I've heard the cosmological argument stated many different ways but this is my favorite. What do you think? Check it out here:

The Cosmological Argument

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

There is a reason that religion relies on faith, you can't prove or disprove the existance of God.

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

Do you think this is a reasonable argument for the existence of God even though it can't be proved? Do you think the argument is logical?

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

I don't think any argument for the existance of God can be reasonable or logical. Belief is more emotional, and we all know that these are never based in logic.

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

Why is this one your favourite?

Well, I like how it is easy to follow because he goes through the argument in logical steps. Most of the times I've heard this argument it hasn't been explained as well.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Why don't you think this one was reasonable and/or logical? Also, what did his argument have to do with emotion?

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Are you saying that the argument is logically valid or that the syllogism is laid out nicely?

I guess a little bit of both. I take it that you think the syllogism is laid out nicely but you don't think it was logically valid. So, what do you think is wrong with his logic?

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

He creates a false dilemma in which he states that "If something always existed, then it does not have a cause that brought it into existence (if it did have a cause, then it did not always exist). If this something had no cause, it is uncaused. If it is uncaused, it is infinite in its existence."

You can say something has always existed without stating that only one thing has always existed. For instance, an infinite chain of finitely existing entities is not really an uncaused infinite thing.

Another issue is that he treats the Universe as an object, rather than a conglomeration of objects within a continuum of time and space.

Because his further premises of uncaused infinities rely on the fact that something always existing must be uncaused and infinite is false, his statements that follow from it are false as well

"Since the attribute of infinity is inherent to always existing, if we can demonstrate that the universe does not have this attribute, then we have demonstrated that the universe does not fall into the category of "Always existed.""

He also commits to an unsupported premise:

"To summarize: If all past events could be traversed, then the past is not infinite. If the past is infinite then all past events could not be traversed to get us to the present event. Since the latter is patently false (we are at the current event), and the former denies the main premise of the infinite universe, which makes the proposition false, we can conclude that the two options that maintain an infinite series of past events are both false."

He doesn't really explain why it would be impossible to traverse an infinite set of finite events. I can't remember the exact fallacy with this thinking, but it's like stating that I can't count from 1-2 because there are an infinite set of numbers between them. Of course this is false, I can traverse an infinite set because I can count.

There is no lower limit of numbers, yet I can count backwards to my hearts content. There is no upper limit of numbers, yet I can count forwards to my hearts content. I am traversing an infinite set.

In his conclusion, he commits to a equivocational fallacy by stating:

"Although minimally so, isn't the term 'God' consistent with what we mean when we talk about an infinite, uncaused, always existent, that is transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe?"

Of course, if you define God as that then yes, but God is ambiguously defined and arbitrarily defined. It could be that God is this transcendent thing, but he almost automatically rules out anything else and concludes that God exists based on circumstance.