Valoran: I'm just going to respond to two things: free will and the first mover (what I was talking about with Aquinas).
My opinion isn't that of "this is the objectively moral set of principles laid down by god and I can disobey then if I please" kind of free will, it is in a different sense. If God is the creator, I can only make choices because I was creted so, even if I'm given free will to deny an objective truth (whether it actually be a truth or not) it is because it is still in control of another. If God exists and he/she has a set of objective principles if you choose not to believe it doesnt change the fact that they are there and even more so it would make you irrational not to. True freedom is not compatiable with a purposed creator, purpose of a creator confines your existence.
Also, the God being without time argument is sound, but its a word game. When a possible dilemma concerning God (or any matter of faith) occurs for some reason religious scholars believe it is necessary to reconcile a logical explanation with faith, but its a religion, there is only a need to if you think you must win the hearts of parishoners and others through their appeal to logic and not to faith. Its pretty easy to do this by simply tweaking the way we view God and his ways. How can one reconcile free will with God? Its easy, simply change your idea on how God views time, put it into a somewaht logical form ie a syllogism and wala its fixed.
The prime mover: Aquinas is probably most famous for coining the term nihilo ex nihil, nothing cromes from nothing. How can somethingness come from nothingness? This is where Aquinas' (similar to Aristotle's) proof of God comes from, God is the unmoved mover who is the something all something comes from. Now for christians and/or any other religion this creates problems, God is essentially a fill in the blank, Aquinas' logic may (getting to that in a second) be correct, but why just add to the end of it the Christian God versus Vishnu and Krishna etc. If you are going to dismantle a philosophical theory you generally must do it in the metaphysic. Something from something is a causal link, all logic is based on causal links. Is it based on that because the Universe IS causal links or because logic IS causal links? For instance, imagine if there was a metaphysical constant barren of any causal links, it would be untrue supposedly because logic could not give it an explanation. Now is this untrue because it is irrational or is it just a failing of logic, a limit to logic. Aquinas' something comes from something ironically enough stems from his unquestioned belief in logic to answer all our questions, his belief that everything is a causal link. Logical, a priori truths make sense because they are viewed only through the lense of logic, which is mans main trait. I'm not saying be irrational, I'm saying realize the precariousness in believing in metaphysical absolutes via logic, then.....you can take it on faith. There are other cases against Aquinas' proof that I cant remember off the top of my head, but this is my personal one.
As I said before I am an atheist of an existential persuasion. Meaning I place value on absurdity and take leaps of faith to embrace reason as a tool. In my high school philosophy class (which was a very good class, but Ive been well versed in certain philosophy for at least 3 years before that) my final was a logical argument on how logic is flawed, on how a priori logic is not always a tool to disclose truth but to create it, how people's epistomological capabilities are bound although we like to think it is not. Only my teacher got it really.....of course the glaring contradiction was that it was a reasoned argument, but that was exactly the point. There is no right way because everything is equally correct, and its only equally correct in the fact that it isnt wrong. Things are only more right or better because ones personal preferences and logical assumptions place them in a hierarchy. These habits suit people because it works for them, but dont go assuming that it is more than it is. You may ask, in such utter relativism how can people co-exist? We form societies and give ourselves rules and principles to follow in order to be more succesful, I think religion is one of these things, I think God is one of these things.
