I really enjoyed your article and your invitation to honest academic discussion. But I must notice that you misunderstood Bell's theorem. People often misunderstand Bell's theorem, even theoretical physicists.

So what Bell's theorem proves? It proves that QM has to be non-local. Assumption of EPR was locality, and Bell is proving that this assumption cannot reproduce results of QM (this will be later shown in Aspect experiment).

There is a very good explanation of Bell's theorem and it is written by physicists who are expert in area of foundations of QM: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem

So Bell's theorem does not exclude determinism. As a matter of fact, Bell was a fan of Bohmian QM (quantum theory developed by David Bohm), and the Bohmian mechanics is fully deterministic quantum theory that can fully reproduce results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

So, at the end of the day, determinism (or probabilistic theory) in QM is still a matter of choice (of your favorite interpretation of QM).

From which we can infer that quantum physics DOES NOT gives us a new argument by denying the first axiom, because we cannot say if it is denying first axiom ("Everything has a cause.") of Thomas Aquinas or not (because we are not sure weather is QM probabilistic or not).