Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

@Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument

Then we're done. BOOM. Atheism is flushed down the toilet.

 but as arguments go it is, in the end, inconclusive.  One can accept your assumptions and conclusions as true or reject them as incomplete and neither can be demonstrated to be true or false.  That's the nature of the argument.  

I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

The cosmological argument might be persuasive as a first cause argument ([*note 1]), but it is a non-starter as an argument for the existence of any god. This is easily shown by the following facts. The cosmological argument requires that this universe be caused, but it does not require that the cause be supernatural. In order for any cause to be a god, it must be supernatural because a natural cause is not a god. But if the cause of this universe lies within another, natural universe, we have no way of knowing if that universe began to exist, nor what the laws of that universe even are. So the cosmological argument gets us one step back and then fails miserably to demonstrate the minimum needed to demonstrate a god, that the cause is supernatural. Furthermore, there can be no evidence that the immediate cause of this universe is supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as any non-natural cause, and to demonstrate a non-natural cause, you must show that no natural cause can be the source of the effect. There is no argument that can show there is non-natural cause beyond arguments from ignorance, which are invalid.

So, summing up:

1. The cosmological argument does not demonstrate a supernatural immediate cause of the universe;
   
2. No argument can demonstrate that the immediate cause of the universe is supernatural;
   
3. If the immediate cause of this universe is natural, then the premises of the cosmological argument may be violated by that prior cause;
   
4. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an immediate cause of this universe needed a cause;
   
5. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an ultimate, supernatural cause of this universe is necessary;
   
6. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot show that a god is necessary for the existence of this universe;
   
7. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to show the existence of any god, including Allah;
   
8. Corollary, no a posteriori argument can show the existence of a god given the above,
   for example, the universe may have been designed by natural intelligences in another universe;
   
9. Corollary, only ontological arguments can show the existence of a god;
   
10. Corollary, the cosmological and teleological arguments cannot demonstrate the existence of any god.

[*note 1] Even the usually understood premises of the cosmological argument are undermined by such things as the Hawking-Hartle No Boundary Proposal; theists misrepresent the science concerning what we know about temporal and existential boundaries of this universe in order to mislead people into believing the premises of the cosmological argument are sound when in fact they are not.