How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[robvalue]

Either there are things which need no creator, or there are not.

If there are such things, we can't rule out the universe being one of them. Examining things inside the universe gives no indication as to the created status of the universe itself. We have no created or non-created universe to compare it to.

If there are no such things, then God isn't either and we have infinite regression.

I think the reason theists aren't bothered by the idea of God needing a creator is because it never makes any kind of appearance except as a concept. If we could examine it in any way, the same questions would start popping up, and we've just moved the problem one place backwards. For example, if this is a computer simulation, God is a computer or a programmer. You now want to know where his reality came from, right?

You can't just define paradox answers into existence and claim that is sufficient. You still have to establish first the possibility such a thing can exist, and then even better some evidence that it does actually exist. This is all beyond the scope of mere philosophy.

And there is no paradox, it's just insisted that there is, so that a logical "only way to fix it" can be defined into existence.

The universe always existing is perfectly consistent. I'm not saying it has always been there, I'm saying we have no way or knowing whether it has or not.

Having said that, I really don't give a shit and you can have a deistic creator for free. You have all your work ahead of you trying to make it match a story book. It just so happens these first cause arguments are terrible. For starters, how did you rule out a computer simulation and the infinite number of possible deistic "god"s? Even after you did that, how did you shortlist the infinite number of interventionist gods to story books that happen to be lying around? And even then... you've got to convince me why I should care at all.