1. Motion exists because particles are influenced by the four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitation that exist only between them due to their physical characteristics, If every motion can be explained by 'obsvervable' effects of this forces, why create an imaginary being that moves everything? A particle stays at rest if no forces act on it, where's god here?
2. Of course 'nothing is caused by itself '. Our obsvervations of the universe point us to the standard cosmological model we have, that is certainly insuficient to explain all things, but is at least more suficient than atribute everything to a mythical eternal father.
You can make all arguments yours in order to defend the existence of god, because since our idea of god is a 'created all, is perfect, knows everything, all that exists has him on its origin' idea, I can say whatever I want about forces and causes and you'll say: 'well, it was god who create those things'. We have to have the sense that not everything can be understood by our brains, they are insuficcient machines of statements, the universe certainly has observable thingsthat our thinking will not ever understand. Creating god is pure egoism, is man looking at himself with his instinct for surviving mixed with is intelligence and saying' Im really the best, something great and perfect must have been in my origin', man cannot accept the idea of being made of the same stuff that all animals and things are.
3. That's no cosmological at all. It is true that everything is not eternal, all 'physical things', as you call them. But then you state 'since time is infinite'... and what is that? It was 100 years ago that Einstein proved that matter, energy, space and time are one and the same thing. Time is subjective, there's no 'absolute time', there isn't a clock that rules all the others. Time as we humans understand it has no universal significance, time can be converted into space or energy or matter, contract or get longer, even stop, even go backwards, and this strikes our common sense. Time as we sense it would exist at the 'big bang', we have the need of an overlasting presence of time even accepting 'big bang', but that's not what universe tells us, the universe itself doesn't need overlasting time because time isn't the way we commonly sense it.
4. The 'differing degrees of qualities' that objects have, 'such as goodness', are subjective! It is humans avaluating things for the purpose of improving the way he lives! Jumping to the conclusion that the comparisons are made with a 'maximum' is another way of the egoistic sense of puting man on the center of the universe. Man states his values and qualities of things by its own desire and way of looking into things, and this statements will not influence the way things are formed. 'Goodness' is not a characteristic of things, it is a man's strategy to know better how to survive.
5. What you call 'goals', just like with the arrow, is nothing more than the forces and causes that exist by the characteristics of things, the physical laws, if you can name it. This argument of yours is in fact the same as the first.
This text you posted is actually a very good demonstration of the medieval thought, ancient and poor, lacking unity with nature.
Topic: For those of you who don't believe in God