As much as you'd like it to, asserting that I'm wrong and calling an argument BS or outdated doesn't count as a counterargument. Ontological arguments have also improved, so your point that Evolution has improved works perfectly with my analogy. Even if the analogy was way off, it still stands that it is a logical fallacy to dismiss arguments as being outdated with actually dealing with the arguments themselves and showing why they are wrong. Science is limited to only being able to tell us about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but that does not mean logic or philosophy are. I'm impressed that you were able to quote Aquinas on your own, but not so much by your lack of reading comprehension. In this argument, Aquinas is talking about a causal series ordered per se, which is shown by his statement that taking away the cause is to take away the effect. In a causal series order per accidens, such as someone who begets someone who begets someone else, if the first person dies, then the effect still remains. Aquinas thought it was theoretically possible for this ordered series to regress to infinity, but that is not the same as with a causal series order per se. If you take away primary cause of the hand, then the secondary cause of stick wouldn't cause the rock to move, which then wouldn't cause the leaf to move, and so on down the series, so removing the primary cause would remove all of the secondary causes as well. It is therefore illogical for there to be any series of secondary causes, infinite or not, without a primary cause.

Aquinas never stated that everything was caused by something else except god, but that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So if the universe began to exist, then it has a cause, but if it is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause. This is far from stating that the universe had a beginning. "Nothing" is non-being, so it doesn't exist by definition. It something exist, such as dark matter, then it is something rather than nothing. The issue with the Greeks was whether something could come from non-being. If it would make you feel better, we don't have to call the first cause God, it just has a number of attributes that correspond to our idea of what God would be if God existed. You excel at repeating that Craig makes baseless assertions, etc., but you're not very good at showing where he actually makes those. You don't have to take a logical class to know that just asserting the form an argument is invalid doesn't make it invalid. You need to show where.