First order logic, set theory and God

[Belacqua]

Your reading is wrong.  Aquinas' three points are the same as the Kalaam points, except god replaces allah.

The Stanford Encyclopedia backs me up on this. What they say confirms what I have read elsewhere.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmo...-argument/

Philosophers employ diverse classifications of the cosmological arguments. [...] The first, advocated by Aquinas, is based on the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress. The second, which Craig terms the kalām argument, holds that an infinite temporal regress of causes is impossible because an actual infinite is impossible, and even if it were possible it could not be temporally realized. The third, espoused by Leibniz and Clarke, is overtly founded on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Craig 1980: 282–83).

I added the bolding. And from the same source:

In Aquinas’s version, consideration of the essential ordering of the causes or reasons proceeds independent of temporal concerns. The relationship between cause and effect is treated as real but not temporal, so that the first cause is not a first cause in time but a sustaining cause. In the kalām version, however, the temporal ordering of the causal sequence is central, introducing issues of the nature of time into the discussion.