☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[Primordial Bisque]

So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

The First Way: Argument from Motion
1 Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2 Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3 Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4 Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5 Therefore nothing can move itself.
6 Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7 The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8 One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
9 Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
10 The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
11 Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.

*replaced bullets with numbers*

Premises 1-6 state that an unmoved mover or motionless motion are contradictions. They also correlate to the conservation of momentum and energy.
Premise 9 is not logical since it contradicts Premise 8, which is based off of the first 6 premises. It is in premise 9 where the entire argument caves in on itself.
Premise 10 makes an assertion that there is a supernatural creator. Is this sleight of hand, or was I supposed to believe it existed before even reading this argument? At any rate; the argument has already contradicted itself, so the remaining premises and conclusion don't have much meaning.
Premise 11 makes yet another assertion and concludes that there must be an unmoved mover, which is the second contradiction of the first 6 premises, and fills in the blank with a non-sequitur (a specific god - the one you believe in, no less - how funny is that?).

I will argue that and act of motion requires temporal succession ("the flow of time") in order to do any work. Your unmoved mover did cause the flow of time, right? If so, how did it perform that action without the availability of time?