There are some popular lame-ass objections that online teenage athe*sts used to raise against theists. I hope by the end of this post you stop making these non-arguments guys, because they're incontestably inapplicable af wrt to what theists actually say.

The First One: B-b-b bUt eF eVrySing hAz a Cauz, tHEn wHO cAUsEd God? yOu cAnt jUst eNd it wItH God aRbitRariLy

Failures:

1. No theist has ever lived on this planet since God created us has ever said that Everything must have a cause to begin with. It's a myth that ultracrepidarian athe*sts believe with no reference whatsoever to substantiate it. athe*sts have just invented this premise out of thin air because: a) They're too lazy to grab a book and actually read. b) They get their infos from lame-ass online forums like this one. c) They're anti-knowledge af.

2. The whole point of theists argument is that anything either exists through another or not, and as long as you have existence, then there must be a being whose existence is not through another, i.e., not caused. Otherwise you would not have any existence at all. An uncaused being is the only assurance for there to be anything at all. For if there were only beings that exist through another there could not have been anything at all, because if each being would not exist until it receives existence from a precedent existent, then we would end up having all of them in a HOLD state, so to speak, waiting to receive existence from some other existing being. But this would never happen because each one of them would be in this state of waiting-to-be-caused to exist and none would be eventually existent. What could break this HOLD state is that if there were some being that exists on its own without being in need of being brought to existence by something else. It's becoming clear then that we do not say that everything, by the dint of the fact that it exists, must have a cause, rather we say that the mere observation of something that exists necessarily implies the existence of an uncaused being --or what we call a necessary being. There has to be a necessary being for there to be anything at all. Thus the falsity of this athe*stic made-up premise and that who-caused-God bullshit.

3. The actual premise, then, is everything insofar as it is possible/composite/consists of many things/has a beginning/has a quiddity ... etc must have a cause for its existence. And that's how we prove that the universe cannot be that being whose existence is not through another, and that it must be caused to exist by a necessary being. But that's for another topic.

The Second One: B-b-b bUt eVEn eF wE aKsiPt tHe aRgUmEnt iT dosEn pRoov tHe God oF tHe bIBlE exiSts or tHe God of tHe Qur'an eGzist

Failures:

1. This a non-argument as the case with the next one.

2. There is no meaning for this "God of something" crap. It's not that there is a different God that comes in the package of each religion. The right question is "Which religion is true, Islam or Christianity?" and this is not a question about the existence of some God, rather it's a question about an action that has been attributed to God. In the case of Islam for example, sending a prophet called Muhammad and descending a revelation on him is the action that Muslims attribute to the SAME ONE CREATOR WHICH EXISTS NECESSARILY WITHOUT BEING CAUSED AND HAS BROUGHT EVERY BEING OTHER THAN HIM INTO EXISTENCE THAT BOTH CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AND NEARLY ANYONE WITH A SOUND MIND WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL BRAIN BELIEVE IN. This is how we differ from each others. Christians deny that God sent a prophet called Muhammad and that he is a fraud, and Muslims do not believe that God has manifested in a man's body and Jesus was only a prophet of God just as Moses, Abraham, Noah, and Muhammad. Thus there is no meaning to ask someone to prove the existence of God-of-someReligion unless you mean by it to prove that certain religion is true.

3. But if this is the case, then this objection is lame. Suppose that such-and-such argument doesn't prove a certain religion is true, so what? Who said that it has to? It wasn't even supposed to. This doesn't even falsify the argument nor does it undermine it. It was only meant to prove that there is a necessary being that created everything else. We prove that then we go on to prove his attributes and whether he had sent so-and-so as a prophet or not and what are the evidence for his prophethood WITH DIFFERENT SET OF ARGUMENTS. It doesn't have to be a Killing-all-birds-with-one-stone situation or else you would fail. We deal with the issue step by step. First we Prove God's existence, then we go on to next step. This is actually like arguing that there has to be a winner in a soccer game because it was a final match, and there are no draws in finals, then some brainlet comes out to you saying "b-b-bUt this dOzen pRoOv wiTcH teEm hAz wOn zA gAim." Wow, what a genius. So what? I Only wanted to prove that there is a winner. And me not proving which team exactly has won the game doesn't undermine my argument nor does it falsify that there is a winner which i could then identify with a different piece of evidence.

The Third One: B-b-b bUt whay it izn't Zeus or zA flAyin SpAgHetTi mOnsta or a sUpEr cOmpUtEr oR evEn a tUrtlE

Failures:

1. Extreme nonsense

2. Rational arguments prove meaning not words. Rational discourse cares essentially about meaning and accidentally about words. words are only a means to convey meaning. So what really matters is the meaning signified by these words. So If by "zeus" and "the flying blah blah blah" you mean what it has been demonstrated by proofs theists have presented i.e., a one necessary being that was never been caused to exist and is the cause of everything else that exists and have power over everything and knowledge about everything ..etc then this in fact would not be an objection at all, it's just a dispute in terminology. You're just labeling the same being we prove to been existed with different silly names. And if by these silly names you refer not to the same meaning we prove. Then this is would be your answer: Why it cannot be so-and-so? Because we've just proved that it isn't dimwit. The demonstration contravenes the concepts that you're presenting to be God. Once we prove that there is one necessary being that have power over everything .. etc. Then it follows out of necessity that polytheism is false, any religion that says there are more than one God is false, any concept of a pantheon of gods is false. Gods that fight each others, defeat each other, get injured and killed, get drunk, have sex, get married, live on a mountain, do not have knowledge about everything, do not have power over every thing ... etc are false gods. All these attributes contravene what a necessary being is and what has been supposedly proven by theists. So the very proving of the existence of a one necessary being restricts the area of religions to only monotheistic ones and erases all these child-like contingent beings disguised as Gods from the picture. Thus to hell with your "thEre ArE (Generate randomly any 9-figures number) relijan oN eArtH, hOwd yU knO yUrz iZ zA ryTe onE?" also.