How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Angrboda]

The "What caused God" objection is indeed inane. Any atheist who raises it demonstrates their own ignorance. The problem with it; however, is that the objection presupposes so many other things. A recalcitrant skeptic can just keep retreating into a brier patch of modern analytic dilemmas. The skeptic has no interest in developing their own consistent philosophy. They just want to tear down your ideas and walk away smirking.

Oh boo hoo. Skepticism, since the ancient Greeks, has been about showing the holes in seemingly solid edifices. That's what skepticism is. If your complaint is that there aren't more system builders among atheists, say so. That puts the question of whose values are at stake here more plainly, they're yours. You are disturbed that there aren't more atheists who, like you, care about philosophical systems. Well that's not just atheists, the world of philosophy has moved on from the system building era, because it only produced cracked edifices. Your special interest is that you feel a certain discarded edifice can rescue your God. How many atheists do you expect to share your interest in that? You're being silly. Expecting others to share your concern over system building when it's not motivated by a concern for system building at all, but is a religiously motivated concern, is ridiculous.