Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Reforged]

Neat linky, fun exercise. After ~3 run-throughs I managed to get a weaker result

Congratulations! Your answers appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that you have a (prima facie) reason to think that there is (more likely than not) a Necessary Being.

---

Here's how. It is not necessary that every concrete thing is included in a chain of causes that is both infinite and ungrounded (by your report). Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has no cause, either because it is a first member of a finite chain of causes or because it causally grounds, at least in part, a chain of all causes (other than itself).

Now as a rule of thumb, contingent things generally have a cause, or are more likely than not to have a cause (by your report). Therefore, you have a reason to think that a concrete thing that has not been caused to exist is (likely) not contingent; it is instead something that must (by nature) exist. Therefore, since it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has not been caused to exist (as just shown), you now have a reason to think it is (likely) possible for there to be a Necessary Being.

Therefore, since we stipulated that a thing that must, by nature, exist is something that would automatically exist were it possible for it to exist, it follows that there actually is something that must (by nature) exist, which is capable of causing something. In other words, there is a Necessary Being.

I recognize that you may have counter-reasons that defeat this implication.

---

Which I will consider a small victory for the anti-necessary being crowd.
Modal logic is tricky. Especially with necessary beings eating up all the 'possible' operators

If you can't prove existence itself is necessary how can you hope to prove a being must necessarily exist?
Without the assumption existence is necessary you can't make the claim a being can necessarily exist.

If he proves there is a necessary being, he has proven that something must necessarily exist. It's not like you have to prove A by itself before proving B just because A is a weaker statement than B.

That'd be like me saying flight doesn't have to be necessary but someone necessarily needs to fly flies. Claiming the latter must assume the former.

Which is why a proof of the latter also proves the former

You cannot prove the latter without first proving the former.
The former acts as a building block for the next claim, the latter does not prove the former. We can prove the former through the latter in the case of flight.
The case of a necessary being depends purely on "logic", there is no empirical evidence for this case at present. Fine, if thats what we're going by then thats what we're going by.
You must logically prove existence is necessary before claiming a being can necessarily exist and I don't think you can. :-)