No Answer? Okay, let me make it easier for you.
The following is what I’ve argued so far…
The universe exists (physical reality). So the question is, is the universe necessarily actual?
The universe is changing, its parts are constantly in a state of becoming. New forms become actual whereas before they were only potential. The universe is a sequence of potential states. The universe has emergent properties none of which are necessarily actual and yet they are a part of what the universe is. If physical reality was necessarily actual it would not have emergent properties or new forms or new states of being. This is to say it would not be in any respect potentially actual, but rather everything that it is or could possibly be would be fully actual from all eternity. There would be no evolution of forms because they would all be actual - necessarily real…
Thus the universe (physical reality) cannot be considered to be a necessarily actual being or collection of beings.
Therefore that which is necessarily actual is not that which is changing or a process. It is not the Universe.
Therefore the universe does not exist because of its own nature, because if it did it would be pure actuality - having no emergent properties or potential parts or forms. Therefore it exists because of some other nature (something that is not a physical process).
A thing either has the reason for its actuality in its own nature or it is contingent upon the actuality of another nature distinct from itself for its existence. Therefore the universe (physical reality) and anything that is not necessary is contingent on the existence of a being that exists because of its own nature - its nature is to exist.
Of course, this doesn’t by itself argue for an intelligent first cause, but it is an argument for a necessary act of reality that is essentially distinct from physical processes or the Universe; also it shows that the Universe is in fact dependent for its existence on that which necessarily exists since the Universe does not exist by its own nature.
Please explain why this argument doesn’t hold up or what you think are the assumptions that it makes. After that we can discuss whether or not i can prove that such a cause is intelligent.