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

Let's continue."...I said an infinite "dependency" is impossible. I didn't say that if infinite simply means 'unlimited' that it is impossible. Obviously I think something can be infinite if infinite means 'unlimited in being'. So, Con's objection at this point is not relevant because God is not a series of dependent things."My opponent has still not explained how "infinity" does not relate to "unlimited" in any way. Furthermore, I stress the notion that limitation isn't a state of dependency. If this were true, there would be no need for God in the first place. More on this later."...obviously the frail man is not dependent upon the strong man. The frail man is also not limited by his own strength, the frail man's strength is limited by other factors. So again I don't see the relevancy here. The frail man is still limited by something else."Not necessarily, if we were to look at my definition of limited, we could come to the logical conclusion that the man is limited by his own lack of strength. Also, I ask my opponent: If the frail man isn't dependent on the strong man, how can this support the contention that limitation is a state of dependency?"...Ok but again if they are arguing that the things floating through space are dependent upon energy and the energy is limited then I agree and argue that the energy is limited by something else. So again, I don't see how this contradicts the argument I put forward."These limiting factors are not dependent on energy, rather, they are affected by energy. The fact that energy is exists in this manner is the key point here. Not to mention that energy is not limited by something else- because energy cannot be created or destroyed (it can only be harnessed). This is not a state of dependency, rather, states of independence and coincidence."Again, if something is logically impossible then it is not the type of limitation that I am talking about, so if it is logically impossible for God to place a temporary limit upon Himself then fine God cannot do that, but that still would not affect the argument because I am not talking about logical limitations."Considering that my opponent has conceded the contention of God being a logical being, it is only logical- that since God is a logical being and acts within the confines of logic, it would be impossible for him to be illogical. For example, if we observe the argument "Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" We will find that God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible - these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. Now, what about this rock? A rock would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power. But an infinite rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. Only God is infinite. There cannot be two infinites. So the question is actually asking if God can make a contradiction - which He cannot[1]. If he cannot make a contradiction, he can only be logical. If he can only be logical, all of his choices/actions/decisions must be logical in nature. Therefore, every limitation God places upon himself must be a logical limitation. Arguments extended."It seems that Con thinks that God could not temporarily change Himself because God shouldn't need a reason to change Himself."He shouldn't and couldn't have a need or reason to change himself if he is: perfect, infinite, unlimited. If he is not any of these things, he is susceptible to corruption- which contradicts our chosen definition of God."But God could have plenty of reasons, that are not due to limitations, to change Himself. He could change Himself simply because He wanted to or because He thought it would be a good way to reveal Himself to mankind."I contend that any "reason" to change himself can only be because of a limitation. Furthermore, any type of change would be illogical. My opponent has not yet explained how or why an all-knowing deity would need to change himself, when, logically- he should be perfect the way he already is, since he knows what to expect ahead of time."Con concludes by saying that God would be an infinite dependency, so the argument self-defeats."I am not arguing for this contention, I am exposing this in my opponent's logic. If God would ever need to change his mind, be illogical, or create any form of contradiction, he would not be dependent on anything- for he would be able to do anything. However, if God can't change his mind, act within the realms of logic (as my opponent has concluded), and is unable to create a contradiction, he would be infinitely dependent on himself- as he would be infinitely limiting himself.So yes, I do contend that my opponent's argument self-defeats."Except, I think Con is misunderstanding what I mean by an infinite dependency. An infinite dependency is where there is more than one thing and one/some of the things relies upon the other/s. God is a singular thing, so it is absurd to argue that He is an infinite dependency."In this case, God may be a singular thing. But God's limitations, as my opponent has agreed that he has, would be an example of an infinite dependency. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to conclude that God is unlimited, for this would mean that he is infinitely without limit. I contend that this circular fallacy cannot stand in a logical debate. 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."Ok we agree on this point (of God only being able to act within the realms of logic), so I think we can drop the point about God 'be limited because He can't limit Himself', as this is a limitation due to the rules of logic and not an ontological limitation."Ontological, theological: they are all realms of logic. Even the word "Ontological" has "logical," in it. My opponent seems to claim that an Ontological argument doesn't have to be logical, when, by it's very definition- it has to be."I am not sure what Con means here, except that they still think that there can be an unlimited number of limiting factors. But again this is absurd because that would be equivalent to saying that a sack can be pulled by infinitely long rope."I feel as if the "sack pulled by rope" premise is not a logical argument for this debate, since we are both arguing for infinite factors. This premise could only exist in a universe through which absolutes are not possible- considering that both my opponent and I have demonstrated our support for absolutes, this argument is irrelevant."Now Con may bring up their objection that limited and dependent are not the same thing, and I agree that they are not necessarily the same thing, but in this regard they relate because if thing x is limited because of thing y then x's limitation is dependent upon that y's placing of the constraints."My opponent will need to prove how this is logical in contrast to the Frail Man argument. I contend that just because something is limited by something else, does not mean it depends on something else. I will explain this in my next point."I then contend that a thing, which is limited in its being, is dependent upon something else to limit it to its being."Again, a 'lesser' factor isn't dependent upon something 'greater' to limit it's existence; a 'greater' factor just happens to exist in the same universe as something else with less limits.X is limited by YX and Y were generated at the same timeX is not dependent on Y to existThe problem with the "sack and rope" argument, is it exists in a world where limitation is governed by dependency. When I argue that limitation is merely a coincidence.On to Pro.[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...