Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually i don't see why their must be a first cause . This assumes to much about causes.

Or, let's go further.
What if it turned out to be something like.... A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes A?

Well backwards causality would only make sense like that if time ran backwards, and the notion of time running backwards doesn't seem to make any sense either. And it's worse than that because you seem to be expecting causality and time to run BOTH ways. D cannot cause A if D's existence depends on being caused by A. That's just circular logic and it makes a mockery of the very idea of causation in the first place.

I think there are only two ways to argue against the notion of a first uncaused cause, and the 1st is to deny that the universe is finite and the 2nd is to deny causality. What you're talking about doesn't seem to be any logical sense of causality at all.

---

Either way it doesn't matter, because there's no reason to think that the first cause is God and to say that the first cause must be God is just special pleading.

That shows about how much you know (or rather don't). The nature of God, in the 1W for example, is the extreme end of a continuum from actuality to potential or in the 3W from possible to necessary, not unique categories unto themselves.

It shows no such thing. You don't seem to even understand how logic works. Logic actually has to make sense and follow logically, logic doesn't just have to seem smart and result in a conclusion you like the sound of. I am correct because the argument indeed does NOT show that the uncaused cause must be God.