a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. so it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself.
given the cosmological argument, the universe must have a beginning. the notion that the universe's origin came about by the random forming of particles in space, there must have been something to first put those particles there. whatever that something is, it must exist outside of time and always exist, lest you get into a series of arguments going further and further back until you have infinite regress.
example: the being 'linda' created all the particles that formed the earth, but who created linda? the being 'bill' created linda, but who created bill? etc. the argument goes on forever until there is a beginning, which was initially required according to the cosmological argument.