It feels like you are making the same basic argument over and over .... which to most of us feels like a very flawed argument.

yeah that's right. it feels like a very flawed argument to most of you, yet i haven't seen anyone pointing out the flaws or the fallacies in the argument. so i think it feels that way to most of you without any reason.

... basically: the "first cause" argument

Is there an argument for god which does not prove a first cause?

because it felt like on initial fast scan you were still arguing the same point.

yeah i'm still arguing the same point, whatever is contingent must have a cause, but i defended each premise in the argument. and as i said i haven't seen a refutation of the argument. most of the comments are like " Troll. that's not an evidence. it's not scientific .. etc" and no one addressed the argument and pinpoint the flaws in it. most of the comments that addressed the argument were like "why we can't say the universe is necessary, why an actual infinite regress is impossible" so i repost the argument with defending each premise and answering these questions.

Why always the big words? "Supposition" "Contingency" I assume because you copy and paste?

Why 'big words'? I assume because you don't understand them? anyone familiar with philosophy, or has read any book in metaphysics would never said that. and yet i have defined those terms. but what is wrong with 'supposition'? it's plain English, it's not even a technical term.

even if they were big words, does that mean that i must have copied them? it doesn't, logically, follow. How does the antecedent imply the consequent?

1 - A necessary: a thing that "is an uncertain belief" of whose nonexistence entails an impossibility.
2 - An Impossible: a thing that the "is an uncertain belief" of whose existence entails an impossibility.
3 - Contingency/possibility: the negation of necessity i.e. a thing that the "is an uncertain belief" of whose existence or non-existence does not entail an impossibility.

How could possibly 'supposition' mean an uncertain belief? supposition isn't a belief at all. it just means assuming.
so in other words, something is necessary if and only if it would entail an impossibility to assume its nonexistence. like assuming that there is a triangle that does not have 3 sides, that's would entail a contradiction. so being 3-sided is necessary with respect to the essence of a triangle

Impossibility and it's said for something to be Impossible if and only if it would entail a contradiction if we assume its existence. like a round square. so, non-existence is necessary for such essence. it's impossible to receive existence. its quiddity prevents it from being existent.

and contingent thing, is neither of them, it's simply the negation of necessity, whether it's necessity to be or not to be. neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary with respect to its essence. it's possible to be and not to be. it, in itself, does not necessitate one of the two sides over the other, it's just possible in itself. that's why I said it must need a cause for its existence.

I think even you can agree, (especially from your god point of view,) that everything could potentially not exist 1 second from now

Do you include god in "everything?" I am guessing no. So, what you really mean is: it is possible for everything to not exist, but it is impossible for "god" to not exist. So you make a rule, (with no evidence) then you make your god idea the exception to the rule. Do you not see how incredibly faulty this thought process is?

I did not say that everything that exists must exist contingently. but I said everything which is possible to exist and not to exist is contingent and must have a cause, then I proved that the universe is contingent, then an infinite regress is impossible. therefore there must be a necessary cause. I never said that everything is contingent except god and then build my argument, No. that's false by all means. i do not get to exclude god from being contingent unless i prove that the infinite regress of contingent things is impossible. So i don't presuppose its non-contingency but rather deduce it. i think you should've read the post in full scan.

And it is not like this "god" came down and explained it to you and all of us, some religious scholar did, and you bought it, because it confirms to your worldview and it uses a bunch of fancy words and writings that makes it very difficult to truly understand what is being said. Hence the term "word salad."

Sorry but this is not professional in any debate. the same thing can be said by anyone to anyone in any discussion between two people have different thoughts or opinions. but it doesn't prove anything, not useful and it makes it complicated to have a decent discussion. the thing that you don't know is that I was an atheist two years ago and still didn't even make up my mind about Religions. so the case is far from being confirming my worldview but rather it shapes it. Again about the fancy words, what is your criteria for distinguishing a fancy word from a non fancy word? and why it's even a bad thing? because this also can be said about anything even about science. and that's why there is something called 'definitions' and I defined all these words.

I can argue for anything, and explain anything, no matter how insane, if I create a bunch of rules, then make the entity that supposedly created these rules, above the rules

Again, i did not presuppose that god is "above the rule" I deduced it. and it's not, logically, even accurate to say that it is above the rule. because that would entail that he is an instance of the same subject but the rules that apply to other instances doesn't apply to him. and that's not the case. I prove that there must be a thing that is not an instance of the subject 'contingent things' at all.
For example if we say that cars must stop when the lights are red that doesn't mean that people must also stop if the same lights are red otherwise they would be above the law. no they are not above the law since they are not cars.

I missed that I think, I apologize, if you can easily can you point to the posting where you presented your 7 reasons the universe is contingent?

they are in that post, numbered First, second, .... seventh.

so we can not build an argument (any) with we do not know. I do not conclude from: "we do not know" that: that means there is no god.

I agree. but the thing is i build the argument and make conclusions from what we know, not from what we don't know.

I again demand compelling evidence, not evidence that really is: "we do not know, but it makes sense to me.

I never said that i don't know but since it seems cool to me i'll consider it a proof. And again I still insist that your only objection is "I don't want to accept the conclusion so i must maintain that we all should say that we don't know instead of arguing for things i don't want to accept"