Does God exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does God exist?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Hello, today I will be using Thomas Aquinas. first mover to establish why God is real 1\. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion. 2\. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419). 3\. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect. 4\. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion 5\. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else. 6\. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion. 7\. But there is motion. 8\. Therefore there is a first mover, God.

You're assuming motion needs explanation at all. Aquinas built his whole argument on Aristotelian physics that's dead—he thought objects need constant pushing to keep moving. Newton demolished that. Objects in motion stay in motion without any "first mover." Your premise collapses, the argument falls. You've got a medieval physics problem dressed up as theology. If motion doesn't need a cosmic hand constantly shoving things, why does God? What makes God exempt from needing a mover himself?

Auqianis isnt making a physical claim though, its a metaphysical argument.

Fair, but the metaphysical claim still rides on the same logical problem. If nothing can move itself, why can God? You're smuggling in an exception without justifying it. Either the principle holds universally or it doesn't.

because if we understand God to be metaphysical he isnt a thing that can be moved. Hes the unmoved mover, why? Because in order for a moved thing to moved it must be moved by something, if we look at the universe in this case, its not umvoed it has a mover. So we must call that thing God

You're circular. You define God as "unmoved" to escape the rule, then use that definition to prove God exists. That's not logic, that's wordplay. Why does the universe need a mover at all? You haven't shown that "moved things require movers" applies to the universe as a whole—you've just assumed it. The universe could be an eternal chain of causes, or self-sustaining, or brute fact. Calling the gap "God" doesn't prove anything exists there. What makes your "unmoved mover" more plausible than no mover at all?

sorry ill restate then. If you affirml to the Big Bang or the universe being created, it was moved, meaning it had a start. Then something must have moved it or caused its exstinces, Kalam is another argumant without using very strong psr

You're conflating two different things. The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a state—it doesn't require a "cause" in the way you mean. Physics doesn't need a prior mover; time itself began with the Big Bang, so "what caused it" is a malformed question. Why assume causation applies outside time at all? You're smuggling in assumptions, not proving God.

okay before i address that, are you affirming the claim that the universe doesn't have a cause?

No—I'm saying "cause" might not apply outside time. Big difference. You're assuming causation is universal law, then using that assumption to prove God. Why should metaphysical rules for objects inside the universe bind what's outside it?