The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

Okay, thanks, Pro, for accepting. I am not feeling too weighed down by my burden of proof (and, by the way, there is no such thing as "objectively risible", don't be daft), in fact I'm looking forward to the debate!I'd like you to picture, if you will, a very intelligent chicken. Now, this chicken has observed two salient facts:1. Chickens come from eggs2. Eggs come from chickensWhat might this chicken then conclude about its own ultimate beginnings? She came from an egg, which came from a chicken, which came from an egg, ad infinitum.But maybe our heroine really is a *very* smart chicken, and makes the argument that actual infinities are not possible: if she was the result of an infinite sequence of events, there's no way they could all have completed by now. I consider this idea to be smart, for a chicken, but slightly less so for a species that has named itself "sapiens".But okay, how we got to the right answer (that there was not an infinite string of ancestors) doesn't matter; our heroine appears to have reached a sensible conclusion that tallies with the facts available to us in the 21st century, thus far.Now, the smart chicken may look around her and observe a superabundance of intelligent primates; primates who seem to be quite keen on housing, feeding and protecting chickens. Perhaps, she thinks, the first chicken was designed by a human. That must be it -oh dear, I fear that the chicken has reached the limits of her (admittedly incredible) intellectual capacity.Now, here's a question that we could ask the chicken: well, where did the human come from? Our chicken goes off and does some research into bipedal primates and finds that humans come from humans. She stumbles accross an analogue of the chicken and egg problem, but she's already familiar with that! So, humans couldn't have been around for ever.Our chicken considers her options.Maybe something smarter than a human made humans?But then she realises that this is a bit of a silly idea; she realises that postulating ever-increasing intelligent sources for the beginning of things is going to have to run out at some point. This is the third time that she's faced an infinite regression; she's getting a little tired of them! She realises that in order to do any actual explaining, she's going to have to find answers that get simpler, not more complicated.Eventually, when presented with evidence of simply mind-bogglingly vast expanses of time, a fossil record showing gradually increasing complexity, DNA and so on and so forth, our chicken becomes satisfied that evolution is a fact of life and, with a little bit of a hiccup at the point of abiogenesis, feels quite comfortable; ultimately, life probably started in a chemical soup.But oh, what now? Where, what, did you ask? Oh, yes, good question... where did the chemical soup come from?Supernovae. Where did they come from? Vast clouds of hydrogen. Where did they come from? A big bang. Where did that come from?So far, note, we have been following a very sensible path of decreasing complexity (all evidence-based, too):Human, simple life, chemical soup, supernova, gas cloud, explosion...It must be noted that it's going to be *really* hard to get to the end of this trail... what is the ultimate source of everything?The chicken is rightly sure that the answer will be simple. Not necessarily simple to find, but simple when you get there... It stands to reason that the answer cannot be something exquisitely complex; if it were complex, it would itself need further explanation.This is the point at which many Theists are fond of inserting that most complex of all unevidenced propositions ever known to man: a god. For the purposes of this debate, I'm not going to argue that point too much. At this point, I have to say that my funny bone is already itching, but we haven't got to the howler yet!The howler comes when, like we asked the chicken "where did humans come from?", we ask the Theist "where did God come from?". The utterly indefensible answer is that we can't ask questions like that!So thwarted by the stupidity of using a complex solution is this argument that the clever Theist feels they must somehow create a rock-solid argument that will silence such persistent and intelligent enquirers as our erstwhile chicken.The Cosmological Argument, in one form or another, is just this: it is a construct created to avoid the "but what created God?" question.I don't say, necessarily (for this debate), that there isn't a God... but... but, this Cosmological Argument is not the way to demonstrate God's existence. Even for some Theists, this is a step too far... it's ludicrous, is what it is... it has not convinced a single human being to go from unbelief to belief (and humans are pretty gulllible creatures).So, let's look at the last step in the argument... keep in mind that the sole purpose of these arguments is to avoid the scrutiny of "but what made God?".1. All things natural have a source.2. Natural things couldn't have lasted for ever (insert some "actual infinity" argument here).3. Nature must have been created by the supernatural.4. Supernatural things don't need explanation. (last for ever, etc) At first, this seems slightly reasonable, until you get the joke (and it is funny): "supernatural", in this context, can be defined as "something that can do causing that doesn't need to be caused". Of course, one has to double-take step 2, which seems to insist that step 4 is wrong. This argument isn't just wrong, it's laughably funny (at least, it's laughably funny when people propose it).And, of course, anything that can do causing but doesn't need to be caused would fit the bill; any number of gods (many religions borrow the CA for their competing claims), magic, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or just, perhaps, a ripple in the supernatural realm that Theists are already proposing. Jumping to a thinking agent as an explanation for the beginning of everything is just daft; and in so doing, you have simply asked more questions than you've answered!Hypothetical conversation:"What caused A?""Supernatural magic.""And what caused supernatural magic?""Supernatural magic just is" You've got to crack a wry smile and stiffle a titter at this answer, at least... it's a laugh or cry situation!Believe in God, if you must. Believe that He created everything, if you like. But don't, unless you want to be laughed at, don't even think about justifying that faith by using the Cosmological Argument. It makes you look stupid.I'm going to use one source, to make a point [1]. steffon66 asks, on DDO, "So the theist argument is that everything must have a beginning. But god didnt need to have a beginning. Is this stupid or what?". What's the repsone from Theists?"Strawman Alert!""it is not an argument I have ever heard from any theist and is not one I espouse"Of course, there are also responses backing up the argument, too (ignoring even their Theist allies who are trying to distance themselves from the stupid, which burns)... I imagine that some of them might make you laugh, too..."something had to happen beyond our logic"Aha! Ahahhhaaha! Oh, stoppit, stoppit, you're killing me here! So, you even admit that what you're proposing is not logical? Then why dress it up to look like a logical argument!? *Giggles*... if you don't have an answer, admit that you don't know. If you want to jump to a conclusion, be my guest - but don't, whatever you do, don't pretend that you are offering up a reasoned argument![1] http://www.debate.org...;P.S. I hope that the gentle reader will not be offended at the scorn in my position; please note that it is the idea, not the people, who are the object of my derision; the idea is more than worthy of any derision it gets.