Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Yes nonexistence is impossible.
2. No, it has not been proven that the first cause was a supernatural prime mover with a mind called "God."

Because it takes further demonstrations to make that clear. A single demonstration does not a full philosophy make. All the argument shows is that there is something that matches a role or attribute traditionally ascribed to God.

It shows no such thing. It doesn't even do a particularly good job of explaining that nonexistence is impossible and there must be a first cause. And its conclusion that the first cause must be a "prime mover" or agent, or anything with a mind, is just a non-sequitur. Of course there must be an uncaused cause, but the God claim is far more than that. And potentiality is nonsense.

3. All the talk about potentiality is nonsense because actuality is the only thing that is actual and therefore existent.

If you think that then I suggest you go back and look at how Aristotle resolved the dilemma between Parmenides and Heraclitus. We stand on the shoulders of giants and ignore their contributions at out peril.

I disagree that he resolved Parmenides's dilemma. AFAIC the logic Parmenides used in his argument was flawless, and Einstein himself seemed to recognize that long after Aristotle, regardless of whose shoulders he was standing on. You speak as if Aristotle was right about everything, but he got many things wrong, and he even thought flies had four legs.