More of us would argue that you haven't proved the existence of an unmoved mover.

I understand this, but I was bringing up the fact that some might be convinced as a way of further examining the consequences of the unmoved mover. However, just saying "more of us wouldn't agree" contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. Could you please explain what you find problematic about the argument, instead of simply saying that I haven't proved the existence of an unmoved mover?

Does the Christian god even qualify? That god isn't simple. Seeing as he reacts to humans and other things, he isn't unchanging. And, depending on one's view of the Trinity, did indeed separate.

This is actually kind of a complex issue for some monotheists. Some Muslim thinkers believes that the Trinity contradicts the idea of divine simplicity, while some Christian thinkers respond that the Trinity is three persons of the same nature, and not three distinct parts with natures of their own. Ultimately, I think it's a matter of faith.

I'm not actually a Christian, though. I don't believe in the Trinity, nor do I believe God has personal interactions with humans.