Indisputable proof for a God

[ABierman1986]

To decipher the needlessly esoteric language and properly get the crux of this will take a bit more time, but I would like to say that the very first premise of you moving your hand and then having this causal relationship extend to every aspect of being and the universe does not follow. It is not logically consistent, especially as the laws of conservation of mass-energy don't necessarily require a 1st cause. The implication that is being made within the first two arguments is one that has been discussed widely among theists and atheists alike. There are several threads on this forum that deal with that topic itself. On that note, saying that proving the requirement of ultimate causal relationships is one that is self-evident is most certainly not a rational approach to this problem. The thinker here has gotten to the end of their knowledge base without questioning their underlying assumptions' validity. The basis upon which this logical (though I hesitate to support the claim this is a logical argument) framework depends has no reason to be accepted as truth.