How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Rhondazvous]

Why bother with complex explanations on how we know so little about the universe that we can't make too broad assumptions when you can simply counter it with some really simple questions?

The argument from causation, first cause or, as it is frequently called by sophisticated theologians, the cosmological argument, usually consists in the following two premises and conclusion:

1 - Everything that exists has or needs a cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - Therefore, the universe needs a cause

From the conclusion theists usually deduce that the only possible cause to the universe and all existence is god, given the amount of supernatural and unimaginable power required to create or just set in motion the events that lead to the creation of life, matter and our beautiful ability to breathe oxygen.

Here's how to refute it without needing to know any science at all:

Atheist asks ---> If everything that exists has or needs a cause, then god, whichever we are talking about, needs a cause as well. What caused god?

Theists replies --> God doesn't need a cause because he was always there, he is infinite, timeless, and exists outside of time and space - Hence only him could have caused the events that lead to the creation of the universe as we know it

Atheist asks - Then apparently not everything needs a cause, so why does the universe need one if god doesn't? I rest my case (And premise 1 is false)


TL;DR -----> If god doesn't need a cause then why the fuck does the universe need one? Answer - Special pleading.

1. I am most comfortable when I am asleep.
2. When I am asleep my bed is not made up

3. Therefore, I am most comfortable when my bed is not made up.

If god existed in any meaningful way, he would not need theists to present an argument. He would present himself.

The sine qua non of god is god.