Question

Hello Rabbi,
The cosmological argument is based on the fact that there are two possible states one can arrive at:
1. An infinite chain of causes
2. A stopping point, which we call “God”
As I understand it, the Rabbi argues that there is a fallacy in the first possibility. The fallacy is that, in order to present an explanation for the question, one has to present all the factors of the answer. And therefore we arrive at the second possibility.
I wasn’t able to understand what the fallacy is. First of all, surely we have presented the entire explanation. We only claimed that the explanation is infinite.
It seems that the Rabbi is connecting lack of knowledge with a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy really cannot serve as an explanation, but to say that there is another possibility and I simply don’t know what it means could be an explanation.
The fact that a person cannot grasp the concept of infinity with his mind does not mean that it does not exist. It is simply lack of knowledge, and in any case it could serve as an explanation.
What does the Rabbi think about this argument?