Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think either of those charges is true.

For reference: 
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

That's just too bad, because those "charges" are an observation of inarguable facts.  You have no reason to believe that premise 2 is true, and it is an assertion of precisely what the argument is meant to demonstrate.  The premise fails on it's own as a premise, and scuttles the arguments validity in the process.  

Would you have a problem with "If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence?"

It wouldn't be any less unsound.  More worryingly....there doesn't appear to be any necessary relationship between the antecedent and consequent in either formulation.  Meaning that this category of assertion is fundamentally uninformative in any conditional statement.  There's no explicit or rational reason to conclude that the universe would or wouldn;t have an explanation regardless of whether or not a god exists or doesn't.  No specific combination of those four propositions is any more or less likely to be true than any other, and any of them could be true. It may be that there is a god, but that the universe doesn't have an explanation at all, it just is, or it may be that there is no god -and- the universe doesn't have any explanation. Or perhaps the universe does have an explanation, there is a god, but the explanation for the universe is not that god. Or perhaps there is no god and the universe is explicable. The one you're angling for is that there s a god, the universe is explicable, and that explanation is god..but if you had a rational reason to conclude as much I doubt that you'd have been forced to assert it -in- your "rational" reason for concluding as much.

In short, if there -is- such a reason to conclude what you have..you just aren't aware of it and so cannot communicate it to anyone else, or yourself.

Premise 2 simply states that very same conclusion in a logically equivalent way (the opposite). Neither logically equivalent statement assumes the conclusion because the premise is just laying out the either/or -- prefaced with "If". 

Premise two simply states the conclusion, we have no reason to believe that it's true, and no reason to assume that the truth or falsehood of the antecedent can cogently comment on the consequent...and so, no expectation that the truth or falsehood of the consequent can cogently comment on the antecedent.  

It's worthless.  

Additionally, it is easy to also reason that if something created the universe, it was a necessarily existing, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal cause. There are very few things that answer to all those attributes.  Where did this list come from? They are simply the things necessary to either stop an infinite regress or are attributes that describe what must have preceded those things that began to exist when the universe began to exist (or a combination of both).

An exposition of the articles of your faith are irrelevant. You presented an argument. It's mechanical difficulties are insurmountable. No amount of the other things you believe will rescue it from itself. If you want to present an argument, that's going to take more than stringing claims together in a fashion convenient to the articles of your faith. Meanwhile, you certainly don't -need- an argument or any rational reason whatsoever to believe. This much is not only true by definition of beliefs in general, it's demonstrably true of your specific beliefs by reference to the things you field in support of them.