The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[genkaus]

An eternal being fits the criteria of an 'uncaused first cause' and does have explanatory power.

It doesn't explain how he did it - therefore, no explanatory power.

If something exists it either began or always has existed.

False dichotomy - the correct proposition would be: If something exists it either came into existence from some material cause (like a statue from clay) or it came into existence without any cause or it always existed or the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.

The universe exists
Therefore the universe either began or always has existed.

See above for your fault.

If the universe has always existed then it must be shown to be.

And if you argue that it began to exist without a material cause, you must prove it as well.

If the universe began, and if we accept the causality principle

Hang on - why would you assume that the causality principle is applicable to the beginning of the universe?

then: the best explanation to the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause.

Given the multiple failures of assumptions, that's not the best explanation.

But, being extremely generous and granting your baseless assertions - all we can say about the cause of the universe is that it is the material which transformed into the universe. You can't call it the "first cause" without proving that that is where the causality principle stops. And you certainly cannot assert any intelligence there.

In other words, the existence of the universe makes the existence of an 'uncaused first cause' possible. This is what the cosmological argument asserts.

And all the flaws show why that assertion is bullshit.