I wrote this out early in the morning with no sleep before I forgot. Bear with me through the grammer. Is something sounds confusing or something could easly throw off my whole idea and seems out of place just point it out.

This is about the first cause argument, but also some what lays out my idea of existence. The idea is really just the reaction to a bad argument that showed me how certain assumptions are false ones.

Links for basic knowledge:
Simple Break Down look here if you only look at one
Wiki
I suggest using Answers.com if you don't want to use Wiki
God's case

The first one is really all you need to know about but I'm going to point out a few thing and try to answer obvious questions.

The argument contradicts itself and tries to get away with it using special pleading. Really that is all you need to point out to counter the argument, however beefing it up with other evidence to the contrary of the basic ideas couldn't hurt. But what questions does such an argument raise? uh, besides that one.

1. If everything needs a cause how doesn't anything exist without contradicting the assumption?
Frankly this can't happen, either this idea of cause and effect isn't accurate or there is a cause without an effect. Note cause could be god, but so could my computer turning on. I would think it would be similar and not contradictory to examen this cause and effect relationship idea.

2. Why does cause and effect appear to happen then?
Well everything existing can effect other things. While no effect doesn't mean no existing, it certainly doesn't mean such a thing exists. Really if it is existing and not effecting us we wouldn't know. But where does cause come in? If there is and effect there is a cause right? I would agrue there is really only interactions among everything. To focus on one thing and examen things in general we have to "boil down" the effects and causes.

This isn't a new idea, this is what science does so it can get answering the "local question" without dealing with all the others at one time. I is kind of like assuming someone or something caused a murder in order to solve it. This also deals with reality as a perspective. We can't see the full picture at one time so we have to simplify things in order to understand them, in some cases just to live, like this cause and effect idea.

Lets say I want to eat so I'm going to go down stairs and eat, however there are all sorts of other factors and effects then just the cause(things done to eat) and effect(eating). Now if we considered all that when we wanted food we would die and presumably that would make people sad. Yes the sad part isn't really that important, but dying might be.

3. Does existence need a cause?
Well honestly we really wouldn't know if we needed on as we wouldn't exist, but it could be we don't know the cause. In short we don't know through clear hard evidence, but we can narrow things down a bit. If you look into philosophy you probably had deal with idea of existence, if you haven't please post a blog explaining how this is possible. Really this is the most basic question, but I'm going to focus on some ideas from a guy you would probably think was nuts if you heard certain parts of his theory.

I'm talking about Parmenides and in short he says we can't trust what we sense(see, touch, feel, taste, smell) so throw it and change can't happen. Really what he ends up with isn't that important. What is important however is what he used to get there. Now the sense thing deals with how to obtain knowledge and is important, but not for this in particular. The part about change is what I'm going to look at.

Parmenides said if nothing turns nothing or something turns to something there is no change. I'll get back to the somethings later on. Nothing turning to something or something turning to nothing is impossible. Well why is that? It is really a self defeating question to ask this changing of existing. To say a thing comes from nothing you are saying it is magically appearing. To say a thing goes into nothing you are saying it is magically disappearing. The nothing to nothing is important because we wouldn't know and the thing doesn't exist to begin with. So now we are to something turning to something. Parmenides leaves out the rearrangement of the somethings so change can happen here, but it is really the part I'm looking at something can't come from nothing if nothing exists period. Don't be fooled theist used such arguments too. Some have taken arguments like this and work out that souls must exist, but then what is a soul really and what stops it from just being our mind and mind interactions.

The First Cause argument could be using this kind of logic (nvm the other parts) at they are saying god always existed and that leads to all this stuff. So existing by itself does not need a cause, but rearrangement might. Well the next progression of thought is What could cause a rearrangement of thing or does the rearrangement just happen with no cause? (maybe even on a level we can't detect yet) Basically how does change occur. I really think science would have an answer, a semi-answer, or at least be working on this one.