I don't see why reason should dictate a first cause. I don't see any reason why there must be a "beginning" to the universe, nor and end. Besides, by your own reasoning, wouldn't god himself need a first cause? Are you honestly going to try to tell me that somehow god came first? that he existed for untold eons before one day he decided to make a universe 6,000 years ago?
What hundreds or thousands attest to the resurrection? As far as I know there's only a few sources, and all of those entirely dependent on each other (in reference to the "gospels").
I have not read Aquinas, I have read extensively from Socrates' "works", and I am quite familiar with Pascal's Wager. So to return a question, from each with which I am familiar, is good good because your god said so, or is your god good because he does what is good? Pascal's postulate had four parts: God exists and you believe, god exists and you don't believe, god doesn't exist and you believe, and god doesn't exist and you don't believe. According to the Wager, you don't lose anything by worshiping god. But what god is the right one? Suddenly there aren't four basic options, there are hundreds of gods from whom to pick, and if you pick the wrong god, then you still go to hell. How can you be sure that you were born into the correct religion when so many people in other religions are just as sure? Are you confident enough to fly a plane into a building if you were sure your god demanded it? There most certainly are people who are that confident that their god is the right one.
Do you see my dilemma? Not do I have to look for proof of a god, but I also am stuck trying to figure out which one is the right one!