The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

3. Therefore, not every Being in existence is a contingent being.
4. Specifically, the First Being in Existence exists Non-Contingently. 

1. So you assert with no support. 
(The very least you could do is tell us which logic you employ to come to that conclusion, AND how exactly you know that logic applies here). 
In WL Craig's debate with Cosmologist Sean Carroll, Carroll asked that question, (which one would think that someone with a website called "Reasonable Faith") 
would have answers  for, as there are a number of logics, and some of them, while being perfectly internally correct, do not "obtain" in reality).  
2. "First" is a temporal concept. One of the "properties" of your god is that it is timeless, (and what "existence" is in a timeless environment we have no clue), therefore your "4" is meaningless. 

This is a site of largely non-believers. 
Coming here and asserting your beliefs is very bad judgement, and horrible PR for your religion. 
I personally know many believers, but none of them lack such basic understanding. 

Nishant's arguments were worded very badly, and he was mixing up two or three different arguments together in a chaotic sense.
That said, are you thinking of contingent as:

1. dependent for its existence on something else, or
   
2. not necessary (i.e., it could've not existed instead or it could've existed in a different way instead)?
   

If 2, then saying that the universe is not contingent is going to be a rather extreme view. This suggests you may be a necessitarian maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

The concept of anything "necessary" with respect to any god, means the god is subject to the laws of Reality, and automatically excludes that deity from any 
consideration. A Reality in which the (supposed) creator of Reality is subject to anything ("necessary") demonstrates the creator is not the maker of a larger Reality, which obviously it didn't create. The question always comes back to a version of this : always the gods have properties. That's not possible if they create the very reality they are, and find themselves in. The question remains, "Where did Reality come from" ? It's like "Windows". Except there's always another higher folder to open.  
There is no coherent answer to this, which is why "Igtheism" is a good position. Atheism is unnecessary, until there is a coherent definition of a god, 
there is no reason to take a position with respect to "gods". "Apositionarianism". I made that up.

Theism is nothing but anthropomorphic projection.