Creationism

[brewer]

Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

Thomas made the case that one thing has to be logically prior to all contingent things. He says that the word for this non-contingent thing is God. 

But as I've already said, any other statement about God is not included in that argument. 

So you're objecting to things that aren't in the argument. 

If you'd like to use a different term than God, you could just leave it at "First Cause." This is all the argument attempts to prove. It's perfectly plausible that a person could accept the first cause argument and reject everything else that Christians say about God. 

So, to repeat the question, what is there in the argument itself which you conclude is flawed?

He inserted God (capital G). Don't even try to say that this was not the religious God, the God of his religion that made him a saint.

Asserting anything else is foolish and lacks honesty.