The existence of God can be logically demonstrated using Aquinas' Second Way argument

I thank Con for his rebuttal. Con again states that a frail man's strength shoul have to be considered as limited by a strong man. I don't see how this follows because the frail man is obviously not limited by the strong man, but rather by something else. Just because the strength of both men is being assessed doesn't mean that the frail man is necssarily limited by the strong man. Con then objects that energy is not limited and yet affects other things. Except, energy is limited, it is limited to being the contrained thing that it is, for instance energy can't be or do anything, rather it is confined to acting only as energy can act and be only as energy can be. Again, I think Con and I agree upon God only being able to act logically, so I don't know why they are still bringing the issue up. God could of course place a temporary limitation upon Himself, such as becoming human, but at the same time He can remove this limitation. So, I don't think it is illogical to imagine God placing a temporary limitation upon Himself and yet at the same time be unlimited in His being. It seems Con thinks that if God can't act illogically then God would be limited by His own nature, except this does not follow. For I thought we agreed that logic is a description upon how things must be, not about some ontological force that prevents something from happening. Con then goes on to suppose that I have argued that God has limitations as Con says "If my opponent wishes to argue that God is an/the unlimited factor, he will need to prove that God's limitations aren't actually limitations. And that God's omniscience doesn't mean he can't change his mind. Both of which, are illogical- things that God can't do." Again though, I have only conceded that God is limited to acting logically, I obviously never conceded that God is ontologically limited. I think Con may also be confused about what "ontological" means. It doesn't mean 'outside of logic', rather it means 'being'. So when I say God is not limited ontologically, what I mean is His being is unlimited, but only being able to act logically has nothing to do with this (as we both agree). Con is confused by the rope analogy that I used. The rope analogy was to demonstrate that a direct causal chain can't go on forever (ie. someone must pull the rope). So, if P2 of hte argument is about a direct causal chain, then clearly it too could not go on forever. Though in the end, I will concede that perhaps P2 is not analogical to the rope analogy. So, at this point the second way may not work as it stands, but that does not mean that it does not work when understood properly. Only that my version of it may not work. I hope though that any readers will understand that Con talking about God only being able to act logically is not actually a limitation upon God, which Con agrees, So, I think that discussion confused the matter. The argument rests upon how one explains and addresses P2. Typically the argument is understood in the fashion of "what is distinguished is distinguished by something else" enventually leading in causal chaing back to God, who is undistinguished. I think that version does work, but I chose to phrase the argument in a less than satisfactory way. Con is correct to challenge that.