How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Mystic]

Again - states of the universe... what do you mean???

Take your best guess to what I mean, and if it's not correct, I will explain it.

Also: Hawking

Thanks for the correction.

[JuliaL]

I see "all this" as a giant weather pattern in which we are riding in, like a hurricane collects from smaller parts based on climate conditions, eventually to break down again.

A fit, chaotic, metaphor.
I like a different one: bubbles in beer.

In a still glass of beer there will generate CO2 bubbles in a string from a nucleus, generally on the side of the glass.
For an individual stuck in the bubble, there is a beginning to its bubbleness.
Even though there were prior materials necessary to its formation, the inhabitants of the bubble have no knowledge of them.
Nor are they personal.  It's all according to the totally impersonal characteristics of the material and its environs.  We call them physical laws.
We also cannot see what will happen when the bubble we're in reaches the surface.  From outside we can see it will pop.  From inside, we are blind and can only guess blindly.

From what I read, for example, Stephen Hawkins would argue "there is no more north to the north pole" and hence we don't need to concern ourselves with what is before the first point of time even though we know the universe began both through philosophical and scientific argument (he argues science confirms philosophy in this respect).  However, I feel that is the real special pleading. Just because it's the first state of the universe, it doesn't mean we don't know that it began to exist. And just because there is no going back before beginning of time, doesn't mean we can't know it requires a cause as it to began to exist. Therefore this is the real special pleading.

I think Stephen Hawkins changed his view over the years maybe, I don't know, but I have "brief history of time" in my room.

I'd say that the point North of the North pole is in the direction 'UP.'
Using the globe metaphor (dangerously) time maps to paths on the surface.  Outside of time is somewhere not on the surface.
You need another dimension to posit the appearance of time.  Aquinus did this by assuming God was outside time.  Fine, it fits the metaphor, but still doesn't offer evidence of His existence.

[JuliaL]

When we deny knowledge we been given and that is part of "reason", then sure, we can deny proofs of a Creator or God. But with submissive hearts to the truth, everything becomes easy.

“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.”
H.L. Mencken

[Alex K]

Again - states of the universe... what do you mean???

Take your best guess to what I mean, and if it's not correct, I will explain it

My best guess is that you don't know what you are talking about. Now correct me...

[KUSA]

There is no state of the universe that was always there, each state began to exist like the Sun. That leads to the conclusion the whole of it began to exist, which therefore to assume it's eternal is illogical.

That's a false conclusion. How can you determine that the universe wasn't always there in some unknown form?

[Mystic]

There is no state of the universe that was always there, each state began to exist like the Sun. That leads to the conclusion the whole of it began to exist, which therefore to assume it's eternal is illogical.

That's a false conclusion. How can you determine that the universe wasn't always there in some unknown form?

If we had a painting. The whole painting was blue, and every dot of it was blue, would you say it's logical to say "yes we know every part of it is blue, and the whole of it is blue...but then it can possibly be other then blue in color."

The same logic applies if every state of the universe began to exist, and all the states of it together began to exist, it's not really logical to say "well how do you know that it didn't always exist?".

[Mystic]

There is no state of the universe that was always there, each state began to exist like the Sun. That leads to the conclusion the whole of it began to exist, which therefore to assume it's eternal is illogical.

That's a false conclusion. How can you determine that the universe wasn't always there in some unknown form?

If we had a painting. The whole painting was blue, and every dot of it was blue, would you say it's logical to say "yes we know every part of it is blue, and the whole of it is blue...but then it can possibly be other then blue in color."

The same logic applies if every state of the universe began to exist, and all the states of it together began to exist, it's not really logical to say "well how do you know that it didn't always exist?".

[Cephus]

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.

The universe has always existed. Through the history of the universe, going backwards, there was always some material existence and a series of causal relationships. What existed before the big bang is discussed by Lawrence Krauss and other cosmologists. This is equally as logical as "God" has always existed, but is based on evidence, logic, deduction mathematics etc. Do we understand it all fully? NO, but we oughtn't to plug the gap with goddidit.

God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps . . .

It depends on how you define the universe.  Our particular universe had a beginning, what lies beyond it, may or may not have, we just have no way of knowing.  I agree, we should never propose an explanation for anything without evidence that explanation is valid and "goddidit" is not a valid explanation because there is no evidence it is real.

[Brian37]

Science does not prop up Allah or Jesus or Vishnu or Buddha or Yahweh or Apollo.

It is a tool completely independent of superstitious clubs and or sky daddy claims.

[Cephus]

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.

No, I agree with you entirely but that's how apologists have tried to do away with objections, by throwing in a couple of extra words that really have no meaning.  It's still a load of nonsense however you look at it.  I might alter the argument slightly to refer to the multiverse instead of our particular universe because we know our universe started with the Big Bang.