which show a lack of understanding

number three, only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
number four, nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.

i.e: if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another.

good? any problems?

nope

number five, nothing can move itself
number six, each thing in motion is moved by something else

number seven, the sequence of motion cannot extend *ad infinitum*

do you agree with this, disagree?

not sure how you found that out, but lets keep going

final point of the first way

it is therefore necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everybody understand to be God

ahhhh there we have it

"and everybody understands this to be God"

okay so

i could replace god with anything

and it would still be valid

lmao no no on

cringe moment

not understanding the argument moment

okay but we have to deduce that there had to be a beginning point, having had no objections prior to point eight, right?

no objections. Well small ones, but im granting you a few things

okay, so the thing is that whatever you replace with God as the beginning point

this explains why that critique is cringe

has to logically exist outside of Time itself

since Time is also a factor that is in motion

@Spergerger not sure how he figured those things out

can you soundly demonstrate that at all?

but ok

via logic

so you now admit that this argumentation offers a logical proof for something we refer to as god?

no, if anything it just tells us that there is a first mover. And that is only, when i grant your premises

addie you have shown a lack of comprehension again

okay so what alternatives would there plausibly be?

if not a thing/being that exists outside of time

the characteristics necessary for a first mover are the characteristics of god

literally anything, so long as you claim it exists outside of time

i could make up something right now with those characteristics lol. I also don't agree with a lot of them

what parts did you disagree with?

i thought we went through them

"cannot have any imperfections"

so God is perfectly nonexistant?