The cosmological argument from contingency is sound

Defense of Premise 2Contingent sets and circular loopsIn Con's objection to this point, he attempts to argue that a series of contingent facts may loop back into itself wherein the series is explained by itself. My opponent attempts to justify this point by referring to the supposed ontological differences in facts that come as a result of them being part of a set. How does my opponent justify the change though? We may take it as a given that a contingent fact may not explain itself. If one were to deny this, than one must also deny that the fact in question was contingent in the first place. Any fact which could explain itself must not be contingent at all, but would in fact be necessary. So we know that every individual part (contingent fact) or this set is contingent. It stands to reason then that the last piece of the set would not be able to explain the first since the last piece would be contingent on the first! For without the beginning of the set, the last could not exist (remember it is contingent after all). My opponent's attempted circular justification of contingent sets therefore proves unjustified.Set beginnings and justificationMy opponent also tries to justify the explanation of contingent sets by deferring to the first contingent fact of the set as explaining all those after. I would agree that this is a logical notion in itself, however we are still left with the question of what explains the original contingent fact. Obviously it cannot explain itself and so while it serves the purpose of explaining those facts which come after it, we are still left with the ultimate explanation, one which would explain the original contingent fact.The possible existence of infinite setsMy opponent lastly attempts to argue that there could exist an infinite set which has no beginning or end. If this set were to exist then there would be no need to refer to a necessary fact or agent as explanation. However, as far as the discussion of contingent facts goes, an infinite set cannot exist. A contingent fact begets an explanation as was pointed out in my first premise. My opponent even conceded this point and so it doesn't make much sense for him to admit a contingent fact needs an explanation in one instant and deny it in another. The validity of Premise 1 destroys the concept of an infinite set of contingent facts altogether.Defense of Premise 4A necessary fact and a theory of everythingMy opponent argues that my argument "simply and categorically" dismisses the idea of a theory of everything, a theory or model which explains all contingent facts. I would argue on the contrary however, that the necessary being that I'm positing is a type of theory of everything. As my opponent described it, the theory of everything would explain all contingent facts and would explain itself. In essence, it would be the necessary fact to complete the set of contingent facts. This is exactly what I'm arguing for and which my opponent is arguing against.The difference between scientific and agential explanationsHere my opponent argues that I am taking an aspect of human behavior and setting it outside the realm of the humane and personal sciences. But since aspects of human behavior are within this realm, arguing that they could also be outside the realm is illogical. I am not arguing this however, what I am arguing is that there is a necessary agent with being. Nothing within the field of psychology or sociology takes the simple fact of being into account to explain and predict behavior. Psychology deals mostly with the psyche's response to internal or external stimuli while sociology attempts to make sense of societal phenomenon. Neither of these sciences (nor any other) deals with the more base characteristic of mere being and so my opponent's objection if misplaced. Also, since scientific explanations have proven to be inapplicable to the ultimate explanation of this contingent set (owing to their own contingency after all), the only option available is that of an agent.Defense of Premise 5My opponent in his objection to my fifth contention, brings up objections to certain characteristics of a necessary agent which I am not and have not tried to defend in the slightest. The agent who's existence I am defending does not possess the characteristics of omniscience or omnipotence and so it is at best irrelevant and at worst dishonest for my opponent to bring these characteristics up in debate. On whether the universe fulfills the definition of my necessary agent, it simply does not. The universe can be described as the summation of contingent facts in existence. In essence, it is another term for the contingent set which my necessary agent explains. Since this contingent set cannot explain itself, the universe cannot possibly be synonymous with the necessary agent who's existence I am attempting to prove.