The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Bucky Ball]

There is NOTHING about "First Cause" in the argument. It's simply "cause". 

If we use the vocabulary that LadyforCamus suggests, I think it's clear why there has to be a first in the chain of essential causes. 

She suggests that the brute fact that things is exist is where we begin. I think that's a reasonable way to formulate the argument. 

Now, could there be anything prior to the brute fact that things exist? Is there something that could provide a foundation to the brute fact that things exist? I don't think so, because that thing would have to exist. So we'd have an existing thing resting as the foundation that things exist. And I don't think that makes sense. To make this work, you'd have to posit some kind of supernatural non-existent thing, and nobody here is fond of supernatural explanations. 

So I think it makes sense to talk about a first cause, in this sense.

I disagree. Along with existence is non-existence. 
Reality is more complex than "existence", (or could be). 
Where did non-existence come from.

---

The first cause "did something" they never go on to say how it did it or offer any evidence. Where did the immaterial being get the stuff? how did it start it? Just saying it did it seems to be enough for them.

In the Aristotelian and Thomist system, the First Cause takes no action. It is not an immaterial being.

Actually the Thomistic First Cause IS an immaterial being. It's his "god". 
In the Aristotelian system the "unmoved mover" (meaningless drivel) "that which moves without being moved') MOVES also .... ie "creates".
A being cannot "decide to create" and THEN "create" without at least mental movement, thus the entire argument is nonsense. 
Not only is this nonsense based on a total fallacy, (that which is observed in this universe, which Aquinas REPEATEDLY references, or appears to us to be intuitively true)  is how ultimate Reality works, That is patently false, and there are many examples .... Relativity, Uncertainty, and the tensors of Dirac. 
It appears you don't even get the basic elements of these arguments, to say nothing about what's totally wrong about them. 

Edit: This immaterial being is sentient, in the Thomistic model. It thinks. Therefore it moves and is moved by every passing thought, (which is preposterously ridiculous, in a model which calls it "unmoved"). Yeah, the old boys did a piss-poor job. Actually they knew nothing about a lot of important things, (acceleration, not "movement" requires energy), Relativity, neuroscience, etc. etc.