And I agreed because the volcano and sun gods are no different than the first cause god.
If you wish to use the term "sun god" for the first cause in the first cause argument, there is no difference, other than the name. But the first cause argument does not depend on what you call god - you don't even have to call the first cause god at all.
If you're not using the first cause argument, then you have show your argument for volcanoes and sun gods. If your argument is:
Observation reveals a mystery, "fancy" provides a suitable "god" to "explain" it .
Then your argument is very different than the first cause argument. Logic, not fancy, is the method used in the first cause argument.
If you're argument relies on fancy as a method, then it is not at all comparable to the first cause argument.
thanks for your reply.
St. Thomas Aquinas used first cause argument to prove the existence of what he called God, specifically the God of the Old Testament. This is what started the discussion. Perhaps I missed something, but when did it cease being an argument for the deity of choice?
I understand that, philosophically speaking, it is safe to retreat into the anonymity of that concept, so that first cause doesn't need to be called anything, but his method is still a classic example of "resolving" the paradox by pulling out a convenient god-of-the-gaps hat trick.
The first cause argument actually seems rather absurd, in my opinion, because it's basically saying: first cause was not moved to create; first cause created just because! In other words, for no reason whatsoever. Likewise, first cause was not caused not existence; he is just because, for no reason whatsoever. So the question why did God create the world must be answered with: just because! Any other reason will make first cause subject to infinite regress.