The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument

[Pyrrho]

I would expect you to say something like that, since you don't really exist and are just a product of my imagination.

I must commend you - you have quite the brilliant imagination

Thank you.


Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of the opening post from a scientific perspective, it is not good from a philosophical one either.  

For a start:

...
Premise 1) Everything in the Universe is either impermanent, or depends upon something else for its existence. (things are born and they die, the universe tends towards entropy, nothing within the Universe lasts forever)

That is an unwarranted and unproven assumption.  That some things are impermanent does not prove that everything is impermanent.  Without any reason to believe that everything is impermanent, the argument is a nonstarter.


But this is much worse:

Premise 2) An infinite regress of finite, impermanent causes seems logically impossible.
...

One does not establish logical impossibility by how things seem to one.  And this is not logically impossible, as it does not entail a contradiction.  So this one is not merely unfounded, it is just false to state that an infinite regress of finite, impermanent causes is logically impossible.

There is nothing illogical about an infinite series.  For example, consider the set of whole numbers (....,-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...).  There is no first whole number and there is no last whole number.  In the sequence, one finds the next whole number by adding one to the previous one (or one can derive it that way).  Or one can derive the previous number in the sequence by subtracting 1 from the succeeding number.  There is nothing contradictory or illogical about this.

You flunk logic with premise 2.