Is there a reasonable refute for the "First Cause" argument?

In general when I find myself in this debate I think it boils down to the inherent problems between the two conflicting views. Those that believe in God wish to poke holes in evolutionary theorists by saying that whatever cannot be explained by science must be the work of God. Hence the issue with your question. The scientific way to look at these things is to simply say that we do not know, because we don't. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer as long as an answer is trying to be found (an example of this is the Hadron Collider). So really, it is okay for a scientist to not have a rebuttal for this argument because we simply do not know. Will we eventually? Maybe. Science and religion are just two ways of answering a question, just because one makes a claim that the other cannot refute yet for lack of knowledge does not make the claim right.

Yep. The Hume argument.

Hume argues that we are trying to use our cause and effect beliefs that we have developed from living on the earth and seeing how most things work. However, we have never seen anything remotely akin to a universe, so who is to say there was a beginning, and things didn't just always exist? Who is to say anything about cause and effect regarding a circumstance we cannot begin to imitate on earth or comprehend?

Gotta love David Hume.

I don't pretend to understand all of it. But below is a good link to an argument against it and rebuttals against his argument.

I side with those who think that the "first cause argument" can still be defended adequately. It was a very profound if not inspired concept by Thomas Aquinas.

We don't know, its something just too far of our reach, the Big Bang theory is just so stupid as God's theory is

I think it was on dinosaurs walked the earth.