How do you disprove Aristotle's idea of the unmoved mover?

In Aristotle’s book *Metaphysics*, he describes an immortal being that is not only the “first cause” of all living things, but is also the progenitor of all things that are in “motion,” be they living things like people, or inanimate objects like planets. Aristotle’s theory on the unmoved mover asserts that everything that exists, exists, because of something already existing, and everything that is in motion, is in motion, because of something already in motion. This chain of “causes” eventually can be traced to an immortal force, a pure energy, an “unmoved mover,” to whom all intelligible physical objects and their movements can be credited. Aristotle, for all intents and purposes, calls this force “God” and believes that his existence is eternal and is one of pure self-contemplation.

It would be just as impossible to disprove the existence of the unmoved mover, as it would be to prove that he exists. The idea of an unmoved mover is a pseudo-scientific and pseudo-theological insight that is rooted in a combination of physical observations, scientific inquiry, theoretical reasoning, and cult ideas of divine beings. In order to disprove Aristotle’s idea of the unmoved mover, you would have to be able to explain and then demonstrate why Aristotle is wrong, and then be able to prove why all things exist and why they move, and that mode of inquiry is the most elusive for modern humans to find a conclusion to on account of the mystery of the pre-big bang universe.