Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[Whateverist]

Sorry for being late to the party. As the resident Thomist (I think) I'd like to pick-up on the thread but it will take me some time to read through it. In the meantime, you might want to review this debate between two AF members from some time ago: WOOTERS vs. MENTIS

How close is this formation to the that which you defend, Neo?

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

For the actual argument, it is basically:

1. Change involves a potential being actualized
2. A potential must be actualized by something already actual
3. Some things do not exist necessarily and require their potential for existence to be actualized
4. If the thing doing this actualizing has potentials, it would also require another actual thing to actualize it
5. Therefore the chain of actualization must conclude in some purely actual thing
6. Since this thing would be  purely actual it would be unchanging and eternal
7. There could only be one such being as there would be no unactualized potentials to differentiate one such being from another
8. Since it caused all non purely actual things it would be omnipotent
9. (EDIT Forgot to include.) Since all non purely actual things, including intelligent beings, came from this Pure Actuality, it would neccessarily be both intelligent, since a cause cannot give something it does not at least possess virtually, and all knowing since the attributes of all things flow from it
10. And that is basically the monotheistic God

This is very bare bones. The article I linked presents an alternative argument that gets to the same conclusion. If you are worried about bugs just Google "Edward Feser Avicenna" and it should be the first to come up.

If so I wonder if you can tell me why you think that an eternal, unchanging, unaffected and we might as well add unobservable 'something' is required as to account for everything that we can experience. Why must the undetectable precede the detectable? Also, why suppose an unaffectable can affect anything detectable?

Wouldn't it be simpler (and more modest) to say that current conditions are always preceded by necessary earlier states, and just not jump to the assumption that there ever was a blank slate to account for? One hears concerns regarding endless regressions but why then is a word such as "eternity" unproblematic?