It seems I’m destined to answer the old arguments* again and again.
Take the Cosmological Argument** for example. Quite a simple argument:
Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
I find myself disagreeing with Premise 1 purely on the grounds that no-one has to date been able to give me an example of something “beginning to exist”. Sure, things are assembled, altered, given subsequent properties, etc. But it all requires previous materials/energy. Whilst this is probably a semantics problem, I do insist upon the precision of words.
Premise 2 is an interpretation of a laymen understanding of contemporary cosmology (i.e. Big Bang Theory) which does not lend itself well to “dumbing down”. The way we describe the functioning of the universe using “laws” only works within parameters we can test. Newton’s laws of motion for example are wrong, but are applicable within certain ranges/scales. Laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics again have set ranges they work within, but the measurements at the very first instance of the Big Bang can’t be measured the same using those laws. Our ability to describe the universe breaks down.
When we put this isn’t simplistic layman’s terms it often gets misconstrued as implying an absolute beginning with absolutely nothing prior.
Whilst this is true from the point of view of time because “time” as we understand it could only be a concept once the universe had space in which time can occur, to say “before time” is nonsensical.. This doesn’t mean that the state of the universe “before” just ceases to be.. “Nothing” isn’t a comparable state of being from which the universe arises. Models of the early universe either allow for creation of spacetime, radiation, and matter etc from fluctuations in quantum fields (which are necessary when there is space), or imply a state of “eternal” entropy.
An entropic singularity doesn’t have “time” and so fulfils the more ludicrous claims of theists regarding the Cosmological Argument***
Now the basic conclusion strangely I can agree with despite the premises both being either unfounded or nonsensical. But to go the leap and say that the “cause” must be sentient, or personal, or omnipotent?! There’s no justification for such claims.. None, whatsoever. Unless your standards of evidence are low enough to accept wishful thinking.