A lot to pick from.
For example, he defines "change" as the process of potentiality becoming actuality - like coffee going from hot to cold. Then in his coffee being held up example, he says that the potentiality of the coffee to be 3 ft up the ground is becoming actual in that snapshot of time - which is why it staying up is a change. That is simply untrue - the potentiality is already actual. If, in that snapshot of the moment, you remove the table, the coffee still stays 3 ft above. It'll be 2.99999 ft in the next snapshot. The idea here being he wants to consider two independent modes of causality - linear and hierarchical - but doesn't acknowledge their relation.
In the coffee on the table example, he is addressing one specific attribute - being held up. He goes on to say that everything is, in the end, deriving that attribute from something that itself doesn't need to held up by anything else. Then he applies the same logic to the generic concept of "existence". He doesn't define the term - he doesn't explain what it means to exist - he simply concludes that there must be a singular first cause encompassing all forms of existence.
For example, he defines "change" as the process of potentiality becoming actuality - like coffee going from hot to cold. Then in his coffee being held up example, he says that the potentiality of the coffee to be 3 ft up the ground is becoming actual in that snapshot of time - which is why it staying up is a change. That is simply untrue - the potentiality is already actual. If, in that snapshot of the moment, you remove the table, the coffee still stays 3 ft above. It'll be 2.99999 ft in the next snapshot. The idea here being he wants to consider two independent modes of causality - linear and hierarchical - but doesn't acknowledge their relation.
In the coffee on the table example, he is addressing one specific attribute - being held up. He goes on to say that everything is, in the end, deriving that attribute from something that itself doesn't need to held up by anything else. Then he applies the same logic to the generic concept of "existence". He doesn't define the term - he doesn't explain what it means to exist - he simply concludes that there must be a singular first cause encompassing all forms of existence.
