Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[Whateverist]

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

For the actual argument, it is basically:

1. Change involves a potential being actualized
2. A potential must be actualized by something already actual
3. Some things do not exist necessarily and require their potential for existence to be actualized
4. If the thing doing this actualizing has potentials, it would also require another actual thing to actualize it
5. Therefore the chain of actualization must conclude in some purely actual thing
6. Since this thing would be  purely actual it would be unchanging and eternal
7. There could only be one such being as there would be no unactualized potentials to differentiate one such being from another
8. Since it caused all non purely actual things it would be omnipotent
9. (EDIT Forgot to include.) Since all non purely actual things, including intelligent beings, came from this Pure Actuality, it would neccessarily be both intelligent, since a cause cannot give something it does not at least possess virtually, and all knowing since the attributes of all things flow from it
10. And that is basically the monotheistic God

This is very bare bones. The article I linked presents an alternative argument that gets to the same conclusion. If you are worried about bugs just Google "Edward Feser Avicenna" and it should be the first to come up.

I'd also like to note that I would prefer direction to good atheist books, articles, or arguments. Debating this in a forum is not ideal but I am open to it if no one has read anything that would work.

There are a few folks here that might be able to give you what you are looking for, probably Vulcanlogic for one.  I realize you really are looking for fodder for you blog but I for one would welcome your continued participation.  However, I'm not into debate.  I can however point out what I think are weak points in your argument.

5) Begs the question whether there was ever a prior state devoid of the potential to bring about the actualization of the current actuals, to put it in the terms you are using.  In my own words I would question whether there was ever a state of affairs not preceded by its necessary conditions, ever a true nothing devoid of any actualizing powers whatsoever?  Personally, I doubt it but am not so sure I -or we as a species- are in any position to determine the answer definitively.  You would say God fills the bill, but then how can you be sure "God" doesn't then represent just some early prenatal condition of energy/matter/space/time?  Why should the earliest potentiality involve anything animate let alone intentional or conscious?  I'm not feeling it.  Better just to concede that we cannot peer back that far to truly know.

6), 7), 8) and 9) presume more about the earlymost conditions than we are in any position to ascertain.

So you only get God out of the argument if you first put Him in there.  But like I said, I don't do debate.  These are merely the parts I find unpersuasive.