@planko. Here's my position: This argument is sound:

C = some thing is Changed

A = changed by Another

~I = an Infinite regress of changed changers is impossible

U = there is an Unchanged changer

P1: C. (There exists some thing that is changed.)

P2: C→A. (If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.)

P3: A→(IvU). (If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.)

P4: ~I. (An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.)

T1: A. (By P1, P2, Modus Ponens.)

T2: IvU. (By P3, T1, Modus Ponens.)

T3: U. (By P4, T2, Disjunctive Syllogism.)

There is an unchanged changer.

@stretched_girl and @crensch are uneducated and can not address logic.

Simply stated, there are 4 factual premises, and they can't rebut any of them.

They are illogical. They deny logic in order to hold to their faith in atheism. They have no reasonable response or objection to this perfectly logical argument. They simply deny logic in order to hold to their faith. They are irrational cult members.

My position is well articulated. The prime mover argument is sound. They can't rebut any premise. Facts.

@eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles

@FrozenFire74 @TheodoreKent