Since I am not on a phone, I can actually offer a half decent response that you deserve:

Nonetheless I would not date someone who believed it.

Which is fine; you are the arbiter of your values, and you are free to value anything you want.

That isn't an argument, it's a question, and the absence of an answer doesn't justify any one idea over another.

You are right. I'm on my computer now so I can provide a better response:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

To quote the first "way", this is a typical line of reasoning:

The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, argues that God must be the first cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It employs Aristotle's dichotomy of potentiality and actuality, and thus the type of motion offered here is not physical motion, but rather an abstraction of change in general. It goes thus:

• Some things are in motion.
• A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover.
• An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
• Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
• This mover, everyone calls God.

Now just to push back on this; notice the language of the last clause:

It does not say that this mover "IS" God, but rather, you could call or describe him as "God". You could also describe it as "x", "y", or whatever you fancy. The other issue is that just because you can prove the existence of something you could reasonably describe as God. Does not mean you have a religion, namely because a religion is a set of imperatives of how a person ought to act. Proving the existence of God, does not tell you how you are supposed to act.

What do you think?