Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Mister Agenda]

I prefer discussing the modern version of the Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. (from 2 and 4)

It is easier for someone to understand right away. Aquinas' takes getting used to the language and the various threads of logic. 

So, which of these premises are wrong?

For starters, you've made it clear that by 'exist' you include 'exist as an abstract object'. So, if the argument is sound, existing in our imaginations fulfills the requirement of existence. Since the only way you can derive 5 from the premises is if you count any explanation at all of the universe as 'God', the quantum fluctuation hypothesis has just as good a claim for being God based on this argument as Yahweh.

---

If atheism is true, it is true that there are people who are atheists. If it's true that there is no God, any explanation for the universe won't be God.