It might be profitable at some point to start a whole thread dedicated to taking down Quentin Smith’s bad arguments on this front.
 
(Why focus on some internet nobody when one can take down an accredited atheist philosopher with the same amount of work?)
 

My issue is why exactly does the fundamental reality have to be simple? Why can't something with parts or the parts themselves be the case if this something was eternal like an eternal multiverse?(I don't endorse this view but it seems a big roadblock for me to get over)

Has anyone of you guys heard of Christopher Martin? I was doing some web searching and found out that he has written essays's on all of the five ways. Is he a reliable source for information on them, and are his articles really for begininers if they are reliable?

AKG wrote:

Has anyone of you guys heard of Christopher Martin? I was doing some web searching and found out that he has written essays's on all of the five ways. Is he a reliable source for information on them, and are his articles really for begininers if they are reliable?

I don't know about the essays but God and Explanations has the reputation of being one of the best contemporary books by a contemporary writer on Five Ways type arguments (though he apparently fails on his account of the Fourth Way). I don’t have a copy – see the standard Amazon price for why – but I would assume it to be relatively technical it being written primarily for an academic audience and partially in response to Kenny’s tedious The Five Ways.

AKG wrote:

Hello again everyone.
I'm currently reading ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, and I'm on page 75. So far it is mainly about truth and error propistions, and looking in the table of contents act and potency don't come for a while. Should I skip the book to the act/potency section under ontology, or is it necessary for me to know Epistemology, and Logic of scholasticism to fully understand the arguments for God?

Seems fine. Cotter refers back to his earlier chapters sometimes, which could lead to occasional confusion, but there is nothing in principle wrong with studying ontology before logic or epistemology (though, you'll want to circle back to those two later on)