The First Cause argument is pretty easy to take down because it is an argumentum ad ignoratium. Pretty much saying that because everything we know of has a cause, the universe must have a cause and that cause must be the deity of the choice of the apologist. We all know that where it fails is that it is special pleading because there is no explanation for why god doesn't need a cause.
However, I was in an argument with an apologist and his response to this was that, while everything that begins must have a cause, something that never began because it is timeless doesn't require a cause. I would use the word "eternal", but eternity implies time, and time didn't start until the Big Bang. There is no "before time" (assuming that the Big Bang was the start of the universe, which it may not have been).
I didn't want to use the response "well, the universe could be infinitely old" because scientists estimate that it's been 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang. Also, if the singularity that became the Big Bang has been "Big Banging" and "Big Crunching", scientists estimate that this has only happened about 100 times. I don't know if they are right or not, but picking and choosing what science I like when I myself am not a scientist would put me in the same boat as Theists who do so, so I choose to accept what scientists accept as the best current explanations.
I didn't really have a response to this. However, where I got him was that we were discussing all manners of arguments for god, and some of his contradicted others of his.
For the free will argument, I contended that an omnipotent being could make humans perfect and have free will because an omnipotent being is not bound by the laws of logic because it itself made them.
The apologist responded that omnipotence is the ability to do anything possible and that even an omnipotent being like god cannot do something illogical because it is incoherent.
So, where I got him is that he kept on saying that it's illogical for something to come from nothing, which is why the universe needed a creator. But, if it's illogical for something to come from nothing, how did god make the universe out of scratch when matter and energy did not exist before the universe? That would be an illogical thing to do. Which would mean that either god can do the illogical and thus can make humans unable to commit evil but still possess free will, or god cannot do the illogical and thus could not have created the universe out of nothing.
Of course, god could have created the universe out of matter and energy already there. But then matter and energy would be timeless. Meaning that by Occam's Razor, we could cut out god because matter and energy already exist without him. After I explained that, he stopped responding to me.
I give myself a pat on the back for being pretty clever there (hey, what do ya know. Theists are right about one thing. Atheists are a little big arrogant!).
But again, going back to that "everything that begins has a cause, anything timeless doesn't need one". I mean, to me that sounds like a total ad hoc reason for god to be able to escape the rule of "everything must have a cause", but I can't quite put my finger on it and verbalize why the argument doesn't fly. I guess that's why I want your help to formulate a counter-apologetic to that one.