Your paraphrase of my argument is not accurate. You inserted the word "God" in your "premise 2."
All I attempted to show was that there is some uncaused being. (Note, an uncaused being, not a being which causes itself, which IS a contradiction.)
Whether this uncaused being is personal, infinite, good, loving, etc., is not part of this argument. What is certain is that any uncaused being would have to be radically unlike anything that ever enters our human experience, precisely because it could not be a material thing.
Denials of the existence of God are actually assertions that there is no being which has some kind of authority over man. An uncaused being, which has caused man to exist, poses a threat to the desire of the atheist to deny such an authority.
Denials of the existence of God are actually assertions that there is no being which has some kind of authority over man.
Exactly true. -- "There is no being which has some kind of authority over man", in a Constitutional sense.
Feel free to preach that God exists, but do not insist that your peers obey Him.
This could be all right, if something that makes pond scum look sophisticated will do for an uncaused being. However, that would put your post 22 in the position of injecting the existence of some uncaused thing simpler than pond scum as a rebuttal to a potential claim of the non-existence of God. "It's basic metaphysics. If you say there is no God ..."
You're not making any consistent sense here.