You want me to quote your rebuttal?
The difference between objects in this universe and things outside, we know we are all contingent on a prior state of affair occurring and producing us, the only answer to this chain of contingency is to invoke a necessary being. I don't believe its true that God breaks the causation principle, the only reasonable answer to the predicament one finds oneself (the one above) is to implore an eternal and infinite being. God is the answer to lack caused through the contingency issue, if you reduce the same argument to him is forgetting why you invoked him in the first place... lets not forget what consistency truly means...
Okay. What's the definition of "universe"? I thought that meant "every existing thing"... From your post, I understand you don't mean that with "universe". So let's define "reality" as the set of ALL existing things. So if God exists, it must be inside Reality, okay?
Now Reality consists - let's take your theistic view - out of Universe and God.
Almost all things in Reality have got a cause. There is only one exception - God.
Almost all things in Reality go from simple to complex. Matter started as loose particles, cluttered together to form hydrogen, cluttered together to stars, and inside the stars all other elements formed. Life started as chunks of matter able to copy themselves, probably haphazardly with the elements around them, and the most able to copy themselves found themselves copied many times... at the expense of the simpler ones... until you've got copy-matter as complex as a human being. Again, only one exception - God is infinitely complex and came at the very beginning.
Almost all things in Reality are observable, whether directly or indirectly. Again one exception.
I assume one thing about Reality. It's simple. It follows straightforward rules. Not whimsical ones. Following that assumption, I'll discard that one thing upsetting the whole straightforward build of Reality. To me, Reality is equal to the Universe.
If you are allowed to assume there exists a complex being without a cause, I'm allowed to assume there exists simple matter without a cause.
I don't understand how a universe can exist without a cause. Really, I don't. But a universe without a cause is less problematic than a wilful, powerful god without a cause. "Outside the universe, so doesn't follow the rules" is not an argument. You expect from me that I should seek for a cause for the star's motion (and you're not happy with conservation of angular momentum, either), and yet you claim God ("first cause") is immune for the same question?
Why wouldn't matter be the first cause, rather than God?