Elsewhere commenting on Plantinga and “properly basic beliefs” and causal arguments for the existence of God (ie brute facts, truisms, etc. and if belief here is this type.) …
It’s fair i think to simply accept a “first cause” prima facie. Folks are hesitant to accept causal arguments because they think they’d be shoehorned into concluding gods. Well, you cannot get there from here. You cannot rationally necessitate volition. A god that is inanimate is not why we talk about gods in the first place or at all.
For theist and atheist alike at this point, each has to own that with no evidence, having a belief about the existence of gods is only justified by their impressions of the world and whether or not they see volition in it.
The rest, denying “first cause”, is to fight natural experiences of causality on a “it could be some other way”, which is more speculative and has no other justification than blind-faith and desire literally.
Is “first cause” a properly basic belief? No, I don’t think so. The reason being is that the argument over the gods existing is a response to the brute fact that something exists rather than nothing and we cannot know why. The metaphysics are then attempts to say we can go one step farther to rest on a deeper brute fact; releasing “why anything at all?” to being a question with an explanation.
The truth is, metaphysics, no matter how well-formed or aesthetic, cannot ever be brute facts but is exactly the kind of proposition the gods are.
What does that ultimately mean?
It means God can never be any proper answer, epistemologically, to any material question about the world. The thing is, most theologians agree for much the same reasons; liberal and conservative.
But, what do you think?