This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

Thanks to Matt532 for the opportunity to debate this topic once more. I personally am Catholic, and believe in God, and have alot of experience with cosmological arguments. I haven't done this in a while, so I hope I'm not too rusty!My opponent proposes the following argument. I shall quote his exact words:(1) Cause-effect exists.(2) The cause-effect chain (in regards to existence of things) must be finite. (3) If the cause-effect chain is finite, then it must start somewhere (label it "First Cause").(4) Now, I can always ask what caused a thing if it came into existence at some point in time (A thing can't cause itself to exist, because it would have to have already existed, but then it couldn't cause its own existence then because it already exists).(5) However, the only way that a thing wouldn't get its existence from something else is if it was Existence to begin with.(6) This Existence is also called "First Cause", which Christians (Catholics at least) claim it to be their God.Premise 1To begin with, my opponent's first premise is vague. What exactly does he mean? Ok, I'll stop beating around the bush. What the hell does this premise mean? Does he mean that at least one or more cause/effect relationships exist? I don't think that anyone denies that *some* effects have cause, but does this mean all effects have causes? Furthermore, what types of effects? All effects? What classifies something as an "effect"? Can anything be an effect, or is it something inherent to the being itself? Is an effect only an effect inasmuch as it is caused? These questions are impossible to answer, and show how vague this premise really is. I'll readily admit that some cause/effect relationships exist. For example, if I smash my fist into my computer screen, I'll shatter it. Voila. A cause/effect relationship. However, as it is stated now, it's not very interesting, and does not support my opponent's case. Yes, some cause/effect relationships between two things exist. So what? I shall await further clarification from my opponent on his first premise.Premise 2My opponent's argument 2a is fallacious. He claims that he can construct a sequence of the type: ((c1),(c1,c2),(c1,c2,c3),...) et cetera on and on. However, this is more of an argument against the concept of infinity itself. He claims that the infinite chain above must contain the infinite causal chain. However, this is an error in reasoning.Let us assume that my opponent's infinite causal chain is called "C". So.. C = (c1),(c1,c2),(c1,c2,c3), etc etc. on to infinity.Now, let us assume that there is some infinite causal chain, A= (c1,c2,c3,c4,... ad infinitum).Let's convert my opponent's argument into a syllogism:P1: C is infinite.P2: A is infinite.P3: C is not A.C: Infinity is not infinity.And since the conclusion breaks the law of identity, P1 or P2 must be false, and infinity must be impossible!Not so fast. This is is not a valid syllogism. This reasoning is exactly the same:P1: Socrates is a man.P2: Aristotle is a man.P3: Socrates is not Aristotle. (duh, look it up on wikipedia)C: Man is not man.And since this conclusion breaks the law of identiy, Socrates and Aristotle must not be men.As I have shown, my opponent's reasoning process is flawed.It is perfectly possible for two seperate and distinct things to have the quality of being infinite. Just as it is perfectly possible for two seperate and distinct people to both be men. The problem does not lie in the concept of infinity, nor in the concept of being a man, but rather in my opponent's thinking.Premise 4"(A thing can't cause itself to exist, because it would have to have already existed, but then it couldn't cause its own existence then because it already exists)."This is a bad argument. Nobody is saying that some non-existant thing caused itself to come into existence. Of course this is absurd.What I would posit, as many other philosophers have, is that something can begin to exist without any cause.Do not confuse this with "caused by nothing." The statement:(i) A is caused by nothingis NOT equivalent to:(ii) A is not caused by anything. There are no laws of logic anywhere that can make these two statements equivalent. They are simply different statements. I do not propose statement (i) is true. I posit that (ii) is true. Why can't something can begin to exist without any cause at all?Premise 4a"(4a) Therefore, the First Cause would have to always have existed"How on earth does this follow from 4? Why can't something cause something else to begin to exist, and then drop out of existence?Let's assume that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I have a cause. My parents. They have a cause... Their parents. But do my great grandparents still exist? No, sorry to say, but they don't. Have my parents always existed? Of course not.Once I have been caused into existence, I can persist in existence without my parents existing. Therefore, assuming everything up to this point is sound reasoning (which it isn't as we've seen), the first cause doesn't have to always have existed. It's perfectly possible for something to come into existence without a cause. It's perfectly possible for something to be brought into existence with a cause, and for that cause to stop existing. It's perfectly possible for something to cause something else into existence and not have always existed.ConclusionAll I have to do to win this debate is show that the above argument does not work for showing the existence of God. I have done so. I have shown that the reasoning is invalid, and as such, the argument does not succeed and my burden is upheld. Furthermore, my opponent has not attempted to show any of the qualities of God... the most important being intelligence and omniscience. So, it's hard to even call this "first cause" God.I will stop here. I don't want to make this too long. However, I'd like to commend my opponent on a good effort. Personally, I think that Peter Kreeft's representation of the cosmological argument is absolutely horrible butchery of the Kalam Cosmological argument, and every other cosmological argument on earth thrown together into one, but let's see how my opponent does defending his version of the cosmological argument!