How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[ignoramus]

we call it the "Blue" bus down here ...

[Iroscato]

The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.

Maybe in your desperately blinkered view of the world, but you fail to realise the extraordinary cognitive dissonance required to say, without irony, "Everything must have had a cause, except God cuz he's been around like forever."
Fie, I say, fie!

[Tonus]

TL;DR -----> If god doesn't need a cause then why the fuck does the universe need one? Answer - Special pleading.

The apologist method of dealing with this problem was to change the argument (as MysticKnight noted) from "everything that exists" to "everything that begins to exist." It's still special pleading, IMO; they've simply baked it into the premise, trying to pretend that if they do it that way then the charge of special pleading doesn't apply. But even putting that aside, they need to show that god did not have a beginning. This is where you go down the circular logic path ("the Holy Book says so, and the Holy Book was written by god, and we know it was because the Holy Book says so...").

Nor does the argument rule out a natural cause. And our history is one where such questions always wind up having a natural explanation and not a supernatural one. So it's reasonable to expect there to be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe. It is unreasonable to expect there to be a supernatural one.

[Longhorn]

'everything that begins to exist has a cause' = 'everything except god has a cause'

Special pleading and presupposition. It is specifically worded for its refutation. Dishonesty upon dishonesty upon dishonesty.

Not to mention there is no logical line of reasoning that could lead you from Kalam to a theistic god. The best you can do with it is 'a creator'.

[robvalue]

I was going to say I'm having the same argument with MK but he beat me to it.

[Mystic]

Why don't you guys meet up with an Atheist Logician or philosopher (professor) in university, and ask him if this is special pleading. I think you guys misunderstand special pleading. When you make an exception that is IRRELEVANT then it's special pleading. If you make an exception, and it has notable difference that shows the case doesn't apply, it's not considered special pleading.

[Dystopia]

Actually, modern formulations of the first cause argument will list the first premise as "everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause", then they will declare that God never began to exist.  Really?  Prove it.  We have no evidence of anything that didn't begin to exist.  Therefore, until you can present your uncaused cause for examination, it's just a load of bullshit.

Special pleading - Either everything needs to begin to exist or otherwise we cannot be certain if anything needs to begin to exist, therefore and if god does not need to begin his existence there's no reason to think the universe does.

[Dystopia]

Why don't you guys meet up with an Atheist Logician or philosopher (professor) in university, and ask him if this is special pleading. I think you guys misunderstand special pleading. When you make an exception that is IRRELEVANT then it's special pleading. If you make an exception, and it has notable difference that shows the case doesn't apply, it's not considered special pleading.

True story, some general rules have exceptions, and the latter does not erase the general rule, but why do you think the universe needs to begin to exist and not god? Why is god exempt from beginning to exist? How do we know what needs to BEGIN to exist and what doesn't?

[robvalue]

You set up a rule, that everything has to have a cause, has to have something before it, or whatever.

Then you go and break your own rule by saying "Actually there is one thing the rule doesn't apply to."

You don't give adequate justification for why it breaks the rule, it just does because you say so. So the rule isn't a rule, after all.

Most importantly, you don't say how you can possibly know the thing you describe can exist. Feel free to take it to any logician you like, you'll get told the same. Don't take our word for it.

[JesusHChrist]

I don't believe anyone can show the universe "began" to exist.

The universe had an expansion event at the big bang, but is that beginning to exist? Or did something always exist? Branes, quantum fluctuation, singularity, whatever. Something.

As far as I know, this question remains unanswered and it is premature to say the universe began to exist.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence of any sort a god is traipsing about waving his magic dick of a wand creating universes.