Why do you not believe in God?

[ktulu]

lol,
very good self refutation on the last line.
If THE CAUSE began to exist it would be x.
The argument is question begging because you are not trying to prove that the universe has A CAUSE, but that the universe has THE CAUSE.
You cannot use the thing you attempting to prove in your premise. You arrive at a self contained circular mambo jumbo.

But the argument doesn't assert that THE CAUSE doesn't have a cause.

Remember, it's:

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

Now, maybe the cause of y, let's call it c, is also in X. Then you'd have Q©. Where's the contradiction? It isn't circular reasoning; neither Q© nor ~Q© was assumed in (1) or (2); neither was Q(y).

causation is a temporal phenomena. Time is a property of y, therefore Q(y) makes no sense. You are looking for a completely different animal.

Let's change back to English.

Back to my original observation.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
this obviously breaks things down into two categories. Things that begin to exist, and things that DO NOT begin to exist.

here's the argument
1. Everything that begins to exists, except for THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist, has a cause
2. The universe begins to exist (since it is the container of all things, it was caused by THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause. (implication being that it is THIS ONE THING THAT DOES NOT begin to exist)

you really cannot see the question begging? you should see the logic gymnastics that Craig Lane performs on this point. Talk about things that make you go hmmmmmmmm....

---

Beings to exists. (a)
Has a Cause. (b)

A -> B
is the same as saying

Not B -> Not A

This is basic logic people.

So Not B (Doesn't have a cause) implies (Not A) doesn't have a beginning.

I'm not sure how this helps you in any way, but I'm sure you will impress me with a mindblowing punchline.