Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Edwardo Piet]

For starters, Neo, take this from Wikipedia:

In the world we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

I'm with this until the part I bolded. It just says all this stuff that makes sense logically and then falsely concludes "Therefore God".

Aquinas doesn't just have to say a bunch of stuff that makes sense, he actually has to say a bunch of stuff that makes sense and actually concludes logically that "Therefore God."

I can say lots of true things that are logically flawless like:

2+2=4
Squares have 4 sides.
All bachelors are unmarried.

But I can't then conclude:

"Therefore God."

And I can't simply say something true of cosmology and then conclude "Therefore God" either.

You don't seem to even recognize non-sequiturs. And in my experience that is really a theist thing. How can so many theists not see that the "Therefore God" part is pulled out of nowhere?