Cosmological argument, i.e. first cause argument is bullshit on many levels.
First it assumes that the universe has a starting point. In order for the universe to have a "first cause" it needs a starting point, which we don't know if it has had or not because we can't see past the big bang. In order for us to know the universe had a starting point, we would need to know what/when that was.
So thats the first faulty premise that this fallacy is built on. Although even assuming that the big bang is the starting point of the universe, or that there is another starting point that is known, the argument itself is internally disproving.
Guy A: "Everything that exists must have a cause.
The universe must have had a creator, it can't always have been there, someone or something must have made it. That something was god/a creator being."
Guy B: "Who made/what caused the god then?"
Guy A: "
God was always there, its a perfect circle / alpha and omega, or god created itself.
I've highlighted the areas where this disproves itself. To assume that everything that exists need a cause, therefore the universe has to have had a cause, cannot be used to justify god, as something needs to have caused god, and that thing would then have to have caused that, this is essentially
turtles all the way down
Also the initial premise that the universe has to have had a cause is unproven, as there is no known start point for the universe. It is possible that the universe does not have a start point, until we find a start point we cannot say if it has one or not. This is not to say that the universe does or doesn't have a start point, it is merely to say that it is unknown so the idea that there must have been a first cause cannot be validated without first validating that there was a "first" to be caused.
Once a starting point of the universe has been established, it would still then need to be necessary to prove that that cause was some sort of god. Just because you already assume there is a god and it made the universe, does not mean that if the universe has a start, then there must be a god to start it, as you still need to prove that there is a god, and prove that it was the cause.
This is known as Affirming the Consequent.
1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, B must be true.
If something exists, it has to have a cause.
The universe is something.
Therefore a god/creator must have been the cause.
In fact, as you can see, there is a double non sequitur. Not only is it assumed that the first cause must have been a god or creator, when it is not proven and there are other possible options, but it is assumed that the universe had a cause without demonstrating so.
Its the equivalent of finding a murder victim, and then just asserting that someone was the murderer without any evidence. Just because you believe there is a god, does not mean you can assume it as a cause without proving so.
Further reading on
Non-sequitur FallacyThe cosmological argument is similar to the ontological argument, whereby a false premise is used as proof of a logically inconsistent argument.
Most of them run like this:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
3. Therefore, God exists in reality
or this :
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something, is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Although these fallacies also use non sequitir and linguistic errors, such as suggesting that because you can think of something, it has to exist without proving it to be so.
Look forward to hearing your response Demosthenes.