>>13575548>So there are elements of both causality and acausality in my rendition Then it's invalid as an analogy for the prime mover. Clearly. There can't be more than one uncaused cause and you're saying each time a square randomly turns it's an uncaused cause.
>the random fluctuation percentage would be some specific valueThe value set by the programmers is a cause in the chain of causality. Your analogy fails. There can be no PM's within CGL if there are programmers who made set values that cause change within CGL.
>And where is this new dictate of yours coming from that the percentage must be randomI said "if".. it's not dictating anything: I was showing why the alternative to a set random % is also invalid.
>Nothing in your posts or the meme picture put forth an argument against the existence of more than one Prime Mover.page 12 literally word for word say there is only 1 PM and explains why.
Dont debate this with a novice understanding and now apparently a half assed attempt to understand. It's pointless.
>>13575578Lacking a vagina is not an unfulfilled potential you complete dumbass and that was your original mindless argument you tried and failed to make.
Your next separate argument now is your misunderstanding of the phrase "something of pure actuality does not lack anything."
The definition of the prime mover literally says it lacks potential. Thinking "lacks nothing" means "has everything" is completely wrong, a simpleton understanding of English language, and would lead to infinite contradictions. You are clealry too stupid to understand that when the meme says "lacks nothing" it is in terms of things it necessarily needs. It doesn't lack meaning it is not deficient in anything.
There is no necessity for the PM to have a vagina, making it not a deficiency for it not to have one, dumbass.
>>13575950>he's unironically making anselms argumentNot even remotely close you retard. I disagree with anslems argument
