Thanks for that YOS. This just out:
"What if we told you that approximately 1 in 6 researchers working with human cells are using the wrong cell line? In other words, they believe they are studying the effects of a drug on breast cancer cells, for instance, but what they really have are cells from the bladder."
http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/hela-is-the-tip-of-the-contamination-iceberg-guest-post-from-cell-culture-scientist/

Change involves moving from potential to actual.

Change involves transformation. There is no need to assume that the new form existed in some potential form prior to the transformation, only that the transformation itself was possible.

So to say change is infinite is to say that nothing can really exist, which is obviously absurd.

Or that the universe appears to be in constant transformation, and always has been, and always will be.

The Universe is derivative because it exists and existence of some sort
relies on deriving its existence from something with more priority,
something that possesses that existence already. This is why we
ultimately arrive at something that does just have existence but is
existence itself, namely God.

I do not know what this means, since is seems to imply the existence of the universe is not an example of existence itself. How does one look at existence, and then claim it is not true existence, but must derive from some unseen, more fundamental existence?

What if change is a process that is, itself, infinite?

Change involves moving from potential to actual. There cannot be an infinite regress in change because nothing would have ever been actual to begin with, which would make change impossible since change implies a thing already exists in some actuality. So to say change is infinite is to say that nothing can really exist, which is obviously absurd.

I see no evidence that this is certain in any way. What, specifically,
proves the universe to be derivative? The first cause argument assumes
that causation must be linear and finite, and tries to insert God as
beginning this finite process.

The Universe is derivative because it exists and existence of some sort relies on deriving its existence from something with more priority, something that possesses that existence already. This is why we ultimately arrive at something that does just have existence but is existence itself, namely God.

And the first cause argument does not assume causation to be linear. In fact, what I am speaking of does not depend on linear causation at all.

What the argument is saying is a prior acceptance of the axiom "Change occurs" and acknowledging that requires us to see that a thing can only change if it has the potential to change and that it can only change if it is caused to change (actualized).

What if change is a process that is, itself, infinite? Perhaps to bring in a different view, in Buddhism one of the basic held truths is that all things are impermanent, and that it is the lack of change that is the illusion created by our mind grasping onto similarities. Perhaps the idea that change is not a constant is simply not true. Even with apparently static objects, their are fluctuations at the atomic level helping to maintain it.

Whether or not the Universe is eternal is of no consequence because the universe itself can only exist in a derivative sense.

I see no evidence that this is certain in any way. What, specifically, proves the universe to be derivative? The first cause argument assumes that causation must be linear and finite, and tries to insert God as beginning this finite process. While these qualities hold true at the micro-level of personal experience, this is because our experience of causation occurs within the context of our lives, which are linear and finite. It is possible this biases our view.

Well that is the only way the argument has any meaning. Otherwise it is equivalent to "water is wet, rocks are hard".

I'm not anchoring it in any particular accidental feature like size. It is simply that in order to give 3 oz of juice it must possess at least that much.

You cannot give someone $20 if you don't have it, whether on hand, in your account, on a credit card, access to the treasury printing press. If you have no way of "having it" then you cannot give it.

I think everyone is getting too hung up on the term "greater" because they automatically assume it must refer to some accidental feature of that thing.

So...bigger. You mean bigger.

Greater in the sense that it posses that much, but does not posses more so it at least has that much to give.

In other words, a 3oz orange cannot produce 4oz of juice because it does not have 4oz juice to give. But it does possess 3oz and it may produce 2oz because it has at least that much to give.

When I strike a match, in what way is the frictional force and the chemical reaction greater than the effect of fire?

Greater in the sense that it possess that which it causes prior to the thing which is caused actually comes into existence. In other words, this particular match that is lit up could not realize its potential to be on fire without first being actualized by something that in some way posses the power to actualize its potential.

The lit match could not exist without first a thought of a lit match preexisting in your mind. Your concept of a complete match combined with your desire to have one initiated the action (friction) to get the match lit, which according to its properties, had the potential to be lit but required the heat from friction to be actualized.

if cause A effects a fire B that cause A must be hotter and more fiery than the effect B.

No. It is rather that if cause A effects fire B then cause A must posses what is causes in B.

Not at all. Endothermic reactions for instance.

Endothermic reactions would mean the system that absorbs the energy must first have the potential to absorb it and that it be in the proper environment to pull energy from in order to actualize.

Ah, I see where you're coming from and I think there is some confusion about my position.

My arguments thus far have no dependence on the concept of a Universe is finite. In fact, what I would ultimately argue is that we could assume the Universe is infinite and still see how "causes" are still necessary.

What the argument is saying is a prior acceptance of the axiom "Change occurs" and acknowledging that requires us to see that a thing can only change if it has the potential to change and that it can only change if it is caused to change (actualized).

Whether or not the Universe is eternal is of no consequence because the universe itself can only exist in a derivative sense. In other words, it must be actualized here and now by something that is already actual. This cannot go on into infinity otherwise you never have anything purely actual and thus nothing would exist, but that is obviously absurd.