And within the context of my comment I'm addressing a specific statement that >asking a question makes a concession that it does not. Sorry, I don't know what this means.

Not important to the point at hand

God' at that point in the Summa refers not to specifically the Christian God, but to the generic God of the Western monotheistic tradition, which is the shared alike also by the other Abrahamic faiths, as well as many ancient >Greek philosophers and the 18th century deists, for example. It is also the >God that is exhaustively argued for in the second to twenty-sixth questions of >the Summa.

My point was, and still is, that even if you accept aquinas' premises and grant that a some thing that has the characteristics he describes exists. There is no reason to believe that it is any specific god. and even if every one of them is true, there is nothing i see in any of them that would require the thing called god to continue in it's existence after the start point of the universe. The entire argument works equally well if i use it to prove the existence of perfect universe creating pixies. That is what the FSM reference was trying to illustrate.

The entire argument seems to be nothing more than an attempt to define god into existence by latching on to a bunch of things that couldn't be explained and claiming it's god. My problem with it on the whole is that the premises are not demonstrably true in many cases. Lets start with the FC argument for example.

First cause. Aquinas states all things are caused as part of his first cause argument. There are events that happen on the quantum level that have no discernible cause, the coming into existence of virtual particles and certain decay events in radioactive materials are examples.

The proof from design falls apart once you understand evolution and natural selection.

The Argument from Gradation asserts that perfect perfection must exist in order for us to judge different levels of perfection. This is only true if there is an absolute definition of perfection. Short of producing an example of that how do you demonstrate it? There is ample evidence all around that we are in fact unable to come up with a consensus on what is perfect in any specific context. If you don't believe me go over to /r/guns and ask which is better 30-06 or 270 (bring a helmet). Even if you could demonstrate perfect perfection how would you demonstrate that that perfection is unique? Is this then an argument for polytheism?

The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. this essentially states that Nothing comes from nothing and since their is something in the world there is a necessary being and that being is god. Again why is this being any specific god? Why is it a single god? Why does this god have to have any of the attributes that are attributed to the claimed deity? What evidence or justification exists for believing that it would still exist today?