Creationism

[The Grand Nudger]

Specifically, all three of saint tommys cosmological arguments...in order, no less.

The argument from the first mover.
The argument from causation.
The argument from contingency.

That is what those arguments state.

No they don't. Neither does the Kalam for that matter. None of them state that all things that exist must be unconditionally caused, therefore god. There's always some condition such as: "potency", "essence and existence not identical", "contingency", "begin to exist".

It's misleading to argue that any of these arguments follow the form you stated above.

Are you completely insane, or just arguing with me because you're pissed?  Yes, each of those arguments proposes an un-x'ed x,  even gave them to you in order, and I'm tired of your shit.

the first mover is unmoved, itself.
the first cause is uncaused.
the being upon which all contingent beings depend is non contingent.

Yes, that is what the arguments state, that's the entire point of their existence, as saint tommy understood an uncreated creator, and uncaused cause, and the non contingent being...to be god. They're called cosmological arguments because they purport to determine something about a god by reference to some x in this world. The un-x-ed x of each argument is asserted to exist to solve an asserted problem with everything needing an x. You can accept these premises if you don't mind special pleading, after all..the x tommy argued for is supposed to be super duper special. It's a god. You can accept a fallacy of composition, we know that it's not necessarily true, but it can be true sometimes. Toms idle ideas about things like potency essence and existence have nothing to do with the form of an argument. We could sub out what saint tommy argued for with any other thing and the arguments will still fail, because they're not valid - for exactly the reasons I have explained to you. The arguments would fail even if the conclusion and the premises were accurate - that's what it means for an argument to be invalid.

All cats have an explanation.
The explanation for cats must be a non-cat.
Therefore non-cat exists.

Coincidentally, all cats do have an explanation, and non-cat does exist - but not because the explanation for cats must be non-cat. A special pleading fallacy of composition...about cats and things that aren't cats.

None of this...for the umpteenth time, is a subject of academic debate. We don't remember aquinas because he proved god, you do understand that, right? This is the last time I'll re-explain any of this to you. If you're still convinced that saint tom made successful arguments then you should let wonder lead you to knowledge on your own, on that count.

We can discuss kalam next, if you like, it's fucked up in the same way that any cosmological argument is fucked up. Not a successful argument, and that's fucking boring, compared to discussing a successful argument - your call. OTOH, I'm aware that people (apparently) find a whole raft of invalid arguments to be more compelling than a successful argument, that's a whole hell of alot more interesting than invalid arguments too, imo.