The argumetn si more like:
1 The cause of the universe necessarily has to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers, personal etc.
A begging the question fallacy, since you are just making an unevidenced assumption that the universe needs a cause, in your argument it has a cause.
2 Something timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers, personal etc sounds a lot like God. ………..its hard to even imagine something with all those attributes that wouldn’t be label as “God”
Another begging the question fallacy, as in your argument for a causal deity, you make unevidenced assumption about its attributes. You have yet to demonstrate any objective evidence a deity is even possible, let alone what attributes it might have.
Its pretty much like saying that the cause of the first computer “necessarily” was a “non computer”….
No it isn't, that's a false equivalence fallacy, as we can easily demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that computer are designed and created by humans. Can you show us the designs of a universe, or demonstrate them being create beyond your bare assertions and unevidenced assumptions?
If you establish that computers have a cause, then this implies the existence of a “non computer” with the ability to create a computer and that exists independently of computers....
It doesn't need to be implied, it is an objective fact, as we have more than enough objective evidence that humans design and create computers, what you're using is a variation of Paley's watchmaker fallacy.
How many logical fallacies is that you have used in one single post. you'll next be telling us again how your deductions are logical?
I didn’t say that there are no scholars that dispute Aquinas in some particular points…. I said that nobody disputes the particular claim that “Cause of the universe = God”
There are people disputing right here, and again it is pure unevidenced assumption on your part that the existence of universe requires a cause, so what on earth are you talking about? A deity does not need a cause of course, but everything else does, that one is called a special pleading fallacy, since your other begging the question fallacies about a deity you intone are real, is neither supported by evidence or valid logic.
First cause arguments are not theistic arguments for a start, and they are flawed, as they invoke known logical fallacies. How many times are you going to ignore these?
