Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Then why is that when presented with the actual demonstrations in Question 2 of the Summa Theologica, you don't challenge the logic; but rather, the observations about reality on which those demonstrations are based.

... Because logical arguments can be totally valid within their own structure, while still not aligning with reality?

What does this have to do with your utter failure to connect your conclusion to your observations, by the way? Someone's playing dodgeball.  

That would be you. You said that the evidence presented, "that only things that actually exist can cause change", was merely an assertion. My question back to you was "so you think that non-existing thing can cause change?" Instead of answering the question you pop off that the conclusions don't follow from the premise. Maybe they don't. But we aren't there yet because you cannot even commit to basic and clearly evident facts about objective reality.