How Good Is The "First Cause" Argument For A God?

One of the favorite religious apologetic arguments for the existence of a God is the Cosmological argument "in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.^[1][2] It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, or the causal argument."

While there are several counter-arguments to this apologetic, including the concept of an eternal multiverse being at least as plausible as a God, the simple fact is that a "First Cause" is inconceivable: "Impossible to comprehend." For example, how can an immaterial entity have the ability to create matter? Creating something requires energy/force, which is a material/physical reality. In fact, the concept of "causation" is complicated not only in philosophy but also in physics (link).

Evaluation of claims includes two components: prior probability and supporting evidence. Since critical thinkers accept the meme that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", this argument, along with all the other arguments for the existence of a God, fails because the prior probability is very low, and supporting evidence is essentially nil.