Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism

[xdrgnh]

I'm posting in the Atheist section because a lot of people say Deism has more in common with Atheism then it does with Theism. I shall now proceed to make a simple argument for a Deist G-d.

1. Everything in our natural world AKA universe is either matter or space time.

2. Nothing in our universe can be created or destroyed. (I'm aware of quantum fluctuation and the creation of virtual particles but I do not count that as creation because the new matter is not stable and conservation laws are still upheld.)

3. Therefore the universe which is made up of matter and space time cannot of created itself via the laws of physics alone because the laws of physics don't permit such self creation.

4. Therefore the universe was created or a better term caused by something which is not composed of space time or matter.

5. This thing that must be the cause of the universe existence which is not composed of matter or spacetime is commonly called G-d.

Can anyone refute this proof of a first cause or Deism G-d?

If you cannot refute Deism then I don't see why one should call themselves an Atheist.

Your argument is not logically valid.

There is a fallacy of equivocation with regards to the definition of 'created'. P.2 uses 'created' to describe creation ex material. P.3 uses 'created' to describe creation ex nihilo.

There is also a fallacy of composition with regards to what occurs within the universe compared to the existence of the universe itself. You can't extrapolate the behavior within the universe to the universe as a whole.

Your conclusion may be true, but it is not supported by your argument.

Yes you are right I was being sloppy how I used the term creation in P.2 vs P.3 I'll edit it to P.3 as cause because creation does not make sense outside of the universe or from ex nihilo.

Your 2nd point I'll dispute. We know that the universe is finite and came into existence at a point in time. Therefore the existence of the universe is a contingent existence. An contingent existence cannot come into existence on it's own. In other words it's a potential till something makes it an actual. Without getting into contingency if you accept the universe is made up of only mass, space and time we know from the laws of physics those quantities cannot create themselves on there own within the universe . So something has to have cause there initial existence.

---

Also in regards to the composition fallacy it's questionable if it can be applied to the universe. We know if we only look at the inside of a cow we see meet and bone but if we look at the whole cow we see flesh. If you wish to invoke the composition fallacy to the universe then you must assume that something besides space time and matter exist in the universe. But how could space time and mass exist within a universe which itself is not of space time and mass. And hence we get a contradiction.