I'm sick of hearing about the "Five Ways"!

[Asmodee]

Okay, The Chad, I have checked out the thread you linked and fail to see the relevance or any way which this shows a lack of understanding on my part.  What I see is a significant rewording of the various "Ways".  Since it is the First Way of which you have stated I have no understanding, I will concentrate on that one.

For any given thing, either the propensity to remain the same rules or the propensity to change rules, but not both at the same time.  An oak cannot simultaneously sprout and remain an acorn. Either necessary and sufficient conditions make the oak grow or the acorn remains unchanged. In other words, in order for anything to change something other than itself must actually be present and have the power to make the change happen. Adam cannot borrowed a dollar from Bill, if Bill borrowed it from Calvin, and so on. Every actual pocket has the potential to hold a dollar, but that potential cannot ever be actualized unless there is at some point a potentially empty pocket holding an actual dollar. Likewise, the physical universe, in which all things are subject to change, depends on at least one fully actual thing that was never itself only a potential i.e. that which causes change without being subject to change. Traditionally, this fully actualized thing is called the Unmoved Mover.

You are stating the rules which apply to our universe as absolutes and then excluding your deity because it is outside of our universe, where the rules of our universe do not apply.  There are various scientific theories (I did mention membrane theory) which deal with this exact thing.  The argument does not necessitate your concept of a deity, specifically.  And that last sentence is the psychological trickery I was talking about.  Would you mind terribly if I called this "fully actualized thing" the Ejaculating Cock?  Why do you feel the need to name it?  It is so that you have control.  It is a means of asserting you beliefs, of injecting you particular belief system into the end of what you otherwise want to be a fully "logical" argument.  It is a way of staking a claim to this "thing" and making it your own to weaken any stance I take against you.

And that entire last sentence is nothing but a power play.  It starts with the word "traditionally".  What tradition?  Whose tradition?  It's not my tradition.  It's not scientific tradition.  I don't know ANYONE but you who holds that tradition.  So who calls it that?  All you say is that's what it "IS called".  By who?  "Everyone" is assumed in this sentence, but that's just not true.  I would bet it is a very small MINORITY who call it that.  But that's not what this sentence implies, or outright states.  It states that it is "tradition".  It implies that it is "common", so common, in fact, the you don't even need to name those who say this, insinuating that you can simply point to any random person and that person likely "calls this fully actualized thing the Unmoved Mover".  You don't even use the word "we" so that it could at least be imagined to include only you and those who think like you.  It is a statement of an absolute and it is entirely false.  There is no such tradition.  There is no majority who can be assumed to use the name you gave.  A handful of people, perhaps a few tens of thousands, MAYBE a few hundreds of thousands in seven billion people worldwide is probably an egregiously GENEROUS guess at the number of people who use the name you gave.  But nothing in that sentence even remotely suggests that this concept is so uncommon.  On the contrary, it all but outright says it's an absolute.

But I don't even need an alternative idea to compete with yours.  I don't need to prove what is right because I am not making any claim that one particular thing is right.  My claim is only that you have not proved your particular thing right, which, in fact, you have not.  You are simply jumping to the conclusion that your particular deity is the necessity involved, not showing that it was.  "Traditionally" I call this fully actualized thing "I don't know".  Therefore God, then.  That is your argument.  I don't know, therefore God.

There is a very simple way to tell if your argument presents any sort of "proof" for you deity.  If you were to present your "evidence", minus the conclusion, to another person who had never heard of the God in your conclusion, is there any possible way that person could come to the same conclusion as you?  The answer, of course, is "no".  And if the answer is no, you have no "proof".  If you have to know the conclusion before you can reach the conclusion your argument is fallacious.  That is the most blatant flaw with all logical arguments for the existence of any given deity.  If you look at the evidence without a preconceived conclusion it is impossible for you to reach that conclusion.