You can't make an argument for yourself and need to rely on other sources of information to try and prove a point you keep contradicting.
Confirmed idiot.
Well, thanks for the insult. It is fairly easy for me to just give you the argument, because i do not think i would ever explain it as better as it does. Even though..
You need me to explain the argument , alright, here it is.
I think we all agree that for everything to it that exist there must be a cause to it, where that's my own birth, or the computer that im typing rn. I know that it didn't just show up, there was a design, there were a lot of processes - That means that cause is intuitive. The universe, time energy and matter, they came in existence, in a finite time in the past. This means that there was a time that it had not existed. This points to a non-physical reality that must have certain characteristics 1. It has to be Timeless for it to create time. 2.Powerful, because of the vastness of the universe as we all know. 3. Intelligent, because the universe is complex. 4. Immaterial , because it created matter(space).
People may consider universe to be infinite, well, the big bang tells us otherwise. It tells us that there was a certain time in the past that it was created. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things move from a state of order to disorder. Now, if this universe was infinitely old, there would be infinite disorder. That means, there was a beginning, and a cause to this universe. And spontaneously we ask ourselves, what is this cause ?
Now, is it - in the beginning was the world, or in the beginning were the particles ? Science tells us that the particles were not there in the beginning and that they came into existence. The world represents a necessity. And the best explanation we can give is, God - who represents the infinite, non-physical reality.
Thank you again, for the insult. I'm glad i took my time for you to be "happy".
Edit , although i may have / may not have done a mistake or two in philosophical ways, in my defense, i haven't finished any school about philosophy and i am already a student in progress. I got 1 more year to reach college. Plus, i do not think you can conclude someone to be idiot because he is trying. Do you think i am incapable of learning ? Because clearly, idiot means Dunce, and dunce means a person who is incapable of learning. Yet, to contradict your personal attack, which is " ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm " anyway. And it is you who is doing a philosophical mistake. Anyway, i was able to learn from the Cosmological Argument, and that is why i wrote what i learned to you.
Good job again.