A necesary Being

This came off of a forum I visit. I thought it was very interesting:
"First of all it makes no sense to say that Existence is contingent, Because that would mean that existence could fail to exist, which is logically contradictory to the nature of existing.
In order for something to fail to exist, there must first be such a thing as that which we call existence; and that must be eternally true.

Secondly, one cannot say that existence is a dimension, even though existence permeates all things; for, a dimension can only be dimensional because there is such a thing as Existence. You cannot say that dimensions are greater (more necesary) then existence, because that would mean that existence is contingent upon dimension; which makes no logical sense because there must first be such a thing as existence before anything can be any particulor thing. Hierarcaly
speaking, existence is greater than any dimension, for dimension is contingent upon existing. Therefore it is not reasonable to say that dimension and existence is one and the same in nature, because physical dimensions, so fars they are actual moving bodies, do not have to exist in any particulor sense, and only exist because there is something that causes such things to exist.
Out of nothing comes nothing. The ultimate reality is not a physical dimension.

In any case, like i said in the first paragraph, in order for anything to come into being in the first place, there must first be something that is ultimate,
uncaused, and eternal. In other words, something that cannot fail to be. A necesary being.
One cannot simply say that a necesary being is the first being. A necesary being must also sufficiently explain its own existence by its own nature, and
must also sufficiently explain the realities that it produces. It must be incorruptible and uncaused. Thus, and infinitely long chain of contingently created
beings, can never sufficiently explain itself. The nature of "space-time" and energy, does not fit the bill because these realitys are contingent on being caused and thus are not sufficient in explaining why the universe exists. So unless you are willing to say that motion came from nothing, then you must
accept that there is a timeless uncaused cause."