First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

That's sufficient for now. Until the OP can rule out naturalistic first causes, then the principle of parsimony suggests we don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain the existence of the universe.

And the first domino may need someone/something to tip it over and thus start a chain reaction, but that someone/something may also need someone/something else to move it to tip the first domino over. We don't have any good analogy to suggest that only a supernatural could be the first cause (or that there is a first cause for that matter), but a lot of good analogies to suggest an infinite regress of some sort.

Right. The difficultly though is that if the first domino can't tip itself, then it can't be the first cause, since whatever caused it to tip would take its place.  It doesn't rule out natural or supernatural though.  That's why I wouldn't go out of my way to say the assert it's "flawed", but rather just needing further explanation.  But for the most part, I agree with you here.

It's more a paradox that doesn't point reliably to any conclusion, than one that points to the specific conclusions which theists are wont to draw from it. I suspect we simply don't have the intellectual resources to pose the question meaningfully. It could also be that it is a problem, which, once solved, will in hindsight appear to have been simple and unproblematic, but which posed no end of consternation and mystery while the question was live, as Darwin's theory of evolution did for the diversity of life.