What was the cosmological argument, and what is the problem (weakness) with it?

The Cosmological Argument is a standfard argument for the
existence of God, expounded by the theologian Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274). The argument
is based upon the premise that every being and every event has an existing cause which
preceded it. This is accepted as universally true in our world; things do not pop into
being from nowhere, and things do not happen for no reason. But if every being and event
must be caused by a previous being or event, and that cause in turn must have a cause,
it seems as if the line of causes must stretch back into the past infinitely, an idea
described as an infinite causal regress. An infinite causal regress is considered an
impossible model for understanding the nature of existence because it does not explain
how the infinite chain of causes and effects itself came into being. Therefore, how the
universe originally began appears to present a problem, since it cannot have been caused
by nothing, but if it was caused by something, that thing would have had to have been
caused by something else. The Cosmological Argument claims that this problem proves the
existence of a First Cause of the universe, which was unique in that it itself did not
have to be caused. The First Cause is usually supposed to be the traditional
Judeo-Christian God, and thus the argument proves the existence of
God.

There are several problems with the cosmological
argument. In the first place, the argument is not a hard-and-fast proof of its
conclusion, but instead just offers us both a problem, and a conclusion, which, if it
were true, would resolve the dilemma. This reasoning is similar to a detective charged
with solving a murder pointing out a suspect who plausibly could have committed the
crime, and announcing that the mystery is solved, since the murder is now explained. It
is true that declaring the suspect guilty "explains" the murder, but this does not mean
that it is the true explanation. Likewise, it is true that if we accept the notion of
God as an uncaused being, the problem posed by infinite regress vanishes. But this does
not mean that it is the true or only solution. In fact, we can only arrive at this
conclusion by denying the first and most basic premise - that all things have a prior
cause. A good argument does not deny its own
premises.

Another problem with the argument is that it
doesn't actually explain much of anything. It merely states that the First Cause was
uncaused, but not how or why this could be possible. Why the "first cause which existed
uncaused" is any different from a concept of the universe itself simply beginning
uncaused is not clear.

Finally, the argument does not prove
that the First Cause is identical to the tradional God. Since the only thing the
argument claims to prove about the First Cause is that it, A), was uncaused, and B),
caused everything else, it does not follow from this that it has any of the other
attributes of God. It is quite possible even to concieve of a First Cause which has
since ceased to exist.