Strong and Weak Arguments

[Asmodee]

"Who created god"  is an academic nail in the coffin to a particular argument, but it's not compelling to you, whereas others find it to be so.....

It's not compelling because it's stupid.  It's like asking "what is the cause of the cause that has no cause?" or, more precisely, "what made the thing without any prior potential actualize the potential it never had?"

I find that people who don't find the "who created God" argument compelling simply don't understand it.

It is an attempt to point out that the claimant has simply arbitrarily chosen their particular deity to be that "first cause" without any evidence to suggest a particular fist cause.  And, in fact, big bang theory handily accounts for a first cause.  Even if the first cause argument were not deeply flawed, which it is, nothing about it suggests that the first cause of this universe could not, itself, have had a cause.  The reason this is so difficult to see is that people generally think in terms of what they know.  Cause and effect is part of the nature of this universe.  It is not necessarily the nature of "not" this universe, or outside of this universe.  None of the logical assertions hold true if you don't know the laws which govern "wherever" that first cause is.  And, in fact, that can be said of most, if not all logical arguments, including the 5 ways.  The assertions made may be true in this universe (though personally I don't see them so much as being "truth" as I do "an overly wordy, convoluted attempt to confuse in order to make it more difficult to argue against"), but none of those assertions can be said to be true anywhere outside of this universe, where any deity would have to exist.  This is why all logical arguments which necessitate a deity fail.  Well, this and that deity can also be replaced by the singularity of big bang theory, the major difference being that the singularity is actually supported by at least mathematical evidence.