This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

The argument and GodI'd first like to note that my opponent's argument, as such, is incomplete. It does not prove God. If it is succesful, it proves that some pure existence caused everything into existence. However, the definition of God is nearly always as a being. Thus, my opponent must show, at the very least, that the first cause is intelligent. The argument, as stated, does not uphold the resolution. I shall await an argument from my opponent to show that the first cause is intelligent, and as such, can rightly be called "God."Some ClarifitationsI have attacked two major metaphysical assumptions my opponent's argument rests on:i. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.ii. A causal chain cannot proceed to infinity.While my opponent's argument has many sub-arguments to defend these premises, it essentially rests upon these two premises.Premise 1 - Vague Notions of CausalityMy opponent clarifies his notion of causality, stating "a relationship of a thing acting on another thing."He defines cause and effect, stating "Cause is a "person or thing that" acts. Effect is "a change" which occurs from an action."Later, he argues that whatever comes into existence has a cause of its existence.I am once again very confused by my opponent's argument. Do all effects have causes? Or is it only something coming into existence that requires a cause?If my opponent's argument is so vague that it does not even clearly express itself, it cannot get off the ground, and certainly cannot prove the existence of God.Infinite Causal ChainsI will once again try to understand my opponent's arguments regarding infinite causal chains. Judging by his response, it seems I may have misunderstood him. I would urge my opponent to attempt to present his argument in a more clear and easy-to-understand manner.Here is the argument my opponent has put forward:"If one says that it occurs at infinity, I can construct a sequence of increasingly large chains of what the cause-effect chain is not equal too: { (c1), (c1, c2), (c1, c2, c3), "}. Since this goes on to infinity, it has the infinite cause-effect chain. However, this shows that the infinite cause-effect chain is not equal to itself, which is a contradiction of the identity principle."So to clarify, let's call this sequence of chains C. C = (c1),(c1,c2),(c1,c2,c3),...So C is infinitly long. Then my opponent states:"Since this goes on to infinity, it has the infinite cause-effect chain"I am assuming that my opponent means that some particular causal chain (which is infinite) is also included in C. Call this A.A = c1,c2,c3,c4, etc.Obviously, A will be a sub-element of C. My opponent then states"However, this shows that the infinite cause-effect chain is not equal to itself, which is a contradiction of the identity principle."Which infinite cause/effect chain is not equal to itself? A or C? I'm really trying very hard to understand what on earth my opponent is trying to say, but it's really not clear at all."I would clarify this to say, C has A, but by the definition of things in C, this means A doesn't exist. Since we assumed A existed, a contradiction results."I don't see how by the definition of C, A doesn't exist. This simply does not follow. Remember...C = (c1),(c1,c2),(c1,c2,c3),... ad infinitumA = c1,c2,c3... ad infinitum"I just noticed that the break in your logic is on P3, when you say "not Aristotle." (I will give logical not's by ~). Properly speaking in logic, ~Aristotle means everyone and everything who isn't Aristotle. That includes Plato. Therefore, Socrates isn't just Socrates, but also Plato, Matt532, zmikecuber, and everyone else, as well as objects like tables, and such, except that this is prevented in P1 so that it only refers to persons."However, ~Aristotle does not mean everything other than Aristotle, nor is that what I have said. If I say Socrates is not Aristotle, I am not saying that Socrates is everything other than Aristotle. I am merely saying that Socrates and Aristotle are not the exact same thing.Therefore, my argument holds. It is an adequete representation of my opponent's reasoning. Here is what my opponent seems to be saying:P1: C is an infinite thing.P2: A is an infinite thing.P3: C is not A.C: Infinity is not infinity.However, the only conclusion that follows is that this one particular thing (C), which is infinite, is not the exact same thing as this other thing (A), which is infinite.In other words, my opponent's argument means absolutely nothing. He has not shown any sort of contradiction of a thing's identity. He has merely created two infinite series, A and C. A is a subset of C. There is no contradiction here.My opponent finally states"With my infinities, however, they are completely overlapping each other. My infinities are identical: (c1, c2, c3, "). Also, I'm not talking about two different things. I'm talking about the same exact chain."But obviously A and C are not the exact same chain. The one is the subset of the other, but they are not the same. Sure, they are both infinite, but they are different infinite things.CausalityI ask my opponent if something can come into existence without any cause, to which he replies,"Well, I would admit that I assumed this to not be true. I will say though, that I don't' know of anything that provably follows this idea."So, as he admits, his argument rests upon the impossibility of something randomly coming into existence. In other words, whatever comes into existence has a cause.My opponent does not provide any arguments to believe this though. The closest he gets is by saying: "I don't' know of anything that provably follows this idea."However, the burden is not on me to provide something coming into existence without a cause. The burden is on my opponent. He has not done so.Furthermore, this flies in the face of Occam's razor. If something comes into existence, and it can be explained without a cause, there is no need for a cause. Perhaps everything that comes into existence has a cause, as well as a guardian angel. Perhaps everything that comes into existence has a cause, a guardian angel, and an inherent moral value. When given absolutely *no* evidence to believe in these extra hypotheses, we should opt for the one that explains the phenomena best, with the fewest hypothesis. And in this case, the idea with the fewest hypothesis is that something can just come into existence... without a cause.Furthermore, I believe it can be shown that the statements:i. A is caused by nothingandii. A is not caused by anythingare metaphysically different. In one case, A DOES have a cause. And this cause is nothing.In the other case, A does not even have a cause in the first place.Therefore, they seem metaphysically distinct to me.My opponent claims:"not done by Sam" logically means "done by not Sam"However, they are not the same, metaphysically speaking. In the case of "done by not Sam" there are many not-Sam things that could have done the action. For example, Pete or Sue. However, this is not the case when we speak in terms of "anything" and "nothing." ConclusionMy opponent's argument is vague, and completely unsupported. My opponent has failed to prove that anything that comes into existence requires a cause, and instead attempts to shift the burden. He has not shown that infinite causal series cannot be infinite. He has not even shown that the argument proves a being.Therefore, my opponent's argument cannot be considered sound in regards to proving the existence of God.