2. You say "the addition of insufficiencies does not make sufficiency". As a counterexample, consider the infinite set of real numbers between zero and 1. Each point has length zero, but when you "add them all up" (i.e. integrate the function f(x) = 1), you get a length of 1.

3. You say "if the series of conditioned realities regresses ad infinitum without an unconditioned reality the series itself would be equivalent to nothing". As a counterexample, imagine that the number 1 is conditioned on 1/2 via multiplication by 2, 1/2 is conditioned on 1/4, 1/4 on 1/8, etc. There is no last "condition".

Andrew G. who runs EN suggests this might help

https://help.disqus.com/customer/en/portal/articles/664693-why-are-comments-visible-in-the-disqus-admin-but-not-on-my-site-

So for instance

Cat -> Cells -> Amino Acids -> Molecules -> Atoms -> Subatomic particles -> Quarks

And the Quarks become the uncondtional reality. I see no problem with quarks not depending on anything else.

[Let's say the Cat is dependent on "matter" for simplicity.]
-I don't know why you bothered with "infinite conditions", you can just have one, matter and it's arrangement and that's simple enough.

Now all you'd have to do is show that there is an immaterial reality, or the unconditioned reality.

Well what does that look like? What would a cat look like if it wasn't dependent on matter? Is that even a possibility, given the thing we identify as a cat is solely because of it's material makeup of atoms, molecules, and biological structure?

Thing is, I read through the article and found no evidence of an unconditional reality. I found a lot of "this is what a conditioned/unconditioned reality would be" which is fine for concept, but that's not evidence for an unconditioned reality. this is again, a huge issue for me because the entire argument is simply defining what unconditioned and conditioned realities are over and over instead of actually providing evidence for *one* unconditioned reality.

So to this I have to say "No" there must not be one unconditional reality because this article does not give evidence for it.

[Extra things to note regarding writing these articles:]
Why you bothered with molecules and amino acids seems to be due to be an issue of just not understanding what they are and a desperate need to pad this article. You reference 'they depend on molecules", which any biology textbook will tell you they are made up of them, they don't depend on them. That's like saying a "tree depends on atoms". It's just redundant.

I'd also like to comment on your excessive use of the word "condition". There are other words for "condition" if you are going to make your make your main point about "conditioned reality". Do understand how painful it is to read:
"Therefore, an infinite series of conditions where every condition is a conditioned reality is equivalent to a series of nonexistent conditions because no conditioned reality could ever have its conditions fulfilled."

Why. Why would you write that? That is just excessive.

http://aeon.co/video/philosophy/tim-maudlin-on-the-big-bang/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=b90d79f644-Weekly_newsletter_September_11_20159_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-b90d79f644-55998177

Protons, electrons, and neutrons are not the same thing and while protons and neutrons may be conditional on quarks, electrons are not. Meanwhile a cat could not exist without having carbon atoms that have protons, neutrons, and electrons; but the presence of at least one proton, neutron, and electron is not necessary for a thing to be deemed an atom nor for us to say that it has material existence.

Not being a scientist but looking into the matter I find that there are things that we would agree are in material existence; such as Hydrogen ions that give acidity to a solution and are just nuclei (termed H+) - they don't have electrons or protons; there is also the example of an Alpha Particle, which is a helium nucleus doubly-ionized He (again no electrons or protons). Also we would agree that protium isotopes of hydrogen atom which have no nuclei are things in material existence. So for a thing to be termed in material existence it does not by necessity have to have a combination of electrons, protons, or nuclei. So we can not say that any one of these subatomic particles by itself is a necessary link in a necessary chain for a thing to be in material existence.

Yet for there to be a cat in material existence, it by necessity has to have carbon atoms that do have all three of these subatomic particles. So while yes Bishop Sheen, no amount of Boron atoms can help make a cat cell, the reason is that Boron has an insufficiency of electrons - despite electrons not being themselves necessary for a thing to be held to be in material existence.

So does this not mean that a collection of things that are not by themselves necessary for us to say a thing is in existence, are necessary for the cat to exist? If so can it not be maintained for your example of the cat that insufficiency is quantitative rather than qualitative? The correct/sufficient combination of a bunch of things that are in themselves insufficient are together sufficient and necessary when it comes to the existence of a cat.

"Yet an infinite sum of positive integers is negative."
I am guessing you are thinking of Euler's equation, but that is not a sum of integers, or positive numbers.