I don't see why it has to be a ''who'' that's your first assumption and it's wrong.
Your assumption that I am assuming anything is wrong. You are a compilation of many parts, just like a rock. But the complexity of the way your parts are arranged is what makes you a "who." The complexity of the universe is the thing that shows the Maker to be a "Who"... or maybe you are not a "who?"
Your second assumption is saying it's god because... you don't really have any evidence that it's god but it has to be, right? That's your second assumption and it's wrong.
You are wrong again about me having such an assumption. A god would be someone who is superhuman. So, when you have Someone Who made and upholds the whole complexity of the universe,
that not only is God in the simplicity of simple minded people who use our language and thinking, but when we contemplate God deeply, we see that "He" is SuperGod way beyond all understanding... beyond any super-alien we have imagined, who might have super abilities.
The "everything has a cause" argument is simply something you are using, here, inappropriately. The thing your so-called debunkers are saying is, "We have not seen the cause of everything, therefore we don't know for a fact that everything has a cause." So, there is a difference between what you are suggesting, and what your debunkers are saying.
There are three major points that so strongly suggest that causation is universal, that everybody understands that it is universal. These points are:
1. The gigantic quantity of existing cause and effect actions;
2. The fact that there has not even been one effect that has been shown to have come about by something other than a cause;
3. That the logic of an effect without a cause is not something that fits or makes sense regarding our universe.
You are simply not understanding correctly, the things that are being said in the links that you provided.
EDIT: Your links are so extremely full of assumptions that they totally invalidate themselves. It's like the authors are doing the exact thing that they are other people of doing. The difference is that they are assuming way more, and in a way that shows that they are either blind to this fact, or that they are trying to use troll-like propaganda on people. If you happen to be a sincere person, and you read crap like this, no wonder you think that simply because you might be able to out talk someone, is the reason that you are correct.