Creationism

[brewer]

Why do you think science has to address

Science doesn't have to address this or any other metaphysical argument. Metaphysics is not something science can address.

If, however, someone is claiming that science has falsified the argument or made it irrelevant, he should be able to say why. And to say why he'd have to know what the argument really says.

the flawed argument

You haven't shown that it's flawed. You've just asserted it.

 that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?

When Aristotle came up with the argument, he wasn't trying to shoehorn God into anything. He was trying to figure out how the world worked. 

Nor was he talking about the beginning of the universe. That's been explained twice on this thread already.

If you feel you can read the mind of a man who has been dead for millennia, and discern that he had secret motivations which he never said or wrote, then you are drawing you conclusions from supernatural mind-reading, not scholarship. If we're talking about the history of ideas, it's better to avoid fake ESP.

It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept

No, it could not apply to the Greek gods, who were not seen as first causes. Aphrodite is wholly unlike a first cause. Nor could it apply to Shinto kami, etc. 

It could apply to any monotheistic God which was described as a first cause. I've already addressed that in this thread. To show that the first cause is the God of any specific religion requires further argument.

Why do I have to repeat this?

, and still remain a flawed justification.

Second time for this unsupported assertion.

Fine, swap creation for universe in my previous comment.

Thomas did the god shoehorning, not Aristotle. And god as a first cause is simply a religious assertion with religious motivations for religious justifications. It only applies if your religious. It has no application outside religion.

Nope, does not have to be monotheism, you just want it to be. If you could read, I stated that it could apply to any creator god or gods. Just because Thomas described it that way does not help validate the argument. It only has to be a "creator".

Nope, still flawed justification if the person considering the argument is not religious. "Therefore god" is a rationalization/justification only for the religious. The rest of us get to consider "creation" in any context or explanation that we like. There is nothing special to Thomas outside religion.

You call it an assertion, I call it a conclusion. Your assertion of calling what I conclude flawed an assertion is an unsupported assertion. (I can play this game also)

BTW, there is infinite regress. All if this is pointless.