Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Whateverist]

the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

Wrong. This is simply you committing a fundamental attribution error: "if someone doesn't accept my god as the explanation for X then they must be biases against my god!" The reason I reject the "god" explanation is because there's no positive evidence that a god is the cause of any known phenomenon, let alone direct, or even indirect, evidence that any god exists to be that cause. Provide me with evidence of your god and that this god is the cause of the phenomenon you're trying to explain and I'll change my mind.

Boy I sure can feel how desperately he'd like to turn the situation around so that the positive proposition that god(s) exists was the universally correct position to hold toward the existence of god(s) in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. But wishes aren't horses. He is stuck with a very awkward position to square with enormous mountains of scientific knowledge.

If only theist would leave god(s) where they actually find them .. in their qualia in prayer or in soulful interaction with other believers. But no, they insist on yanking god out of their heads and setting him up as the be-all of everything. Doing so is hopeless and so they come off looking foolish.

Now if a theist were sufficiently humble regarding their obviously very limited knowledge of god, and if they refrained from saying more than they knew, they could join with every other modern thinker with no loss. Why insist on projecting god into the objective world? Why isn't it enough to imagine god creating your personal subjective world and interacting with you there. I suspect that the god inkling isn't the one pushing for greater and greater omni powers. That is the hubris of believer's ego which expects an enormous payoff for its grand declaration of faith. Oh well.