Yes it absolutely is. In order to work science assumes several metaphysical principles which are reflected in the cosmological arguments by e.g. Leibniz and Aristotle.
The first being that with science we detect causal relationships/interactions between the particles in reality. The distinction in terms of causality is that something potentially has an attribute, but in order to gain this new state, it has to be actualized by another. In a temporal series this can reach back eternally, however in a hierarchichal series, in order to have the power to actualize anything, this power has to root in something which is pure actuality. Why? The stick derives its causal power to move the stone from my hand, whcih derives its causal power from my motorneurons which derive their power from the molecules which again derive their power…You realize how that works, do you? We can gon on to the atomic and subatomic and even lower levels, but the point is that if the series is eternal, the motion isn´t possible, because there is nothing from which the causal power ultimately derives from.
The second is the presupposition that not only the universe is rational built up, but we ourselves are rational, so that we can learn about this universe. Ever asked yourself why all the arch-rationalists like Descartes, Leibniz, Baumgarten, Wolff, Meier but also Spinoza (Panentheist) were Theists? Because this principle, which also informs the presupposed “Principle of sufficient reason” (PSR), which states that everything has an explanation, either by itself or in reference to another and which excludes Russellian “brute facts”, ultimately leads to Theism, because the explanation for all things are a hierarchichal series, which leads to conclude that the explanation for everything is rooted in one thing, which has the explanation for its existence within itself. That is the God of classical theism. Sadly I´m not at home, so I´m not able to copy the syllogism applied to the Rationalists Cosmological argument. I can copy it later though, if needed.
Now to the objections. The argument is seen as valid. People like David Hume and the, by me, much admired Friedrich Nietzsche recognised the implications and therefor had a negative view on the ability of the human mind to make sense of the universe. Nietzsche began his philosophy with his atheism and was led to conclude that the human mind necessarily lacks this capability.
The Russellian brute fact is another objection, stated by Bertrand Russell, and it is the way to avoid the necessary conclusion. But now let´s have a look at what that exactly indicates. First of all, I´d accuse him of merely making the concept of a brute (read: unintelligible, no explanation in principle) fact up, to avoid the conclusion of Theism being correct. We have no evidence for something like that and we don´t take that principle seriously in our daily life. Consider this example:
And explosion in the chemistry class:
Professor: What happened? What have you done?
Student: Oh well you know, it just happened, it´s a brute fact.
Professor: Hm, yes, maybe you´re right.
Sounds silly doesn´t it? But Russell asks us for making an exception when it comes to the existence of things period. Not just stating that the origin of everything isn´t understandable to us (which is uncontroversial), but that there is no explanation at all.
Added Note: I recognize Bertrand Russell as a phenomenal philosopher of logic and mathematics and don´t want to diminish any of his accomplishments. He certainly was very important. However, in the philosophy of religion, he was absolutely hopeless. He was one of those people who thought that the cosmological argument from motion stated that “everything has a cause”. In other words, he didn´t bother to read the primary literature.
Another point: A brute fact has no explanation in principle, neither for its existence nor for its attributes. However, if that were the case we would hae trouble to explain why the universe so far as we have and will explore it, seems to be built on a rational basis. Why are we able to formulate correct predictions about e.g. particles like the Higgs-Boson, with our mathematical models? Why is there something we recognize as logic? Not only the origin of those things aren´t understandable, but also the fact that it would require a rational order, which, most importantly, holds up in the sense that it doesn´t seem to collapse, to have its origin in an inexplicable fact which doesn´t even relate to that rational order. I think it is save to conclude that if that were the case, we wouldn´t have made the scientific progress, we have already done or will be doing in the future.
And for the quick summary: The being which is purely actual, whose existence is selfexplanatory and which is absolutely simple, is what we call God, because of the attributes which necessarily has to be ascribed to it by it being purely actual. This God of the philosophers can be identified with the God of the bible, because they complete each other. What we identified here is not merely a principle, but it necessarily has to have an intellect, because of the potentialities rooting in it, it is omniscient and omnipotent. And this is how the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and several Protestant denominations understand God and the way he has been understood by the great thinkers of the church. And it is also what we can recognize about God through pure rationality. Of course this isn´t in the least bit threatening to the picture of the God we saw through revelation. But, and that is most important to the topic here, he is ultimately presupposed if the metaphysical presuppositions applied by science are indeed correct.