I'll preface this by saying that I am not at all with philosophy and I lack most basics.
I've seen many people say that (1) every creation has creator and thus a god has to exist and (2) that there are too many random variables so that the universe has to have been created by a god.
For the first one you could probably "disprove" by saying "if everything has a creator, so has god" and you'll have an infinite recursion.
Is that argument viable? What other things speak against those claims?
(1) A created thing has a creator
(2) the universe is created
(3) there exists a creator, whom we call God.
This is the rough core of the argument. Support for (1) is via definition, but (2) and (3) need much elaboration. Contemporary (sophisticated?) theists will likely adduce fine tuning or cosmological arguments for (2). Criticisms of (2) can thus be found with critisicms of these arguments. (3) is a stage 2 theistic project, ie establishing that some purposed thing has the properties of God, say omnipotence, omiscience, etc. For this argument, it is not clear that, even if there was a creator, he would be all powerful, all good etc. Just because one created the universe does not prima facie entail that one is all powerful. But this also depends on the conception of God at play. The book @Frank mentions is an excellent start.
As for your line of argument, it will not work since no theist* endorses that everything was created ( in particular, a theist will not endorse that God is a creatd being).
*ok, most.
In addition to the excellent points made in the other answers, I would say that even if the Universe had a cause, it does not follow that the source of the cause still exists nor that it should have any particular god-like attributes.
The "every creation has a creator" argument for the existence of God is a variation of the cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe must have had a cause or creator. However, this argument has been criticized by philosophers and scientists for a number of reasons:
Special pleading: The argument assumes that everything has a cause or creator, but then makes an exception for God. This is known as special pleading, which is an attempt to justify a belief by making an exception for it.
Infinite regress: The cosmological argument assumes that there must be a first cause or creator for the universe, but this leads to an infinite regress of causes. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? This raises the question of who created the creator.
Unproven assumption: The argument assumes that the universe is a creation, but this has not been proven. Some scientists and philosophers believe that the universe may be eternal and not require a creator.
Other possible explanations: The argument assumes that God is the only possible explanation for the existence of the universe, but there may be other explanations that are yet to be discovered or considered.
Fallacious reasoning: The argument commits a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Just because we don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean that God is the only possible explanation.
Overall, the "every creation has a creator" argument for the existence of God has been criticized for its assumptions, logical fallacies, and lack of empirical evidence. Many people believe that there are alternative explanations for the existence of the universe that do not require a creator and that the argument for God's existence is ultimately unconvincing.
Here is a prime analysis that speaks against those claims, reaching from what exists: beings, to their implicit source: being. The logic here only goes as far as what can be ascertained about being by thought: no speculation on any 'beyond'. The focus is not so much the existence of universe but the reality of Da-sein (there-being). Universe or reality? Same thing, some might say. And indeed κόσμος (kosmos), mundus, “world is essentially related to Dasein.” (Pathmarks 122). In the following Heidegger grounds Dasein without a problem of recursion.
Drawing a limited explanation with a few quotes from Jussi Backman's The Absent Foundation : Heidegger on the Rationality of Being (2005), pages 11 - 15
For Heidegger, this necessary, implicit background of reality is, of course, nothing else than what he calls Being (Sein or, more consistently with the archaic orthography, Seyn)—Being not in the traditional sense of the being-ness of beings or of the objectivity of objects, but instead in the radical and archaic post- or pre-metaphysical sense. The question of the ground of being-ness as such is, fundamentally, the question of Being (Seinsfrage).
... the ground of being-ness cannot be a foundation in the traditional sense of a point of reference that is more real than immediate reality itself. What is sought in this other questioning of grounds is a ground that is other to and different from being-ness, presence or reality—and, in that sense, un-being, un-present, un-real—and lets being-ness occupy the foreground precisely in differing from it as its other.
Dasein is itself precisely in transcending its immediate present.37 This transcendence is also called “freedom,” for in “overcoming” the immediately given toward its transcendental context, Dasein is also “free” from the given.38 However, freedom is not the arbitrary absence of grounds. On the contrary, freedom as transcendence is the original relationship to Being as the back-ground of beings. “All the same, freedom as transcendence is not just a particular ‘kind’ of ground; it is the origin of ground in general. Freedom is freedom to ground.”39 It is precisely through its freedom that Dasein is able to encounter a meaningful reality where given beings are placed into a meaningful context, into a background, and thus “grounded” or “founded” (gründen) in Being.
The temporal freedom of transcendent Dasein is thus the origin of the principle of ground or reason that has haunted Western philosophy ever since Plato and Aristotle. “Freedom is the ground of ground. . . . However, as this ground freedom is the void [Ab-grund] of Dasein.”44 And as Heidegger puts it in the late 1930s, “As void [Ab-grund], Being ‘is’ at once the nothing [das Nichts] as well as the ground.”45 Being is the “void” (Ab-grund), the absent foundation, the back-ground which itself withdraws and only thus allows beings to occupy the foreground.
Everything has a creator: No. On the border of a black whole, pairs of particles can spontaneously come into existence due to quantum physics. Then one particle can escape, while the other is caught by the black hole. Over a very long period of time this leads to black holes evaporating.
Can’t see a reason why something similar didn’t happen on a massively bigger scale with the universe, so there would be no creator. Just spontaneously without any cause or reason coming into existence.
