You might enjoy Feser's The Last Superstition which is a philosophical work but, for the most part, a lot of fun. More specifically, while he uses Dawkins, et al, as punching bags, he does a good exposition of Aristotelian realism, which touches on your argument.
Specifically, to say a thing can change is to say it has a potentiality. For the potentiality to be made actual (for the possible change to happen) it must be caused by something outside itself.
For, if the potential can be actualized through strictly internal causes, why hasn't it happened already?
A rubber ball can change into an nasty-smelling pile of goo. For that to happen, heat must be applied.
This is not a temporal argument. A 'prior" cause is not necessarily prior in time. A baseball may shatter a window, but that does not mean that FIRST the ball hits the window and THEN it shatters.
It just means that if the window's potential to turn into shards is actualized by something completely intrinsic to the window, how can we find a window that is not already "ensharded?"
Now if there is an infinite regress of causes, no baseball would ever hit the window, because first the kid would have to hit it with a bat, and the kid's muscles would have to work, and the kid would have to ingest breakfast, .... so on forever. In that case, we would never find a shattered window.
(I do wonder if this needs to be recast in light of thinking about infinitesimals, but failing that ...)
So there must be something that actualizes potentials in other things, but which does not change ... that is, which has no potential but is utterly actual. ..the unchanged changer, or, to use the old lingo, the Unmoved Mover. [UM]
This thing, being changeless in every respect implies timelessness. We cannot say "the UM WILL change such and such tomorrow," because that would be a change in the UM's actualizing function. We cannot say "the UM will behold the effect of its actualizing tomorrow and saw other effects yesterday," because such perceptions are also changes. It 'simply' (word of unspeakable power!) beholds and does everything and always.
"My Father is working still."
SOUNDS good. Thx.
This thing, being changeless in every respect implies timelessness. We cannot say "the UM WILL change such and such tomorrow," because that would be a change in the UM's actualizing function. We cannot say "the UM will behold the effect of its actualizing tomorrow and saw other effects yesterday," because such perceptions are also changes. It 'simply' (word of unspeakable power!) beholds and does everything and always.
"My Father is working still."