How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Cephus]

You can find the rational steps by which you get from the Unmoved Mover/First Cause/Necessary  in my opening statement in the debate area (ChadWooters versus Metis, “Resolved: Using the ‘Five Ways’ found in Article 1, Question 2 of the Summa Theological, Thomas Aquinas successfully demonstrates the existence of God.”)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1007461

These proofs sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

Heh, I'm writing a blog post about the huge, conspicuous leaps that arguments like the five ways use to get to god out of nowhere. I liken arguments like that to a tic or spasm: you hit the end of an argument that doesn't lead to god and then just go "and that there is god!"

As though an assertion like that means anything at all. As though you can just sweep all the specific doctrines and beliefs attached to christianity under the rug and pretend that a deistic cause is sufficient to demonstrate what you really believe.  

I took on the Quinque Viae a long time ago and found it utterly laughable, I'm sure you're going to find the same thing because of all of the claims made, none of them lead to any specific gods, apologists just say "See!  My God!"  Yeah... not so much.