A former agnostic, with doubts?

[Esquilax]

First of all, welcome.

Second of all, I like debunking stuff, so I'mma just dash through your arguments here for funsies, okay?

Cosmological arguments:
- The universe requires a cause.

Despite being a mainstay of religious apologetics, this isn't actually an argument for theism at all, which should demonstrate the weakness of that position. The universe requires a cause? Lots of things are causes without being god, or even intelligent or alive. A tornado has a cause, doesn't mean an intelligent being sculpted it. "The universe requires a cause," gets you to exactly one thing, and that thing isn't "god," it's "cause."

You go on later to say that something must have caused our universe to expand from zero energy into everything, including spacetime. Perhaps you can see the problem there: without time, how does anything happen? Causation requires temporality, and you've just accepted there was no time prior to universal expansion. Why would we need a cause in a reality that doesn't have time for there to be a before or after that cause? What does that even mean?

Our current temporal vocabulary of causes and effects simply isn't equipped to deal with what we're actually discussing here, which is why this particular cosmological argument fails.

- Whatever primary cause the universe has, it must be eternal.

And what does eternity mean, in what we've already established to be a position that lacks time? Also, who decided it must be eternal? Couldn't it be something from another universe, or some form of thing that can exist beyond the boundaries of the universe, but not eternally? I mean, since we're already discussing things for which we have no evidence, why are you limiting yourself like this? Why are you playing into the framework the religious conmen want you to, when you have absolutely no reason to do so? Don't let them play their game just because they're trying to lead you down this path.

- The primary cause, created everything.

Same deal: what makes you say this? What's stopping the cause from creating some things and having the rest develop later? Why couldn't there be a series of causative events, stemming from the one unique one that only created something small and unimpressive? Lots of assumptions here.

Also, we're still at "cause," not "god," so you aren't even at deism, let alone theism yet.

Oh. And we're at the end of the cosmological arguments, here. Still not even an attempt to point to a god... little troubling, no?

Then there's other arguments:
- Intelligence/Determination

This is an argument from ignorance: "I can't understand how this could come about without design, and therefore it was designed." It's a fallacy: just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that you don't know how it happened yet.

- Life

Meh. Life evolves, we know that it does, and there's no need to evoke magic in that. If common elements didn't sustain life, there's no reason to think that anything would even care. This isn't much of an argument.