A Working Draft Design Argument

[Belacqua]

3)  The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause?  If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.

I don't know why people insist on using the temporal first cause argument. It is easily knocked down, and was explicitly rejected by both Aristotle and Aquinas.

First cause is not in a temporal chain. The fact that some quantum events seem not to have efficient causes says nothing about the first cause argument. 

The first cause argument is about an essential chain. What must exist in order for X to exist? Not happen first, but be logically and essentially prior.

What has to exist for a rock to exist? The atoms that make it up -- let's say calcium. If the rock ceased to exist, calcium would still exist in the universe. If calcium ceased to exist, then the rock would cease to exist. That's why it's essentially prior. 

The first cause argument says that there is an end to this chain. What has to exist for the rock? Atoms. What has to exist for the atoms? Subatomic particles. What has to exist for the subatomic particles? The laws of nature. What has to exist for the laws of nature to exist? Existence has to exist. There must be existence for anything at all to exist. Therefore existence is the first cause. You can't say that something else has to exist for existence to exist. 

God doesn't exist in the way that any other thing exists. God is existence. Nothing could create existence, because to do so it would have to exist prior to existence, which doesn't work.

The first cause argument claims to prove ONLY that there is a first cause, and that it is existence. To get from there to the Christian God requires a set of different and elaborate arguments. 

I just get frustrated that people misuse this so much.