Hi phrygianslave the wise,
Whilst I agree with Ben that we perhaps should tone down a bit, this argument was interesting.
It isn’t the reason that I would use for believing, but perhaps I’m not aware of what processes go on inside my head. 
Shalom
Bob
I thought his logic was awesome, but very troubling. It seems like a dressed up pascal’s wager.
I think there may be a slight equivocation in meaning of the term “explanation” between statement 1 and the rest of the argument.
In order to be intelligible, a concept only needs an ‘explanation’ where ‘explanation’ means something like ‘definition’. After statement 4, however, he seems to switch to using ‘explanation’ to mean something like “cause or source”.
Premise 6 is where the proof goes sour.
It’s possible that the universe has always existed, and therefore, has no cause (thereby creating no need to have initial physical conditions and laws independent of the event).
What about causuality? My theory is that since everything needs a cause, so does causuality. This means that there was once a time in which causuality did not apply. This accounts for the infinite existence of God (he was not created, but has always been); God created causuality.
We don’t know that everything needs a cause. Perhaps the universe goes through time like a circle, where the “last” cause creates the “first.” Perhaps it has been doing this for an infinite amount of time, negating the need for a first cause.
Bottom line: we can’t prove that God exists, and we can’t prove that he doesn’t. I tend to think that God doesn’t exist on the prinicple of Okham’s Razor. Those that believe in God have their reasons for doing so as well.
Science is an entirely cause and effect based rational. If you insert a causeless cause into the mix then you have stepped outside of science to explain the Universe and therefore premise #6 stands.
It’s not a causeless cause. The universe could be an endless cycle or an infinite amount of causes. Something can, theoretically, exist forver. Science doesn’t disallow this.
Infinity is a concept that exist only in thought (subjective reality) and has no representation in physical reality. The Universe is a physical system consisting of space, time and objects (matter and energy) all of which are finite. An endless cycle of creation and recreation may in fact be true, but it must involve a causation that transcends time , Cause and Effect (cause and effect is a dynamic process that requires time) and therefore science.
This has yet to be proven. It’s not improbable that the universe has an infinite amount of space, time and objects.
Once again, this has not been proven.
OK, well I guess I need to take a step back. Proven. You are correct. It has not been proven. The interesting thing about a proof is that at some point in the line of reasoning an assumption must be made. The quality of the proof depends in some part on the reasonableness of the assumption. For example Geometry is based completely on a preliminary set of assumptions and science assumes the physics observed in the laboratory is the same physics at play on the Moon or at the edge of the Universe. Very reasonable assumptions but assumptions just the same. For the purpose of my argument I make one assumption. That the Big Bang Theory is correct. After all, the title of this thread is “The cosmological argument” and the current cosmological model uses the BBT. Therefore:
The Universe exploded into existence from a singularity. So space - time has a beginning, it is linear not circular. It is finite. Measured from T=0 to now. Even if you can prove that the Universe will expand forever (the Big Rip Theory says yes) it will still always be finite, measured form T=0 to now. If the Universe is finite then all objects contained within it are also finite.
I believe that it is widely accepted by most scientists that the big bang occurred. The big bang theory, however, is different. We don’t know what the events surrounding the big bang are, i.e., whether it’s the result of a continuous cycle or was indeed the very first event (as the big bang theory predicts). Designing a proof around the big bang theory is fine, but it still would not prove that God existed.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the big bang did occur; I would still have objections to the cosmological argument. Mainly, premise nine (9. The personal agent that creates the universe can be called God. ). Why can’t we simply call it consciousness? In quantum physics, there is a large debate about the effects an observer has deciding the position of photons. Perhaps the event happened because it was simply “observed” by something. This “something” could be anything, not necessarily God. It could be that the mass of material that was gathered created the first sentience, which in turn, created the universe. Who’s to say which came first (I suppose this is like the chicken or the egg).
Anyhow, I still stand by the notion that we will never be able to prove whether God exists or not.
Actual infinities may exist in the universe. Furthermore, recent observation suggests the universe is, in fact, spatially infinite.
That’s just what this type of argument was named by Kant; it does not intrinsically have anything to do with cosmology.
Not necessarily a singularity - quantum mechanics may sidestep there having been a singularity altogether, for example in some theories of loop quantum gravity. Also, that the big bang happened does not mean spacetime started then. This only refers to our observable universe - the “Hubble volume”. Space and time may still be infinite, and the Hubble volume merely a bubble expanding into this medium. Thus, space and time having always existed and being infinite in size is still consistent with big bang cosmology. Even assuming space is not spatially infinite it may still be temporally and causally infinite if it is an infinite succession of big bangs and big crunches, which isn’t ruled out. Thus, causal processes may go back indefinitely.
As for the main argument, the world may simply have no explanation (in premise 2) and so it is not clear that premise 3 - that no rational person should accept this possibility - is true. And even if 3 is true, it does not prove that the universe does in fact have an explanation. Rational people believing a proposition has no influence on whether it is true. Thus premise 4 - the universe has an explanation - is not a valid inference. Furthermore, as Matthew E points out, we cannot infer that the cause of all is in fact God.