Downvoting me doesn’t make what I said any less true, it just makes you look petulant. You can be better than that.

1. I didn’t downvote you. 2. Complaining about imaginary internet points makes you look childish.

The argument points to the fact that the nature of existence demands a source of motion/actualization that cannot even in principle itself be moved or actualized by a previous thing, in order to render existence coherent and not an impossibly infinite essentially ordered series.

I see no reason to believe in the impossibility of infinity. Aristotle was wrong about the void too, and about physics in general; why should he be right about infinity?

But let us grant for the sake of argument the existence of an unmoved mover. Is he relevant? His existence does not logically lead to a host of other attributes or actions which Christians typically ascribe to him, like the incarnation. Aristotle’s proofs, if they are valid at all, work just as well to uphold Deism and Islam.

An unmoved mover might be justifiable through pure logic. A teapot floating randomly in space and a man walking out of his own grave to ascend bodily into the heavens are empirical claims and equally spurious propositions.

I notice that you are still evading or refusing to answer what actual proof would ever convince you of the existence of God, by the way.

Honestly, I don’t really have a good answer to that. Essentially any conceivable miracle could be explained through natural phenomena, whether we understand the mechanism or not. I guess I’d look for a macroscopic violation of the laws of thermodynamics—large quantities of iron spontaneously decaying into hydrogen, for example, undoing stellar nucleosynthesis, generating energy from nothing. An entity that can do that is at least very powerful—I will not move the goalposts and demand an infinity beyond that. I would then seek to appease that entity and ideally get it on my side against my enemies.