This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[wakim]

... [T]here's nothing preventing the universe from being an unbroken, infinite set of causes and effects.... [T]here is no imperviously logical reason this is not the case. A first cause is not necessary.[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

You are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that a chain of events, even given its length to be great, or infinite, can begin without a beginning? I would think it more in accord with reason to suggest that without a first cause any chain of events, no matter how long, cannot exist, since without a first cause no subsequent effect can occur. It would seem contradictory to suppose that if effect must always follow cause that the first effect is uncaused, as then effect doesn't follow cause.

[A first cause] contradicts the argument that all things are caused, because they can't be, if something wasn't.
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

Forgive the brevity of this, but... effects are caused, causes aren't caused, if they were they'd be effects.

You'd be saying that "everything has a cause except this thing which must not have a cause."
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

Correct; and, a fortiori, that it is necessary that this be so.

Aside from being uncaused, and having somehow caused something else, there is no other necessary property of this entity. It could be the universe itself.
[right][snapback]98260[/snapback][/right]

As far as other necessary properties of such an entity, there logically follow a few after existence, but let's not wander to far from the point at hand - if one denies that there is a tree in one's backyard it would be pointless to argue whether it is an oak or a maple. Lastly: No, if the universe has a cause it cannot be itself, for then it would be uncaused.