While doing a paper on Deism for a Philosophy class last semester, I came across an "argument" for the existence of a god from a stance of pure reason. I had been familiar with such arguments as the Ontological argument, the Moral argument, etc. (There are many) but they never seemed to be without some sort of hole.

I can't say I've fully subscribed to this "First Cause" or "Cosmological" argument, but it seems to me to be the strongest one of the arguments I've read. The argument, in considerable detail, can be found here:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/firs...-argument.html

Objections to the argument are found here.
http://www.existence-of-god.com/firs...bjections.html

Please note that this argument tries not to prove the existence of any particular god pertaining to a given religion, but to a general creator, a universal agent, what have you.

I personally find the arguments 'for' to be a bit more practical than the arguments against, but I was particularly interested to hear opinions of others (in case there is an argument against or a hole that has not been pointed out.) I appreciate any discussion or input put forth.

__________________
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!

"Un hombre del honor debe nunca olvidarse de cuáles él es porque él ve cuáles son otros."
- Baltasar Gracian

I thought it was theoretically possible, we simply don't have perfect knowledge of Nature to know it, yet.