Argument from causal necessity

This is an argument I recently had on a atheist web site, Here"You" is the atheist AndyF2.



Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html

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 existnece 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.
The False Dichotomy:

YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneously. However, the same is also true of something existing eternally."

ME: Show me an example of anything that pops into existence out of nothing! This is a contradiction to everything we  know and suspect, That we have no example of it just underscores the logic of the case that it is a contradiction to reality; Your answer to my argument is based upon the assumption tat  all  of science is wrong.  all logic is wrong, and we everything we observe in reality is wrong,  You basically  relay on magic to oppose God.



YOU: "Of course, in Joe's head, that is quite different, because he starts from the assumption that God exists - but of course that is exactly what he is trying to prove."

ME:--No I started from the assumption that things need causes a notion you apparently have yet to grasp. But it's an assumption made by all of science as nowhere in science do we find a principle of something from nothing,

You: "The simple fact is that we have no precedents for the start of the universe; going on common experience is a bad guide here."

ME:--that doesn't mean magic is a beter guide


His second attack "something eternal."

YOU: "Joe claims anything that is eternal should be called God. but this is just Joe injecting his own idea of how the universe started. If the laws of nature are eternal, would Joe worship them? Of course not!"

Me: --This is proven in the logic of the argument, you have not even addressed the argument,

YOU: "Okay, Albert's object is valid - depending on what Krauss meant by nothing. But so what? This does not prove the universe could not appear spontaneously, only that Krauss' theory is not that, so Joe's objection fails.

Me:--You have yet to give a reason why we should believe in something from nothing Apparently your only reason is to avoid  belief in God. We never see causal popping into existence,why should we accept it? No scientist does, No theory in science proposes the universe just popped up out of nothing. There's always the assumption of a prior structure, yet i;ts never accounted for.
YOU:"Furthermore, if we allow Krauss' theory, but acknowledge the framework within which quantum mechanics might work was eternal, then we have a very real possibility for how the university began. 

Me: So you drop something from nothing? Where did the frame work come from?

YOU"Sure, we cannot explain the framework within which quantum mechanics, but Joe cannot explain God. And the framework within which quantum mechanics is FAR more parsimonious. Joe's objection fails again."

Me: Sure we both work from unknowns but God is a more logical assumption than acausal popping. 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.