Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[GrandizerII]

So what properties must such a cause of the universe possess? As the cause of space and time, it must transcend space and time and therefore exist timelessly and non-spatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial because (1) anything that is timeless must also be unchanging and (2) anything that is changeless must be non-physical and immaterial since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels. Such a cause must be without a beginning and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any prior causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

Therefore, that transcendent cause could not have been a changeless God. If the cause needed to have a mind in order to create, then it must have mindfully planned the creation of the universe. But such mindful planning requires the mind to move on to the next step in the series of ideas. This implies change.
Otherwise, if God did not mindfully plan the universe into existence, then the creation of the universe was mindless (i.e., random and spontaneous). But in this case, why call it God? Why not just stick to the simpler explanation that the universe came into existence randomly and spontaneously.

Ockham’s Razor (the principle that states that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity) will shave away any other causes since only one cause is required to explain the effect. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Powerful suggests personhood in this context. However, the cause need not be personal. It just needs to have the capacity to yield universes randomly and spontaneously.

And Ockham's Razor itself suggests that God is not the best explanation since an extra entity like God, being beyond this reality, isn't really needed.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent first cause is plausibly personal. We’ve already seen in our discussion of the argument from contingency that the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities that can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind.

This is a false dichotomy. It does not follow that timelessness and immateriality must imply either personhood or abstractness.

Moreover, the personhood of the first cause is also implied since the origin of an effect with a beginning is a cause without a beginning. We’ve seen that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is very peculiar. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect that it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this happen? If the sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal? How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? How can the cause exist without its effect?

The question bolded by me looks like word play to me. Something cannot be called a cause without its effect, but it doesn't mean that the cause can't exist before the effect occurs.

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that’s to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. (By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist.[url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#sdfootnote10sym][/url] So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

Aside from the logical problem I stated earlier regarding a changeless God, I see at least two logical problems with the quoted reasoning:

1. The concept of libertarian free will is illogical. Therefore, even God himself cannot have such free will.

2. If nothing can logically arise from nothingness, then not even God himself can form anything from nothingness.

But perhaps a much better solution to this "dilemma" would be that the cause in the form of this whole reality is eternal and universes have always emerged as a result. In this case, the cause has always occurred with effects, unlike the case with WLC's God.

So, conclusion: a personal and mindful God has not been shown to be necessary for the existence of this universe.