Noncontingence.

 If you listen to the Cosmological Argument, you'll hear theists say that things that aren't contingent can't come from nothing, so there must be a deity. This still has problems.

Essentially, a God is demonstrated because there needs to be a cause for the universe. When asked about the cause of this God, then this God is causeless because it's eternal. Essentially, this God is causeless because they say so and we have to believe them because there needs to be an origin for the universe. The problem is that this God is demonstrated because it explains how the universe was created, but the universe can't cause itself because it hasn't demonstrated the ability to cause itself, even though it creating itself also fills the need for an explanation. Additionally, theist want you to think it's more logical that an illogical thing is still occurring rather than an illogical thing happening before stabilizing into something logical.

Essentially, instead of making an argument about analyzing the substance of something (if a, then b, ergo c: a is true, be is true, so c is true), it's "there's something unexplained, so we'll insert a highly specific explanation".

Essentially, it's making the need for an explanation as proof of a deity as a mountain out of a molehill. At best, it proves some type of noncontingent force is necessary for creation (a force that could very easily be closer to radiation or gravity rather than a deity, and more likely so since it it's reflecting on things that actually do exist rather than introducing something new entirely on the flimsy basis of "it's beyond our world so it technically doesn't have to be our world" as if that necessitates it actually being different from possibility alone). It's also ignoring Occam's razor.