Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Reforged]

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. :-)

I can prove cauchy-schwarz for infinite series without having proven it for finite series beforehand. Sometimes I can prove M is a differentiable manifold without having first proven it's a topological manifold first. The path to a strong result need not plow through every weaker result first
So I still think the whole 'A has to be proven separately' point is bunk. If this 'necessity of existence' thing does need to be proven in some way the proof fails to address, that failure has to materialize in an invalid assumption or logical step in the proof (else why are we worrying about it?) so you should have no trouble picking one out. Unless you mean something very sideways by 'the necessity of existence' (what do you mean, btw?) this type of gripe doesn't pan out

tl;dr: Do your logic homework!

The invalid assumption you make is that existence is necessary. You have made no attempt to back this up.
If existence itself is necessary then it follows that the existence of a certain being would be necessary. I would of thought you'd jump at the chance to prove this.
I think things would go by quite nicely without the existence of anything. Boring yes but no-one would be around to complain.
What is existence necessary for? Why is a being necessary to spread it? To what end? Unless you have the answer to these questions how can you dare to claim the necessity for the existence of anything let alone the being you are trying to prove with this line of reasoning?

Also if a necessary being must exist then it follows that another necessary being must exist in order to create the aforementioned necessary being. Then another necessary being must exist to create that one and so on and so forth. If this is not the case and you wish to make the case a necessary being can just come into existence without another then why is a necessary being required in the first place? Whats to stop everything else that is supposed to have been created from doing the same?
This seems very poorly thought out and rife with assumption.