Cosmological arguments concern with substantial proofs, which admittedly are not infinitely regressive,
primae facie, in fact, their negative, as in film-still: with epochs best described by Sartre et al.- they ( the arguments) intrinsically deal with the mirrored rationale as to what substance, if any, they may conceal, within their logical framework.
There is no mystery in the aspects presented, it is strictly a logical representation in terms of graduated
interpretation unto modes of re presentation
Reflection can develop conscious representation, or it may not be a matter for development, but only for a symmetrical heuristic hermetic textual
reflection
More than likely, the latter.
If that is all that is intended, than it is merely a tautology, or
Without the mysteries, logical demonstrations conflate to shift them toward simulated substantive signs.
In other words without substantive meanings , logical proofs for God, become mere definitely formal exercises which can not signify with a postmodern hermenitical presentation.
That is why such a view would need to subscribe to a spatio-temporal simultanity.
That can only be done by God, again a dwfinitionally connected continuum (alpha-omega).
The mystery having been exhausted, there remains no contextual epoche , to signal an unsubstantiated reduction.
So the Cosmological arguments fail, in essence.