Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity
would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not
in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought
classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.