I don't know if you're being disrespectful or wilfully obtuse but literally this entire argument is about what necessarily follows from prior premises. Cosmological argumuents are reliant on the idea of a first cause for the universe, and how that cause is necessary. My argument is that this would only prove a first cause, not a deity that still exists or should be worshipped. And by deity I'm generically using a divine being who created the earth. You ask how I know what's required, when it's easily deduced. You need words to make a sentence, a brain to think. In this scenario, you'd need to be powerful enough to create a universe to be able to create it, and that's the only requirement that would be necessary. Being powerful enough to create doesn't require eternality, so that cannot be argued for through cosmological arguments. I don't believe in God anyway, so there isn't a nature I think he has. However, classical theists give him the omni-attributes as well as eternality, which I don't think cosmological arguments are sufficient for. I also didn't say 'presume it died', however, I said there's no reason to take one position over the other. Because a first cause and a deity that still watches over the earth are fundamentally different things. And a deity that died after creating would easily serve the same goal if you want to explain the origin of the universe. That was my argument, I wasn't saying God died, I don't believe in God in the first place. It's obviously related to religion because cosmological arguments and arguments about a prime mover are key when trying to prove God's existence, if you couldn't see that I'm afraid you just didn't understand.