How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Ronkonkoma]

Yes, but the presupposing has no bearing on the arguments I gave and the science I talked about.

We live in the present. The future is full of possibilities. The past is impossible to reverse. How do we change reality in the present? Through our behaviors, and our behaviors are influenced by our values. Values are immaterial. Just like you can print money out of seemingly nothing. MS window existed as a stolen idea before it came into existence as software. 

You can say that the Big Bang is the limit of our knowledge. I guess that's acceptable. But other evidence for the existence of God is the immensely huge improbability of life forming on earth given the  number of conditions that all need add up to make it possible.. Estimated that there are around 320 of these conditions, with each of their probabilities to be "just right" to support life and prevent the earth to implode, being less than 1%. Adding all of them up gives a probability for there to be life on earth at a staggering 10 to the power of 23. AllThat in a small window of time!

Dude, seriously. What is with you theists and the word salads? Half of that first paragraph was Deepak Chopra sayings and the other half was simply untrue. MS Windows didn't "exist" simply because Gates copied the work of that lady at Xerox for a GUI. And none of that has anything to do with the OP. It's just like you decided to connect a string of random phrases.

Every event that has ever happened is statistically improbable. Try calculating the odds that, given our lifetimes and the myriad paths we could have taken in life, that I would meet my wife. Or that the lady who nearly killed me on my motorcycle would have been there, would have turned left the instant she did, or that I wasn't going 5mph faster/slower. Doesn't make it part of some divine plan.

The "just right" argument is bunk, as it presupposes a huge number of things that are massive post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, or are simply not within our realm of knowledge to presuppose.

An example of the former is that conditions were shaped for life, rather than life being shaped by the conditions that exist.
An example of the latter is your implied claim that this is the only way things could have happened, that life is not going to occur in other forms, given other "settings" of the variables, and that the settings are even variable. None of that is known, nor can be supposed.

If you're going to try the teleological argument, at least present a better version of it. That's the other thing about you amateur apologists; you all show up at these atheism forums like we've never seen your arguments before. 

Good grief!

I've never listened to Deepak Chopra and I don't intend to. The first part I took from Viktor Frankl. He was a holocaust survivor and psychiatrist. His ideas are based on the tradition of the german philosophers as opposed to the british empiricists.  

Every event is statistically improbable, sure, but some things are made more probable than others by our values. It is our responsibility as human beings to live according to our values. Values are an important tool for our brain, which is the organ of purpose. Much like the liver is producing bile, so the brain is producing a purpose to live for. Without that we will literally die (through direct or indirect suicide).

Ideas are very important because they affect behavior and behavior affects our material existence.

The "just right" argument is based on science and is really not beyond our capacity to understand. In fact, the sheer number of these conditions needed for life might be vastly understated for all we know, considering the fact that they multiply when we come to speaking about human life.

You can't reduce human existence to the material and strictly empiric, because that will undermine freedom, responsibility and human dignity, and lead to many more holocausts and breeches in human rights. That was my point I tried to express, doctor.