BTW, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe. So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. One of the writers in the thread to which you linked suggests that it’s simply a “headache-inducing” problem. I, for one, strive for better than that.

“Imagine two indestructible balls in space…” Here, you might as well have said, “Imagine a Universe.” The first cause is you– you not only created the concept of “indestructible ball”, for which there is no rational support, you then quite arbitrarily created a scenario that suited your purposes. You can imagine them having simply appeared by themselves, conforming to some but not all laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains that they didn’t.

It seems as if your diffusion of the cosmological argument stems from your having arbitrarily introduced the permissability of infinite causal chains, which I don’t think is any more reasonable than the idea of a timeless being who isn’t bound by any of the laws it has created. You either have a first cause, which is capable of having caused all other entities in the Universe and thus stakes a pretty good claim on the “god” thing, or you have an infinite Universe with an infinite number of self-spawning entities. Neither sounds very good to me.

“Who’s holding up the world?”
“Atlas.”
“What’s holding him up?”
“A turtle.”
“What’s holding up that turtle?”
“Another turtle…”