The cosmological argument is a claim that has to do with the reason why the universe was created. Some use this argument to justify God’s existence and others use it for the exact opposite-to refute God’s existence based on the scientific evidence that the world came around naturally. One argument regarding the personal cause for the cosmological argument can be understood as the following
If the first state of the universe had a scientific explanation, that explanation would be an impersonal, timeless set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
If the necessary and sufficient conditions of the first state of the universe are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well and the universe would always have existed.
So, if the first state of the universe had a scientific explanation, the universe would always have existed.
The universe hasn’t always existed.
So the first state of the universe doesn’t have a scientific explanation.
It either has a scientific or a personal explanation.
So the first state of the universe has a personal explanation.
I object to premise two of the argument regarding the necessary and sufficient conditions that would require the universe to have always existed. Necessary and sufficient conditions are only in relation to why the world came into existence and how it was possible such as certain temperatures and life being able to be sustainable because of these certain features. The necessary and sufficient conditions do not have in relation to nor do they support the fact that the universe has always existed. In fact these necessary and sufficient conditions prove that there was a time that these conditions were not met (the universe could not come into existence yet) and that it was not until these conditions were met that the universe even had the possibility of coming into existence.