Aquinas' First Way succeeds

This is the 5th and final round of this debate. Due to my lengthy posts above, I'd like to keep this reply short, sweet, and to the point. The conception argumentPro objects to my conception argument that I have not sufficiently established the second premise, which states "Self-actualization is not inconceivable." The question really is though, is this premise more plausibly true, or more plausibly false?Recall that I argued one can easily imagine something moving itself. It seems that it is more plausible that I am really imagining that something is moving itself, or moving without a cause, than that I do not know what I am conceiving. For if I am going to question whether or not I am really conceiving something, when I think I do, couldn't this objection be made to any sort of conception argument? I say I am conceiving of x, and someone objects "how do you really know you're conceiving that? Maybe you're mistaken."InertiaPro is mistaken when he remarks that gravity, inertia, and the laws of physics in general are also a part of the actualization. The laws of physics remain the same, unchanged, despite the changes in the universe. And if they are unchanging, then they require no actualizer. Further, Pro mistakenly parallels gravity and inertia. Gravity is a force exerted from a physical object, while inertia is merely a description of what happens to an object set in motion. This description states that the object will continue in its motion in a straight line, without any external force.Free willPro seems to be arguing that God is the cause of our nature, which is to be able to choose freely. And thus God is actually the one behind the seeming self-actualization. This is a problem. If self-actualization is impossible, then how could God be the cause of an impossibility? However, if it's not impossible, why is God needed to cause the self-actualization of free will?Pro's second premisePro appeals to our intuition in defense of his second premise. While I will admit, that if we were to experience an event which seemed to happen "uncaused" one would probably not assume that it really was uncaused. However, intuition derives from our experiences. If we experienced acausal happenings all the time, our intuition would tell us that acausality is possible. But experience is very dangerous to argue from, precisely because our experience of the real world is so limited.Furthermore, if Pro does admit that it may be possible for some sort of object to undergo acausal operations, why would the universe be any different than this? The arguments Pro presents against the self-actualization or acausal actualization of the universe could be mounted against the acausality or self-actualization of particles. Why should we accept one and not the other?Pure actPro misundestands my objection. I am not saying that the physical laws exert any causal abilities, but rather that objects exert forces on other objects. The forces exerted from these objects change and actualize other objects without themselves being actualized.ConclusionI'd like to thank Pro for accepting this debate challenge. I've had a great time, and have definitely learned more about the First Way. It's always fun to see someone else's view of an argument you've done alot of research on, and it's very nice to see someone else's answers to objections you see with an argument.Also, I forgot how long I set the voting for...I'm not sure if there will be enough time for anyone to vote on this, or if anyone will even read this debate in its entirety. Either way, I've thoroughly enjoyed myself.