Not a joke, I'll refer you to point number 3 to awnser your question.

1. God of gaps argument. 

2. God of gaps argument.

3. Argument from ignorance -> God of gaps argument.

4. God of gaps argument

5. God of gaps argument

That was easy. 

That doesn't answer the question though. That's the exact same thing. Either A. things can come from nothing, in which case your point is proven wrong. Or B. there is something that has always existed, but you've got no evidence whatsoever to suggest the thing that has always existed is your thing instead of either the universe, or the atoms/particles that make up the universe.

That is just nonsensical, babble.

It's not a satisfactory or serious answer. I do believe you are tolling if you can't make a proper coherant reply though. But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

By the way. Do you have evidence that something cannot appear from nothing? Because I have evidence on the contrary.

Somebody will probably come up with some kind of nuclear thing or whatever for that first point, but I don't know (nor care) about that kind of stuff.

But regardless, answer the 2nd part of option B then. If there must have always been something why exactly is your deity a more likely thing to have always existed than the atoms/particles that make up the universe?

Except this is not applicable in this case since it's an abstract argument. If you knew from which philosopher this came, you would certainly not use a God of gaps argument since to him, gaining knowledge is not moving away from God, but coming closer to him.

Call me when there's empirical evidence to the contrary. Otherwise I'll continue to laugh at such tripe

1. The existance of God can be attested in the concept of change. There must be an origin for all change. This prime mover is God.

2. Change always occurs in series of origin-causation. But there must be a first origin of this change, otherwise the series of causation and effect wouldn't be able to take place. Referring to number 1, this prime mover is God.

3. Things appear and dissapear in this world. Yet not everything can be this way, since there can not be a period when there was nothing, since something can't appear from nothing. Thus, there must be something that has always existed, being, God.

4. Some things occur with differing qualities. These differing qualities (in similar objects, beings) must come forth from something that has, ideally, the perfect amount of qualities. There must be something perfectly good, that causes other things to be good: God.

5. Everything strives towards an (ultimate) goal. The fact of having goals implies a spirit who poses the goals, that spirit is God.

I hope you find this awnser serious and satisfactory.

Whatever the argument. If it's premise is falacious, the conclusion can be, too. Even Newton was wrong on many occasions. But go on, tell me the philosopher and I will conclude the same. I don't care about who he is. I judge all equally. 

Yesterday, you made sweet love to Jaleel White.  You asked him to pour hot sauce on a gerbil, and put it into your anus.

Call me when you can present empirical evidence to the contrary.  Otherwise, I'll continue to believe it.

1.  This is basically a weird version of the Kalam, but there is no demonstration for that premise.  I'm guessing they changed (or you if you developed this) cause to change so they can avoid special pleading by claiming god is changeless.  But, if you're talking about the Christian god that does not work because that one does change, in the old testament and the new.

There also is no reason to suggest there is an origin for change.  If we have a dimension of time, that's pretty much enough on its own.

Even though if I were to grant everything you said though, and there was a prime mover, first cause, or whatever, that does not get to god.  There's no way to ascribe characteristics to whatever this thing is.  

2.  So then, this is pretty much a straight up Kalam.  And this is an example of special pleading that directly contradicts itself.  If everything needs a cause, god needs one too.  

3.  Appear and disappear are terms that apply to the human eye.  So, because my eye can no longer perceive something, doesn't mean it's not there.  I assume that what you meant is more along the lines of things come into existence and leave existence, but that's absolutely not true.  In fact, to the best of our knowledge, the opposite is the case.  The laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass indicate that neither energy or mass can be created or destroyed. Things don't pop in and out of existence.  Just change form.

4.  Ummm, I think that's the ontological?  A weird phrasing of it that doesn't make sense, or I should say makes less sense then the typical phrasing off the ontological argument.

Suppose I have a rock.  I can fashion that rock into a cube.  The cube has a perfect quality of cubiness, but it came from something that has no quality of cubiness. 

If I take two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule, the resulting combination is something that has properties (wetness, thirst quenchigness, can put out fire), that neither of the things it came from had.  So, things with certain qualities do not have to come from other things with lesser amounts of that quality.

Beyond that, though, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Are you saying god possesses the maximmum amount of every quality?  Is he spicy?  Chocolatey?  Sweet?  Brave?  Cowardly?  Papery?  Pointy?  Smooth?  Heavy?  Light?  Flippant?  Serious?  Green?  Blue?  Smoky?  Smelly?  Cheesy?  Salty?

By this argument, if every quality has to come from something with a perfect form of that quality, god would have to possess all of those traits which would be logically impossible.  Otherwise, those traits exist without a god, and there's no reason other traits can not.

5.  That's just a completely unfounded premise.  Can you demonstrate that everything has a goal?  As far as I can tell, only living things do, which is a very small subset of everything.

If everything has a goal, why would that imply a spirit?  

It's Thomas Aquinas if you're curious.