Your argument is with ease refuted. It is fairly nothing greater than the historic, worn out First rationale Argument for the Existence of God. Let's simplify your statement. Premise 1 - everything has a rationale. Premise 2 - Nothing can purpose itself. Premise three - There can not be an infinite chain of causation. Premise 4 - There ought to, therefore, be a primary intent. Conclusion - the first cause is God, hence God have to exist. The difficulty with that argument lies between Premises 1 and a pair of. If the whole lot has a motive and nothing can rationale itself, then God ought to have a cause, and the reason of God have got to have a purpose, and so forth. With no sign of ending. That, nevertheless, violates Premise 3. Premise 1 could be rewritten to say "either the whole thing has a rationale or some thing exists which didn't have a reason." On the outside, that seems to solve the problem. But does it? If we're going to attribute to God the ability to self-create, why will we now not also attribute that capability to the Cosmos, therefore negating the need for God? In any case, your argument seems to be established on the assumption that the large Bang was once the starting of the Cosmos. That's not always the case. There's a cosmological idea that is gaining help in the scientific world. That concept postulates that the event we discuss with as the enormous Bang was nothing more than essentially the most latest generation in a sequence of significant Bangs. An great guide on the area is "The Universe before the giant Bang" with the aid of physicist Maurizio Gasperini.