Creationism

[Belacqua]

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.

Thomas believed in the Christian God. He knew that the first cause argument was not sufficient to prove anything other than a first cause. Everything else about the Christian God must be argued with different arguments. 

Suppose a non-Christian argued that there must be one non-contingent thing which is essentially prior to all contingent things, and he calls this essential thing "the thing that's essentially prior." But he hates Christianity and rejects the term "God." Would you accept this man's argument that all contingent things exist in contingency to existence itself?

That's what we're talking about.