Reprise argument from causal necessity

my argument

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existence there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing
5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.[1]

He makes the assertion that my argent presupposes God,I say no it presupposes things need causes.
 
Px:there are different degrees of nothing, and it could be that there was a lesser degree of nothing originally, and that that may even have been what Krauss referred to.[2]

[what are degrees of nothingness? He's basissing his eternal destiny on this totally uprovable concept, degrees of nothingness]

Perhaps the laws of nature are eternal (or at least some fundamental subset), and the universe spontaneously appeared within that framework. That is consistent with science, and we see a precedent for spontaneous events in quantum mechanics with virtual particles.

[It is not a bit consistent with science because in science things need causes, he has no example or proof]

If you want to question what caused the laws of nature in the first place, well I will just use whatever BS you come up with for God. Brute fact, or just eternal, or necessary, or whatever.

[So in other words he's not going to try to justify something from nothing but just assert God is nonexistent so he's something from nothing too, But that totally ignores the fact that God is the more logical of the two options because it ys not arbitrary. It's based on minds being necessary for ideas, Laws of nature are ideas, ideas don't exist apart from minds. Things need causes, the universe needs am eternal cause so the cause of physical law must be a mind that mind we call God.]

Joe: Sure we both work from the unknown but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping.

Px:To you it is, because you start from the assumption God exists.

[you have yet to justify it with logic, between the two alternatives we have the mind that thinks ideas vs the idea without mind, that means God is more logical.]

Joe: Notice you never acutely addressed the logic of the argument which proves that there must be one logical eternal necessary origin and thus this is worthy of being thought God.

Pix:If you want to worship a subset of the laws of nature as a god just because they are eternal, you go for it. What that has to do with the Trinity and a guy dying on the cross, however, is absolutely zero.

[He thinks the mind is the subset and the laws are the main thing.They  can't exist without the mind. The laws are ideas in the mind. The mind is not the subset] _my answer_________ Notice he still cannot offer any indication that something from nothing is possible, no examples.He asserts if we assume God the answer must be wrong. That's like saying if we assume the answer to a math problem must be numbers then it's wrong. He only says this because he has no logical answer. He asserts unproven ideas like something from nothing because he wishes to avoid the obvious which is God. There are reasons why I went from atheism to belief but he is afraid to hear them.


NOTES

[1]Joseph Hinman,"Argument from causal Necessity," Cadre Commemts blog, (December 14, 2020) https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/12/argument-from-causal-necessity.html (accessed Jan 3,2021) Orogoally, Hinman's Cosmological Argument," on Creationism (June 12, 2020) https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html [2]Ibid