The 5 Proofs of Thomas Aquinas for God are logically sound

Firstly, the universe can never remain in a fixed position because of gravity. You seem to be conflating the objects in the universe with the universe itself. If the expansion is uniform the center of gravity in the universe will not change presuming there is even a finite amount of mass. Since Time is within the realm of Cause and effect, but the mind is not we can deduce that the mind as outside space-time. Wait, wait wait wait; what part about that video or relativity established that? We can think of a static system but that thought was not arrived at statically. Mind can make changes in space-time run all it's processes in space-time, but it can do it without being in space-time itself. Software can only be executed through time. Everything about software is linear, relying on the changing of states. You couldn’t change a single bit much less run an artificial intelligence in a single instant. We can perceive that the space itself is expanding, so we can deduce that it was in a contracted state yesterday. Induce, that is not deduction. I hope it gives overwhelming support that the universe has a definite starting point, and that space and time itself began in this. It doesn’t and nothing can because it’s an oxymoron. Infinitely small is not equivalent to non-distance, a very long time ago is not equivalent to non-time. If t = 0 is the start of time then what is t=-1? Undefined? Yet you claim that something before time caused time. That is you claim there is such a t < 0 where an event caused something at t = 0. It simply doesn’t make any more sense than saying distance = 0 is the start of space. You refer to a point, why can’t I talk about a point a couple meters further? Why can’t I talk about a time a few seconds before this supposed creation of time? And if I can’t how can I talk about something that is supposed to cause that creation when the cause must precede the effect? This itself was something outside space-time.and the thing that existed is similar to a disembodied mind.This is what I am calling God. How can God exist before time? That is equivalent to saying God existed in the span of time that preceded all spans of time. the mind is the only thing that we know exists outside cause and effect that can effect changes in spacetime. I still don’t understand how the mind could exist outside of space-time. I never said God is caused by nothing.I am calling that which is uncaused and eternal as God. I call it existence. There is a huge difference.I have already demonstrated how the universe has a cause and is not eternal. We have no information about times preceding the big bang, and either the universe is eternal and will approach perfect 0 energy and mass density or it will collapse into a super mass. Despite the inaccurate vernacular of popular science the universe is defined as all that exists, it would include God or anything else proposed to exist before the big bang. Now, for our discussion on Evolution. Well at least I think I know how to talk about this. I have tried hard to wrap my mind around the idea of a static mind but I just can’t make it work. It really does seem to me to be some kind of specific appeal to platonic ideals. Like saying the abstract of the mind exists on this plane without time or space. Problem with that and all platonic ideals is that… well they don’t exist as far as evidence is concerned. I am merely against the belief that all forms of life can happen through a Random process alone. You realize intelligence is not the only non-random process right? No Virus has developed a mitochondria or other advanced cell parts, even though they were given all the necessary impetus for it. Has it occurred to you that if they did, they would now be cells and you would not classify them as viruses? Malaria is not a virus even though it acts a lot like one FYI. It also requires a series of blind mutations all happening at the same time for each and every organ to develop. No they can happen at different times because code can be inert for long periods of time without killing the carriers with useless junk. If only one part of an organ system existed, it is useless on its own. Every organ could have been independently useful at one time and adapted to work with other organs later. The problem for the evolutionary mechanism arises not in the lack of independent use but the fact that independent use has nothing to do with a future novel interaction between systems. i.e. a kidney works as a kidney, and a heart works as a heart; but there can be no selection pressure for some new function that neither of them perform in the future. Natural selection will not act to create that new system it will only act to optimize the current function in the context of the environment. we also see that this large number of random blind mutations are very improbable(A single person has over a trillion malarial viruses and millions of people are infected every year, for hundereds of years.yet not a single advancement in the complexity of the organism was seen) Unfortunately that means we still have no idea what the functionality peaks in a gene landscape look like, how tall they are; how rare they are etc… We’ve seen a hundred years but there have been a hundred million we have not seen. this is why design becomes possible. Design was always possible, but this does not make it more likely. The agent can be something outside space-time, so we can be completely unaware of its presence. Yet you are arguing that we are aware of its presence through these arguments. I have a very rudimentary understanding of this, from High school.It would help if you could suggest some books, and provide sources in your next rebuttal. Well Behe’s books are a fascinating read, especially after reading both Origin of Species and The Blind Watchmaker. In the end I found irreducible complexity to be a sound refutation of non-random production of novelty, however it really does have nothing to do with intelligent design and Behe’s attempt to tac that on in the end can be summarized as “Well if you’ve got no better ideas” which is either relying on a false dichotomy or an appeal to ignorance. However whether or not life could have come to be as it is now, it depends entirely on the odds; and until we get a much better idea of the functionality genescape we can’t say definitely whether it is plausible or whether there must be another explanation. That is Behe’s argument reduced evolutionist to appealing to the odds when they really wanted to use natural selection to get around that. However Behe did not and cannot truly evaluate the odds since scaffolding can cause coincidental selection events such an evaluation can only be done with a fairly complete map not only of all functional sequences but sequences which might have functioned but which we do not see anywhere in real life. As you can imagine that is not easy to get your hands on in this day and age. Now I read through the Feynman lecture, and I watched that video; and I know this is going to be frustrating since we are obviously passing in the night, but I saw plenty of talk of space time and various quantities and calculations but I saw nothing about the origin of time or showing the coherency of such a concept. It was a nice review for me, haven't seen this stuff in a while but I did end up feeling kinda cheated; like you were just giving me homework for no reason.