there seems to be a contradiction between the second premise (nothing is self-caused) and the conclusion (there is an uncaused First Cause
why can’t there be an infinite regress?
in what way can we call this First Cause “God”?
what kind of sense does it make to apply a concept with temporal attributes (cause) to something that exists outside of time (what was there before the universe is like asking “what is north of the north pole?” [stephen hawking])
there is not enough similarity for the analogy to work
cannot argue from the parts to the whole
we learn about artifacts requiring a designer based upon multiple experiences which we are able to compare, but there is only one universe, and, hence, we are unable to compare one against our experience of several
our attempt at this reasoning results in a god who is very un-godlike; the analogy is strongest when God is most like us
remove infinity (cause should be proportionate to the effects, and the effects are clearly finite)
remove perfection (we can only deliver perfection of creation by assuming that the “faults” we see are merely apparent because of our finite reasoning)
remove unity (there is no reason there must be only one designer)
remove immortality (men are mortal and must, necessarily, reproduce to continue the species)
might as well make “god” completely human-like, and then we have no reason for worship at all