Irrefutable logic?

I caught this article discussing who created God. Interesting. Of the three premises in the article, they address only two:

1. Does the universe have a beginning? (Most agree it does.)
   
2. Denial of cause and effect (Something about quantum mechanics, and about something being created out of nothing.)

The third premise in their proof is not addressed at all. I quote it here: "God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause." (Emphasis theirs.) A few times they use the words "God, by definition ..." as if simply saying something is so, makes it so. Don't we wish!

This is their conclusion:

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant [sic] be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

Avoid a theistic conclusion? I don't even have to get into the debate. This is a false dichotomy, because there are more than two alternatives, and you only need a theistic conclusion if you accept their third premise, which they totally ignore. Furthermore, this "argument" is nothing but red-herring-style hand-waving, trying to push the point in contention away from evidence of God to evidence of ... something else (something about the problem with "simultaneous creation" or creation out of nothing, or something). The "analysis" they present isn't simply or merely tentative, it's totally beside the point.

The more crucial aspect of their argument is that whole "and here a miracle occurs" thing. For those who already believe God created the universe, this may be easy to accept. For the rest of us, it's a little too great a leap of logic. Or something. I'm not saying the universe didn't have a creator--I really have no idea how it began--I'm just saying, don't define God as not needing a cause (eternal, unbounded, and all that) and then use that unfounded and unproven assertion to "prove" that he/she created the universe. I could just as easily say it was invisible giant turtles, because by definition something has to hold the universe up. I mean, if they don't exist, then how does it keep from falling?

Refute that.