Cosmological arguments are basically that the universe exists. I think that's a bad proof of "God". I think everyone knows the universe exists
the second part of it is usually that the universe began, which, again, really isn't a good proof
God is Non-rational, not irrational or rational-- at least I think so. Hard to observe an actual God, you can just observe the effects, but who's to say the cause is "God"? Why even call it God if it's just a first cause, it's kind of a misnomer. ;/
if god doesn't have any qualities associated with him and he's not even a person/consciousness you might as well invest your time in discovering the first cause rather than trying to "prove" god's existence-- especially if God is basically the first cause.
The entire purpose of God, religously, is that God designed the universe in a certain way and there's rules to follow in order to be successful: why not just say the universe has certain predefined rules just by the nature of existing, especially as it pertains to a living organism which has the capacity to "Choose"?
I think that talking about God is basically saying that the universe has some causeless portion; but why call it GOD of all things, something commonly associated with religous faith, why not just call it "CAUSELESS FIRST CAUSER". Obviously something in the universe must be causeless, otherwise we couldn't exist.
I think the other important part is saying that the universe has some inherent values just by the nature of it's creation; can't those be discovered just by being alive and existing here? Does it require a "God" to "tell us" what they are? No, unless by god telling us they just mean they are contemplating the nature of reality ;/
I also think that if you prove god's existence without proving any qualities associated with him you're not proving much at all except that the universe began and that the universe exists.
Buddhism says that the universe is causeless and has an infinite regression of causes-- infinite "Change". At least, as far as I remember.