If I were to become an atheist...

1. Causality is not a law.
2. Causality needs certain parameters, like spacetime, to function as we know it. Spacetime likely doesn't exist in any meaningful sense on quantum levels, since spacetime is really just a relationship between matter and gravity, which either don't exist or exist very differently in a pre-universe state.
3. You have no proof any God (if one exists) isn't material.
4. All you've basically done is say "some things are allowed to exist without cause," and in doing that you have no way of showing that this only applies to God but not to anything natural that might've existed before the universe.

FWIW, if you read the book I linked to in my first post (A Universe from Nothing), we already have a good idea of how nothing but quantum field energy--which, AFAWK, are not caused, spaceless, timeless, and likely eternal--are capable of creating a universe. So if you're looking for the uncaused-cause, then Occam would go with quantum fields. .

You should join Arlon and let the scientific community in on this fact. Perhaps publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and collect your Nobel while you're at it. Not doing so would lead one to suspect you're full of shit.

1. They're not inexplicable, even if they are fine-tuned. For one thing, they rest on the assumption that our universe is singular, when most of the best evidence and models from contemporary physics and cosmology are pointing towards a multiverse.
2. The only way to argue that fine-tuning exists is to make a lot of assumptions, including the completely unfounded notion that carbon-based life is the only life possible. Plus, there have been discoveries that have explained certainly previously-thought fine-tuned parameters through more fundamental laws.
3. The odds against anything happening are not by themselves an argument for design. That's just not how probability works.

Scientists use metaphors; was that your point?

Is your consciousness in your testicles?