"Science said such-and-such" and other statements are dismissive of the most powerful tools mankind has to explore his being. You are trying to frame things in a philosophical cage.

I clearly respect science, however, I also respect its boundaries. Extending science beyond its' boundaries of inquiry is a misuse of the scientific method. Aquinas is committed to an Aristotelian metaphysical conception of the world. You cannot critique his metaphysics by using physics. Aristotle's metaphysics do not stand and fall with his physics. If you want criticisms of Aquinas' metaphysical system, instead of going to a physicist, you should go to Stoics, Platonists, Epicureans, and Skeptics of the Hellenistic and Late Antique periods and broadly anti-Aristotelian-Platonic-Stoic positions of many of the Enlightenment philosophers. Not only do Aquinas' Five Ways not hinge on Aristotle's physics, but they do not even hinge on his metaphysics. Arguments of the structure found in Aquinas' Five Ways remained prevalent in intellectual culture through the 18th century, long after people were inclined to be emphatically anti-Aristotelian.

Emanuel Kant was solipsistic. "I think therefore I am" clearly is indicative of inward thinking.

I don't understand what you are getting at here, but Immanuel Kant was not a solipist. His transcendental idealism is much different than subjective idealism. Kant gives a proof that things outside one's mind exist in his first Critique. And Kant did not propose the Descartes' cogito, nor endorse it.

Bertrand Russell came up with 'Russell's Tea pot' and in all my readings of him I have never heard of him demanding a reason for being.

I know. That is why I listed him, along with others, who were critics of arguments from a first cause. Russell was an agnostic because the the cosmological argument requires a premise which he saw no reason to be granted, and so, it begged the question. Russell thought that the question being begged was why there is anything at all; he thought this has no meaning and therefore no answer. The universe is simply just here. It does not require a sufficient explanation for it being otherwise. This is similar to the criticism of Kant.

My favourite philosopher, Carl Sagan, clearly stated "The Universe does not owe you any explanation." (This is a direct quote from his masterpiece "Cosmos" and there is video of him saying it.)

Well Sagan was not a philosopher, but a scientist and an entertainer. And this objection is not novel to him; as I pointed out, Kant was criticising this principle in the 18th century and Russell was popularizing it in radio debates in the 20th.

Your statement "The universe is infinite in the sense of beginningless and endless in time." belies an ignorance of Physics.

Again, this is not what I said. I said Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics do not commit oneself to any view on the the temporal or physical nature of the universe. Thomas Aquinas was writing in the 13th century, so of course he was ignorant of modern physics (although he was well-educated in the physics of his time). However, to address the argument, you would need to show how Aquinas relies on an antiquated physical theory that has since been showed wrong. He does not. He asserts no physical theory; he endorses a Aristotelian metaphysical program that is not concerned with physics at all.

The Universe is finite in size yet has no boundaries. Think about that one for a moment. Einstein unintentionally made this clear in his 1915 General Theory. A particle can try to travel from one side of the Universe to the other but it would necessarily take an infinite time. This function does not require any boundary condition in Relativity. Fantastic but irrelevant. I am familiar with modern cosmology at a layman's level. This is entirely irrelevant to anything about the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical program.

As for "Time": Time is a dimensional property. To we simple humans it is best described as being a delineation between events. In any where from 10,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Years or so the Universe will suffer 'Heat Death'.{Science is still working on it so you might note a small discrepancy in the estimate.} At this point there will not be anymore events to happen. Does time stop or just cease to be relevant? It is exactly the same thing to physics.

Why are you telling me this? This is the furthest thing from relevant. I have tried to explain why science is irrelevant to the Thomistic arguments for the existence of God and yet you continue to bombard me with science factoids. I'm sure Aquinas would find this equally as fascinating as you, however, he would be confused why this is relevant to his Five Ways. I pointed out in my earlier post that Aquinas does not care about temporal causal series (I am sure he did in his spare time, but it is irrelevant to his Aristotelian proofs of a immaterial, divinely simple first principle).

BTW: Professor S. W. Hawking and Sir Roger Penrose proved that time had to have a beginning back in 1974.

Cool, but irrelevant.

In science if you come up with a hypothesis everyone is free to pick it apart and look for flaws, that is how it works.

Philosophy is immune to it because ultimately it is just opinion.

I don't even know what you are getting at here, but your conception of what science is is a philosophical position. You are undertaking the Popperian conception of science as falsification. You think what distinguishes science from other disciplines is that science is open to empirical falsification. This is what Popper thought. This is not what I think. There are plenty of criticisms of this view. And so, I do not endorse it. One criticism of this view I find clever came from W.V.O Quine. You think the value of science is that science is falsifiable while other disciplines are not. Okay. I think this is contestable, as I do not think scientific theories are open to falsification. Here is the argument against your claim that scientific theories are falsifiable.

Here is the problem that critics have pointed out:

The theory is true: T

If the theory is true, then the experiment will produce result P

The experiment did no produce result P.

Therefore the theory is not true.

The problem with this that has been pointed out is the science is underdeterminate; The evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.

Let's put that first method and logical form and see where the objection is:

P1) T (the theory is true)

P2) T>P (Other scientific theories)

P3) ~P (Experiment)

P4) ~T (follows from P3, P4)

P6) ~T (P1 -5)

The problem is that ~T is not the only possible conclusion. We could also deny premise 2 (T>P). Science is underdetermined in this way because we could also say it is not the case that not the case that T > P. It seems we could prefer to keep T and throw out T>P. The information we have underdetermines which conclusion we should draw. We cannot conclude from the evidence whether we should draw premise ~T (P1-5) or premise ~(T>P)(P1-5). Either of these premises is viable since we've assumed that T is true and that T>P. And there is no way to decide which assumption we should throw out.

Here is a real-life example:

P1)Newton's celestial mechanics is a theory about the motions of the planets

P2) If Newton's celestial mechanics is correct, then the orbits of the planets will be correctly predicted

P3) Newton's celestial mechanics does not correctly predict the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.

However here is where the underdetermination comes in. We can conclude both that

P4) Therefore Newton's Mechanics is false

or

P4*) Therefore there exists another planet, Vulcan, closer to the Sun that is affecting Mercury's orbit.

In this case, the evidence underdetermines either conclusion. All that can be and has been shown is that one of the theories that we accept is incorrect, but we cannot test one without the others, and so there is no way to tell which.

Here is an argument against scientific falsification that follows from these examples:

P1) A theory is falsifiable if and only if it's tested falsehood is not dependent on the truth of other theories.

P2) If a theory cannot be tested in isolation, then it's tested falsehood is dependent on the truth of other theories.

P3) No theory cann be tested in isolation.

P4) For all theories, their tested falsehood is dependent on the truth of other theories.

P5) Therefore, no theory is falsifiable.

Imagine this scenario. There exists some theory that is falsifiable, but can only be shown to be false when other theories are assumed to be true. If those theories turn out to be false, our original theory cannot be shown to be false. Therefore you have no justification for your claim that science is open to falsification in a determinate way. Science and philosophy are two fields, or families of fields, within the general project of the systematic and rational investigation of the world, distinguished by their subject matter. I think it is ignorant to be unable to appreciate both.

I feel it is far better to stare into the light and let it burn you with truth rather than hide under your comfortable blanket?

How do you have a theory of truth without taking a philosophical position? Do you endorse a correspodence theory of truth? A deflationary theory of truth? A pragmatic theory of truth? If you refuse to engage with philosophy, I see no reason why you believe your entitled to speak of truth at all.

And what blanket am I hiding under? If you think theism is hiding under a blanket while atheism is "staring into the light", while that may sound silly and pretentious to me, I am not a theist. I do not believe in the existence of God. So what exactly do you mean?