, check the previous paragraph first before coming to this one, I wouldn't mind if I proved that "there is no teapot in space." Occam's razor is an idea to consider, not a rule to always follow. Physics is an excellent example of this, as there are many examples of counter-intuitive ideas http://scienceblogs.com.... For example, when you look at a color like orange, it turns out that you are actually seeing all of the other colors, and that orange gets absorbed in the object, and not reflected back to your eye. Now, why have Occam's razor? Well, some good reasons are in "https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor" (don't forget to add the " 's_razor " to the url, else it will give you a disambiguation page of Occam. You could also just go to that disambiguation page and select the link titled "Occam's razor"). Next, I think Occam's razor is in my favor rather than yours. We know of causes and effects existing. We don't know of any causes and effects that don't exist. Your argument says there is both, while my argument says that there is only the former. By Occam's razor, my side wins with regards to this. Lastly, having no cause means that there is no explanation possible, that an explanation is denied. However, Occam's razor only applies for actual explanations. Otherwise, we could Occam's razor ourselves into denying meaning to everything (or whatever is convenient for us), as it is the simplest "explanation". But anyway, since we don't use it everywhere given a context, it isn't a rule. It can be a rule regulated by other rules, but one should explain exactly the rules and how it would work. Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out Occam's razor! Ok. You're presupposing that nothing exists, but that is a contradiction. Nothing can't cause something, because then nothing is something, by definition of a thing that I gave in my previous argument (But nothing was already defined to not be something). That is why I am saying that "A is caused by nothing" and "A is not caused by anything" are logically equivalent (in addition to how manipulating statements logically works). Conclusion: You have a hard time understanding my arguments but assume that your arguments work. Liability!