Four arguments against the existence of God

[Esquilax]

...the unmoved mover has never been demonstrated to exist, and thus lacks any form of justification,...

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 3 demonstrates the necessity of an unmoved mover, as part of the "1st way."

Sure, I went and read it. It's just the first cause argument, couched in language of "motion" rather than causes. It's also spectacularly flawed for exactly the same reasons that the first cause argument is; it creates arbitrary rules it doesn't bother to demonstrate, promptly posits something that breaks them in order to resolve a problem that it merely asserts to exist, and functions on simple intuition rather than anything based in reality.

It doesn't bother demonstrating that motion is the basis for reality, it doesn't detail how previously existing motion is the only cause of motion in other things, it doesn't establish why an infinite regress of movers is impossible, and the unmoved mover it posits to resolve these problems of its own making breaks the rules of the first premise, making the entire thing a circular mess. It's nothing more than a pack of assertions, little better than a William Lane Craig apologetic, and you find this convincing evidence of the necessity of an unmoved mover?

The last sentence of Article 3 states, "And this everyone understands to be God." Apparently you do not include yourself as part of that group.

To be blunt: so what? I can understand a bowl of noodles to be god, doesn't mean that it's so. Not to mention that the simple assertion that everyone understands that this cause is god is nothing more than passive aggression, and patently wrong: I'm sitting here telling you that the premises of the argument don't come with an understanding that god is the unmoved mover. Are you now telling me that I'm lying?

Be honest: are you just trolling, here? Or have you just never come across a debunking of the first cause argument before? Honestly, I think you're smart enough to see the problems with this argument even without having someone else point them out to you, so this must just be your god-blinders talking, if indeed you're being serious here.