first off, the deceptive simplicity of the cosmological argument(in its kalam form, not the more traditional(read: aristotelian/aquinas) forms) is due to the many assumptions it makes. first off, it must assume that the nature of time is a-theoretic, i.e. that every present moment is uniquely existent and that time could be considered to be a linear progression of cause to effect.
it then states that its first premise(everything that begins to exist has a cause) is true due to self evidency. we began to exist via our mommy and daddy fucking etc. the problem is that, in a nutshell, this depends on how you define a 'thing'. a 'thing' is really just an abstraction used to describe arrangements of matter, and that premise's truth with respect to the physical matter itself is actually not so self-evident, and we don't actually know yet.
the second premise, 'the universe began to exist' is not necessarily true. usually the big bang theory(or some sort of causal argument related to the issue of time that i briefly talked about above) is invoked to justify this, and humanity's agnosticism to the origins of energy can also apply to the question of the universe(matter's equivalent to energy).
this is a really fucking brief overlook but i'm headbanging to infected mushroom - heavyweight so fuck.
btw:
anything really will be a great help actually but right now for instance three points
A) Right now I am really not sure how can we approach from one whole no. i.e. 1 to another whole no. 2 as there is a vast (infinite) gap of fractions between those nos. and this in effect is making me think that the have we even been able to grasp the basics of mathematics.
ok fuck i can talk for ages about this but this is really a rephrasing of xeno's paradoxes. go read on them, it's a really interesting topic. though mathematically it's quite easy to deal with this, and i'll briefly explain:
let's say you want to go from point A to B, and the distance between point A and B is 1 unit. as you get closer, you halve the distances accordingly(so you'll move half a unit, then half a unit plus half of the half unit etc.). you can model this as the sum to infinity of the sequence 1/2^n, where n is a positive real number. i cba to explain but the value of that is 1, and it mathematically holds true that you can go from point A to B, whether there is a continuum of infinite points between them or not.
B) The argument itself states that there have to be a start point and in this case the prime mover i.e. GOD that brings us to the same old ironical question of the start point of prime mover (I came across a long time ago a theory called Lazim-ul wajood for GOD and this one pretty much looks the same but have mathematical aspect to it
c) The argument potentially ties universe to a finite state (for the sake of argument I believe) and I take it that, elevates god to an infinity status i.e infinitely infinite.
If I am not making any sense forgive me, cos that's the only reason why I am here
i suppose c) would be true. though i'm sure somebody's tried to make it work regardless of the infinitude of the universe(or lack of).
sorry this is a bad post but meh
Topic: The first cause argument