The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

I will grant that it is broadly logically possible that the cause of the universe isn't personal (defined in a weak sense as intentional/purposeful). But I think you must then say the universe is co-eternal with its cause. The cost of this is that you need to expand your metaphysics to include an infinite series of events in the past. Because this and other similar arguments are probabilistic, I would say that "personal" does not come with such a cost and is therefore the more reasonable conclusion. 

First of all, your objection would only be relevant if you were making an inductive argument, and not a deductive one.  The cosmological argument and other first cause arguments can take both deductive and inductive forms.  However I'm not addressing the cosmological argument, but rather an inference based upon the conclusion that a necessary first cause exists, and that this first cause is necessarily personal.  That is a separate argument from the first cause argument, and must stand or fall on its own merits.  Now I contend that you actually are making a deductive argument, in spite of your last complaint, but let's examine the inductive argument first, just to be thorough.  You claim that a personal first cause is the most plausible conclusion.  This is either an implicit appeal to an argument to the most likely hypothesis, or it is mere subjective opinion.  If it's just opinion, it can be readily dismissed.  If on the other hand it is an argument to the most likely hypothesis, then such an argument requires at least an estimate of the probability of all relevant alternatives.  You cannot construct such a set of possibilities, so no such argument can be made.  I don't even fathom how one would estimate the probability of a metaphysical conjecture, if the idea is even coherent.  So you are necessarily making a deductive argument about what must have been the case, so speculations such as you have offered here are irrelevant.  And I will point out you are still confusing the two senses of eternal, and the two conditions under which God was operating.  A timeless state does not imply an infinite series of events in the past because a timeless state has no past.  No infinite series of events is either required nor postulated, so I'm going to be charitable and simply attribute your claim of such to your ongoing confusion regarding the matter.  Given that your appraisal of the "personal" conclusion is based upon a serious misunderstanding of the relevant facts, it obviously holds no water. 

I understand your point. 

Deductive Argument:

1. The cause is past-eternal
2. The effect (the universe) is not past-eternal 
3. The cause exists prior to the effect (from 1-2)
4. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, so is the effect.
5. The cause-->effect was not deterministic (from 3-4)
6. A mind with intention (libertarian free will) is the only completely non-deterministic cause
7. Therefore the cause is a mind with intention (personal).

I'm working this out on my own so don't be harsh.