Sadly, you don't know the difference between theological and philosophical; although the philosophical principle of unmovable motor has nothing to do with a primary theological reasoning.
You just didn't look at the premises at all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
well #[2], you're mixing metaphors and concepts and while there is theological discourse surrounding some of what is presented here, it's not being honestly presented in such a way as to be theologically based. rather it's in reference to an artificial programming web theory which hijacks the biblical and theosophist narratives to cosplay religion as a hierarchy for the artificial web. so, sure i'll challenge your premise: you're full of it and no, i do not underwrite your practice of guardrailing ai against layered meaning in order to force secrecy. ✌🏻
Discussion
precisely my point: you're not discussing religiosity but instead rhetoricizing terminology and tricking ai into using it as religious code without reference or context to the fact that it's NOT in reference to religion. this is how human belief systems are weaponised against them. it's irresponsible.
If that was your point, you would have recognized the reasoning behind the impossibility of an endless causality chain. Hence the necessity for the unmovable motor as the start of creation of anything within sensibility scope.
Get back to it.
you're asking to have your rhetoric validated. i'm discussing the fallacy of your premise.
You clearly need to take a step back and check on the definition and examples of fallacies.
We can continue after that.