>>23913
>That's why the "first mover" can't be found within existence. If "the first mover" was there, that would imply he had to have a cause too, agree?
Well, "in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence." Non-existence, by its nature, can not be this being because it is nothing; it can't "contain within itself the reason for its own existence" because it does not exist. God, in comparison, is pure actuality and is therefore non-contingent.

>There is no way to find out whether the object exists or not, without us conducting some experiments and perceiving the results of it.
To go back to the question of does existence require perception: if I a saw a lone man, I would know that he has a mother and a father, and I would further know that his mother and his father both have parents and so on for their parents. Once we affirm the existence of something by directly perceiving it, if we obey casuality, we can know the existence of further thing(s), those being the thing(s) which caused the original thing to exist. Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?