Why do people still try to use the cosmological argument? Let's take a look at it.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Conclusion 2: The cause for the universe must be an uncaused cause, which is God.
So special pleading aside... Let's prove that you and I mean YOU can fly using this argument.
Premise 1: You are a mammal.
Premise 2: Bats are mammals.
Premise 3: Bats can fly.
Conclusion: Mammals can fly.
Conclusion 2: You, as a mammal, can fly independently.
All of my premises are correct, demonstrably so. My conclusion, like the cosmological argument's conclusion is false. A major difference between the two is that I don't invoke special pleading.
I know I've posted on this previously, but come on. The logical fallacies should have people who use this argument weeping uncontrollably in corners. Yet people use this argument proudly even now. It diminishes my already very slight faith in humanity.