This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

ConstraintsMy opponent states:"Well, except for the principle of non-contradiction, anything that would constrain the First Cause would have to be created by the first cause. However, if there is a constraint that is created, then it can be added or removed. But you are talking about constraints that prevent something from being infinite." However, the first cause could be constrained by its own essence. For example, an apple is constrained to act in a certain way and to have certain tendencies (such as rotting), by virtue of it being an apple. Why can't the first cause by the same way? Furthermore, how does it follow that something without constraints would be perfect? Wouldn't it rather follow that the first cause is utterly incoherent, since it isn't constrained by anything, even logic?Therefore, it is nonsensical to say that the first cause is "unconstrained" when my opponent has not defined what it means to be constrained, and how this applies to perfection.PerfectionMy opponent's argument regarding perfection fails due to a fallacy of equivocation.He claims "The First Cause is perfect in every way because it is the source of everything that exists (and so nothing more that exists (and there is nothing that doesn't exist) can be added onto it)."However, when perfection is defined as this, it cannot be shown to cause the thing to be immutable. Furthermore, under this definition, the first cause would be the universe. Is it not "more perfect" to be everything? Is it not more perfect to be greater? If the first cause is not the universe, then there is a potential the first cause has: to be the universe. However, if the first cause is everything, then it is ultimately the cause of itself, which my opponent has claimed to be impossible.This is a dilemma, and neither horn of the argument work for my opponnent.The definition of perfection I believe is better is that which fulfills its natural ends to the highest degree. However, this assumes essences. Thus, a knife which cuts perfectly is a perfect knife. A knife which cuts very poorly is an imperfect knife.Change/ExistenceI do not see how my opponent has responded to this argument. His response obviously does not work, since it ignores what I have said. I have argued that when a thing changes, it changes from one state to another. In the case of ice, it melts and the molecular structure changes and it becomes a liquid.My opponent states:"Ax -- (changes to) --> 0! Problem Solved! Nothing = 0!"However, this is not a change, since something cannot change into nothing.Intelligence and the first causeMy opponent has claimed that since we are intelligent beings, and the first cause caused us, that it must therefore be intelligent itself.I'm sorry, but E=mc^2 does not prove this. My opponent is obfuscating the issue and conflating physics with the philosophical principle I have called into question.Let me give you an example. I knock a paint bucket over. It spills and paints the floor red. Does this mean that I must have been red to begin with? Of course not.Further, let's say that an unintelligent process randomly creates a computer. Did the unintelligent process have to BE a computer in order to make one? Obviously not. Take natural selection for example.It should be noted that I am using real world examples to prove a philosophical point. I am not reducing a philosophical point to physical principles as my opponent has done. E = mc^2 is a physical principle. Not a philosophical one.Actual InfinityMy opponent provides this "syllogism":P1: A exists.P2: C is an orderly chain consisting of elements that is in ~A, constructed by the following: a subsequence of length n that is in C has n subelements which correspond to the n most recent causes timewise in terms of A.P3: A is an element of C (by construction of C).P4: Therefore, A both can't exist (by P2 and P3) and does exist (by P1).However, this is simply not valid. It does not even have a conclusion. He labels the conclusion as a premise.Therefore, I will ask my opponent.... is this a good representation of his argument? Because the argument he provided above is extremely unclear and poorly worded.A = {c1, c2, c3"} C = { {c1}, {c1, c2}, {c1, c2, c3}, "}P1: A is an element of C.P2: C is not A (by definition).C: A is not A.I want him to verify that this is a good representation of his argument. I understand that his argument says that since C is not A, but A is inside of C, then there is an A inside of a not A, which is impossible, since that means A both is and isn't. So I ask my opponent: Is this what you are saying?CausalityMy opponent claims that he proved causality in round 2. I've read and reread that argument several times, and I can't find any proof anywhere. The closest my opponent gets to proving causality is when he says "To say that a thing was not done by anything means no act occurred by those things. So, an act must have come up on its own. This means all verbs don't need a subject...since there does not exist a thing that does the act, the only thing left is emptiness or nothingness! So, nothing does something. If we define a thing as that which does stuff (such as existing), nothing is something. Then, this contradicts the act not being done by anything, in addition with the idea that nothing isn't something."The first part regarding verbs and subjects is merely a nice rhetorical sound. To say X popped into existence without cause is perfectly fine. We're not just saying "existing" and leaving it at that. Rather, we are making an observation about what just happened.Furthermore, it seems at least metaphysically possible for something to pop into existence without a cause. There is no explicit contradiction in this happening - we can easily imagine it - and I don't think there is anything implicitly metaphysically impossible about it.As far as applying logical not, it does not work. My opponent says "not done by anything" is the same as "done by nothing." However, if we can move nots around, then we would get incoherencies.For example, take the sentence:No dog ate that bone.If we move the "no" to qualify the "bone" we get...A dog ate that non-bone.However, this is absurd. We simply cannot move qualifiers around like that. I ask my opponent for a credible source that claims you can logically do that. My opponent also claims "The universe doesn't just pop into existence on its own because that would be like saying it caused itself to exist, which you and I argued was absurd. It isn't from nothing by my Round 2 argument."It seems possible for the universe to have always existed in some form. Why is that such an incoherency? Then it doesn't need to cause itself to exist. Of course, it could act on itself, as one part acts on another part, but it's not causing itself into existence.I have to stop here, since I'm running out of characters.ConclusionMy opponent's argument is jumbled, weak, and just doesn't add up. He has trouble explaining what he means, and as such I believe he has lost the debate on that grounds alone. It is his duty to present a clear argument and show why it is true. I do not think he has done that. Furthermore, even if his argument succeeds, it does not prove God, nor does it prove an intelligent being. Therefore, the resolution is confirmed. This argument does not prove the existence of God.