Argument from contingency

[RoadRunner79]

What do people here think of the argument from contingency? Here is a summary: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...ntingency/

From that description, I would say that it is not a well completed argument.  It essentially seems to require the assumption that the universe is contingent, and then reasoning that a series of contingent things, must have a foundation in something which is necessary.  It touts that it does not rely on a beginning to the universe, but then how do you justify the premise that the universe is contingent? 

And while you may have an argument, that it is not turtles all the way down, the proper and immediate conclusion is that a necessary thing must be at the foundation of the chain.  However the statement "If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God."  seems to come out of no where, without a logical connection to the things prior.  It could also be seen as begging the question. 

Overall, I'm not very impressed with at least this particular presentation of the argument.  It seems sloppy and incomplete.   I think that an argument from contingency may be used within a larger argument for God, but mostly as support for having a necessary thing at the beginning of the chain.  I don't see it being used as a stand alone argument.