You're right, I won't take your word for it because nothing you've said in this thread gives me the impression that you are a reliable source. I'm saying send me a copy of the book so I can read it and determine for myself if the points are valid or not, I'm not going to spend my own money on a whim to read something suggested by someone whos viewpoints I do not respect. 

No, that the cosmological argument, as you have presented it, is formally valid is in question.  Because I'm questioning it. We have to establish that it is valid before we can even begin to address soundness (which correct me if I'm wrong seems to be what you mean by factually valid).  

So let, me repeat my question.  You seem to get quite irritated when you feel people do not respond to your argument, so please respond to my question.  It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

I'm going to accept the five premises.  If I do this, do I now have to conclude that God exists as a necessary being?

If you accept the five premises, you accept that there is a necessary being at the beginning of the causal chain (premisse 6). If you accept 6, 7 follows (that the necessary being is God).

In short, yes.

And I'm terribly sorry if I sound like an irate angry man sometimes, but I didn't want to but into this thread again, but I just "had" to respond to some people. You know how it goes.

You are changing the argument.  

I'll repost it.

"1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).

2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).

3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.

4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.

5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)

6) This necessary being is God."

Premise 6 is not that there is a necessary being.  Premise 6 is that the necessary being is god.  

So if you're changing the argument, does that mean you accept that it is not valid in the form that you originally presented?  And how are you defining god in this argument?

It means I didn't look at the previous post again.

Ditto but with 5 and 6.

Again, this imprecision is why you feel you are continually being misunderstood.  

At any rate, what do you define as god, and why do I have to accept that if I accept there is a necessary being?

That's due to the nature of the discussion here. When you explain the same argument 6 times to different people, somewhere you're going to miss things. At this point, I'd rather just sit down with you guys with a good glass of beer and talk about it, because I feel we are never going to achieve anything in this discussion on VGChartz.

It's not due to the nature of this discussion, it's due to you not double checking the argument.

According to your profile, you're from Belgium and I'm not gonna go that far for a beer.  If you don't want to have the conversation here, I obviously am not going to force you.  But if you insist the argument is valid, then I'd need to know how you get from necessary being to god, and what god is.

I'm going to wind up the discussion anyhow, as I'm growing tired of it here. But I'll humor you.

Simply put, what being would be able to cause it's own existance, along being eternal and immovable? Aquinas here jumps from a necessary being to God. A fair point is that the deductive Cosmological argument ends at the necessary being, then a second abductive reasoning is made towards God.

The cosmological argument does not end at necessary being.  It ends at god.  That was your conclusion.  If that conclusion is not completely justified by the premises, and only the premises, your argument is not valid.