The Cosmological Argument tries to prove the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos. The argument works by looking at the laws of the cosmos, determining what the laws are and then looking for something more powerful than the laws that put the laws in place. The argument is a 'a posteriori' argument which means after the facts. The argument is also synthetic because it looks beyond pure definition and relies on evidence to prove it's value. The argument is also said to be inductive because it draws on information away from the definition...
actually proves the existence of a theistic God, because one cannot actually prove that the causer is our theistic God and not an 'other' or 'others'.

The argument can only be subjective because we have no evidence of laws outside the cosmos. Both the arguments strengths and weaknesses rely on scientific knowledge so a waverer may find it difficult to determine which evidence is more reliable to believe. The weaknesses in the argument are effective to an extent but one has to consider whether one overall cause or many causes effect the ability to convince a non-believer.