The first two criticisms made logical sense to me and proponents refuting them using the PSR seems very weak, even if the PSR is considered valid.
This is means that His own existence can be explained by His own nature—he does not require a cause, just because His mere existence as the cause of every other being, explains His own existence.
One who denies its self-evidence might think that those who hold to it are the ones who experience conceptual blindness. He states  that saying 2.
However, if we have included all the dependent beings in the series, there is no dependent being to which we can attribute the series' existence. Further discussion is in Oppy — Rowe takes the conditional as necessarily true in virtue of the classical concept of God, according to which God is free to decide whether or not to create dependent beings.
A collection formed by successive synthesis is not an actual infinite.
Sometimes the totality has the same quality as the parts because of the nature of the parts invoked—the wall is brick composed of baked clay because it is built of bricks composed of baked clay. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argumenttend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument.
Complexity of the Question It is said that philosophy begins in wonder. Pruss responds that being self-evident is not incompatible with providing arguments for self-evident propositions, and he thinks that arguments can show the truth of the PSR to those who deny its self-evidence.