There are two possibilities.
The universe caused itself, or
The universe didn't cause itself.
What I'm stating is that the latter is more likely true.
And if that's true, then there is something ELSE, which is not the universe, that caused the universe.
And that something ELSE, whether it is a mind or just a mindless force, you might as well call it God.
Now, I'm saying nothing at all about the Biblical God, I'm just talking about whatever, or whoever, caused the universe.
Hi Blackrock, I skimmed this thread pretty fast so apologies if I'm just repeating something already said. Fort Fun Indiana has certainly touched on some of this, but:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct that it's more likely that the universe isn't self-causing.
*
In that case, the logical structure of your argument is fine, but no matter how much you disclaim that you're not talking about the Biblical God, your argument is still doing the entirety of its work by saying that you "might as well call it God". But in fact it's not that reasonable to call some completely undefined and unknown cause of the universe "God," given the enormous weight of meaning we attach to that word. Choosing to call this source "God" is certain to obscure more than it reveals, because the source of the universe may have literally no properties in common with any common concept of a Deity. I can accept your argument and remain an atheist, for that reason.
For the same reasons, the problem with this style of cosmological argument is that it's basically vacuous, by which I mean that it doesn't really explain anything at all, there are no interesting conclusions that can be drawn from it. In your OP you implied that it was better in some sense to have
some answer, no matter how unlikely, than to not know the answer, but I think this is wrong. If anything, it actually understates our ignorance. Not only do we not know whether the universe has a cause, we don't even know that it's really coherent to conceptualize something prior to
reality, if we understand the universe to just mean the extent of what exists. What can exist before existence? If we instead make the universe a contingent phenomenon and define some prior cause of it, expanding the scope of reality to include both, we still haven't explained anything by doing so, because we just ask the same question over again: what caused the cause of the universe, or was it self-causing? Except now we have even less knowledge than we do from scientific cosmology. At this point proponents of the cosmological argument simply insert the idea that we can
define God (or the cause of the universe) to be that which is self-causing, to prevent an infinite regress, but the vacuity of this argument is apparent simply from the fact that we could also just
define the universe that way and the same argument applies.
My view is that in fact we almost certainly do just have to accept
reality as a brute fact at some point, regardless of how scientifically complex our understanding of the cosmology gets (e.g. if we found convincing evidence for some theory of successive "universes". Penrose had
an interesting one). But doing so doesn't really get you anywhere as far as an argument for a Deity, whether of the Christian variety or even one like that of Spinoza.
*But note for example that I think the most popular scientific speculation about the big bang posits that it was itself caused by properties of a vacuum in quantum mechanics, i.e. what is sometimes referred to as quantum foam. If that is true (and it's highly speculative of course) then in a very real sense the universe caused itself, although it still leaves the question about what caused those laws of physics, i.e. you are still left with the same issues described above.