This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

The purpose of this debate is for my argument to be critiqued, to see if there are any flaws in it. Rules (for the voters to look at): 1. Definitions are non-binding, but encouraged (but the meaning in this first post is more-so binding). 2. One side may ask the other about definitions. If the other side fails to give an answer or one that makes any progress, then favor the side asking the question. If the definition-question is frivolous (e.g. define word), then favor the other side. However, the questioner can overcome the frivolous part if the questioner explains clearly enough why he asks if there is a possibility of it being frivolous, or the questioner gives their own guess to the definition (obvious frivolousness on the part of the questioner should favor the other side though). 3. No disparaging (to "regard or represent as being of little worth" (Google Dictionary) ) the other side unless it is used in the context of an argument, and then its use ought to be minimized (The purpose of this is to prevent ranting against the other side; I know that some people are passionate against the Christian God, but I want a more logical, organized debate). 4. I want a more logical, organized debate, so judge the content by how effective the logic is. 5. Excessive emotion (or emotion without developing one's argument, but merely restating it with emotion) shall favor the other side. 6. Rules may be changed if both sides agree, and on which rounds they apply to. The default for which rounds would exclude rules being applied retroactively. Here is my argument. (1) Cause-effect exists. (2) The cause-effect chain (in regards to existence of things) must be finite. (2a) Argument against the idea that it could be infinite: If one says that it occurs at infinity, I can construct a sequence of increasingly large chains of what the cause-effect chain is not equal too: { (c1), (c1, c2), (c1, c2, c3), "}. Since this goes on to infinity, it has the infinite cause-effect chain. However, this shows that the infinite cause-effect chain is not equal to itself, which is a contradiction of the identity principle. (2b) The only way I see that one can attack this chain I created is by stopping it at some point. However, if someone stops it at some point, then this means that it would be a finite chain. I could then add one cause to the finite chain and the chain would still be finite, meaning that it couldn't be stopped at that point. Another way of saying this is that if someone stopped my chain at some point, it would be a finite chain, since it is bounded on both ends (start and finish), but that is what I am arguing to begin with, so one can't stop my chain without admitting I am right. (3) If the cause-effect chain is finite, then it must start somewhere (label it "First Cause"). (4) Now, I can always ask what caused a thing if it came into existence at some point in time (A thing can't cause itself to exist, because it would have to have already existed, but then it couldn't cause its own existence then because it already exists). (4a) Therefore, the First Cause would have to always have existed (and so it couldn't get it's existence from something else) (the First Cause would also have to be outside time, but this isn't important in the current argument, and I will explain this point if I include it later on, so don't worry about it). (5) However, the only way that a thing wouldn't get its existence from something else is if it was Existence to begin with. (5a) It couldn't have the existence outside of itself, else there would be a previous cause for it's existence, since it didn't have the existence (Analogous to someone borrowing a book from someone else who had borrowed the book from the library) (www.peterkreeft.com, looking at the second argument for the Existence of God). (5b) So, since it must have Existence as an intrinsic, natural property, and since it is the cause of all things, it can itself be called Existence (www.peterkreeft.com, looking at the second argument for the Existence of God). (6) This Existence is also called "First Cause", which Christians (Catholics at least) claim it to be their God. Other properties can be deduced from this argument later on. The hardest part is successfully getting to this point, I would argue.