There is no god or gods!

[spence96]

1) What caused the First Cause i.e. God?
2) How does it logically follow that a 'First Cause' must be:
>a divine being
>caring as opposed to apathetic after creation
>identified with none other than Jesus Christ of 'Nazareth'

Absolutely agreed to #2, but I never yet said it does. I am only arguing the natural theology God (deism tends to make a claim of inactivity, so I am not willign to go that far either at least here).

As to 1, it may assist you to think of the Cosmological argument not as proving the first cause but simply saying all things require a reason (i.e. the universe isn't just magically so). If something (including the universe) explains itself sufficiently, then it needs no cause. An infninite being explains its own existence (there is no logical need to inquire why intrinsically non-contingent beings exist).

Yes, I think the problem is that I do not believe all things require a reason. For instance, things have "essences" and "properties." That is the property of a thing causes it to interact with certain other things in predictable ways. In fact these "properties" to an empiricist simply are the collection of stored knowledge concerning the behavior of things, so property and "predictable behavior" could be used as synonyms.
So a child might ask why does an object close to earth with no support have the property of falling at 9.8 m/s/s? But then the use of property in that sentence is unnecessary. IF the child had said "why does an object with no support & close to earth fall at a 9.8 m/s/s?" it would have the same meaning. But then you tell the child, there is no reason for the consistent behavior: there just is the behavior. So not everything requires a reason.
Atheists apply this same line of thought to all things existing in general. Where did the universe come from? It didn't come from anywhere, it just is. But that does seem oddly similar to your idea of God. Where did God come from? Nowhere, he just was. But that sounds weird because I thought you were saying there must be a reason for everything. It sounds more correct from my point of view to say there is no reason for God than to say God is the reason for himself.
I also don't like this use of the word infinite. Infinite means without bound. Bound is a term that means the limit of an extension. There aren't very many things that can be infinite I don't think. Numbers might not fit into that definition, but numbers are descriptive terms, not things in themselves. So numbers can describe extension. I say this is 1 foot, not this is a 1, unless I'm pointing at the symbol. So what things can have extension? Well time and space. Think about it. You can't be infinite red. You can't be infinite just. You can be completely red or just, not infinite. So you can't have an infinite being unless you are talking about it extending through all time and space, but then you have the same problem as something that only extends through part of time and space. You can still ask "well why is that there."
But maybe that's just playing with words (of course the whole argument is just a word game). Well maybe anything with number can have infinite. So any thing capable of measurement. Like infinite power. But power is also energy or matter. Infinite knowledge is thing I can think of that isn't "material". But you dont say God is infinite knowledge. The infinite just doesnt make sense at all. It seems like infinite is just like number. Like it's a specific kind of number. The highest "conceivable" number. But that implies that it requires units because numbers are numbers of somthing. So an infinite being or "the infinite" really sounds like a meaningless concept if you use infinite properly.
So maybe you should just tell me why God explains himself. It'll be easier than me guessing