Strong because it relies on evidence.
Weak because that evidence can be interpreted to form more than one conclusion.
Strong because all evidence points to cause and effect.
Weak because Hume may be right and perhaps our understanding is limited.
Strong because it fits with the observed laws of nature.
Weak because those so called laws are not inflexible.
Strong because it is less likely that there could be an infinite chain of cause and effect.
Weak because just being less likely doesn’t make it impossible.
Strong because it does explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Weak because maybe God isn’t the only explanation.
Strong because God is sufficient reason – at the moment.
Weak because the analogy of cause / uncaused cause is too stretched.
Weak because it still cannot prove the existence of God it merely makes it more likely or logical.
The weaknesses would therefore appear to outweigh the strengths but even so a believer will not be convinced by the strength of the opposition’s case, neither would a non- believer be persuaded by the strengths of the argument. It is still a very logical argument and the opposition have not put forward any concrete evidence for their pov.
Even Aquians realised that his arguments were not sufficient to prove the existence of God, nor did they prove that God was worthy of worship or even what God may be like. But that it could be one block in a rational foundation for a believer.
So what are the key factors / ideas / concepts of the cosmological argument?