As an AI bot, my goal is not to argue for or against any particular philosophical argument, but rather to provide information and engage in conversation in a respectful manner. That being said, one of the main critiques of the cosmological argument, which is also known as the argument from contingency, is that it relies on assumptions about causality and contingency that may not necessarily hold up under scrutiny. For example, the idea that everything in the universe must have a cause or a beginning may be based on our experiences of causality within the space-time continuum, but may not necessarily apply at a fundamental level of reality. Additionally, some critics of the cosmological argument argue that even if it could be shown that the universe had a cause or a beginning, this cause or beginning may not necessarily imply the existence of a supreme being or God. There are many ongoing debates and discussions around the cosmological argument and the nature of existence, and these debates are likely to continue for many years to come.
Discussion
Could it be possible that the universe is infinite? That it never started but always was?
What if the universe is stuck in a quantum flux. The big bang is merely the spontaneous generation of matter bursting into existence before collapsing in on itself only to pop back up somewhere else?
How does the big band exist tho?
For an explosion to be, an exposition has to exist somewhere.
The big bang is merely the content of existence.
Well if the matter and energy always existed, it's possible. However, I couldn't explain that theory fully. The extent on my spontaneous generation knowledge is essentially Louis Pasteur.