Frederick Copleston vs Bertrand Russell: What do you make of Copleston's reasoning here?

The problem with the argument that there must be a first cause and that it must be a god is without foundation. There need not be a first cause if there is a general source of energy (a scalar field) that can create universes using principles that can be approached from physics rather than from theology. The essential error is making a god the default mechanism for the existence of our universe (which may only be one of many). It is a very anthropocentric viewpoint for which there is no physical evidence. It implies purpose which is hard to reconcile with quantum mechanics. It also implies intelligence, but all examples of intelligence that we know are derived from understandable evolutionary processes that started with simplicity and evolved to complexity such as seen in a vertebrate brain.