The Proof from Contingency/Necessity: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Xavier]

Here is an Argument from Contingency that demonstrates God's Existence in 4 simple steps:

1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
Examples of contingent beings include you and I, planets, stars, monkeys, elephants, trees etc. Each one of these contingently existing beings depends on earlier beings in order to exist. They are thus not the Ultimate Cause of Objective Reality but are part of Creation or contingent existence.
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
That this is so should be clear from the foregoing. If the chain of contingently existing beings went on forever, then we would never have arrived at the present moment, or the present series of contingent beings, in other words, you and I would never have existed. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings does not go on forever. But what is the alternative?
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
As in the well known science of modal logic, philosophers study the Possible and the Necessary, i.e. contingent Truths and necessary Truths, it is necessary now to distinguish between beings whose existence is a contingent Truth, and that One and Only Supreme Being Whose existence is the Necessary Truth that explains Ultimate Reality. God is truly the long sought after “Theory of Everything”, that makes sense of absolutely everything, as to why Reality exists in the first place.
Granted, therefore, that a chain of contingently existing beings cannot go on forever, as we logically proved in the last point, it stands to reason that this terminates at a Non-Contingently Existing Being, i.e. Necessarily Existent Being instead.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. Creator God. Therefore, God exists.
[A Necessarily Existent Being differs from contingently existing creatures. Its existence is Eternal/Permanent. It neither goes out of or comes into existence. This resembles the Creator God of traditional Judeo-Christian Revelation.]
And therefore, we have proved a Supreme Being exists, a Necessarily Existent Being, or Necessary Being, on whom all contingent beings depend. This is a logical proof of the existence of Almighty God. He exists as the One Supreme Being, the Only Necessary Being, on whom all other contingent or subordinate beings depend.
Summary of the Argument:
1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. a Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

[Dānu]

Here is an Argument from Contingency that demonstrates God's Existence in 4 simple steps:

1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
Examples of contingent beings include you and I, planets, stars, monkeys, elephants, trees etc. Each one of these contingently existing beings depends on earlier beings in order to exist. They are thus not the Ultimate Cause of Objective Reality but are part of Creation or contingent existence.
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
That this is so should be clear from the foregoing. If the chain of contingently existing beings went on forever, then we would never have arrived at the present moment, or the present series of contingent beings, in other words, you and I would never have existed. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings does not go on forever. But what is the alternative?
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
As in the well known science of modal logic, philosophers study the Possible and the Necessary, i.e. contingent Truths and necessary Truths, it is necessary now to distinguish between beings whose existence is a contingent Truth, and that One and Only Supreme Being Whose existence is the Necessary Truth that explains Ultimate Reality. God is truly the long sought after “Theory of Everything”, that makes sense of absolutely everything, as to why Reality exists in the first place.
Granted, therefore, that a chain of contingently existing beings cannot go on forever, as we logically proved in the last point, it stands to reason that this terminates at a Non-Contingently Existing Being, i.e. Necessarily Existent Being instead.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. Creator God. Therefore, God exists.
[A Necessarily Existent Being differs from contingently existing creatures. Its existence is Eternal/Permanent. It neither goes out of or comes into existence. This resembles the Creator God of traditional Judeo-Christian Revelation.]
And therefore, we have proved a Supreme Being exists, a Necessarily Existent Being, or Necessary Being, on whom all contingent beings depend. This is a logical proof of the existence of Almighty God. He exists as the One Supreme Being, the Only Necessary Being, on whom all other contingent or subordinate beings depend.
Summary of the Argument:
1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. a Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

If every contingent being depends upon a prior being for its existence, then the first cause existed prior to the universe. In order for the first cause to exist "prior" to the universe, it must exist in time. If it existed temporally before the universe, then you have the problem of the first cause existing infinitely into the past which you have claimed can't happen. Premises one and two are in direct conflict. They can't both be true.

Additionally, 4 doesn't follow from 1-3.

[polymath257]

Here is an Argument from Contingency that demonstrates God's Existence in 4 simple steps:

1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
Examples of contingent beings include you and I, planets, stars, monkeys, elephants, trees etc. Each one of these contingently existing beings depends on earlier beings in order to exist. They are thus not the Ultimate Cause of Objective Reality but are part of Creation or contingent existence.
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
That this is so should be clear from the foregoing. If the chain of contingently existing beings went on forever, then we would never have arrived at the present moment, or the present series of contingent beings, in other words, you and I would never have existed. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings does not go on forever. But what is the alternative?
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
As in the well known science of modal logic, philosophers study the Possible and the Necessary, i.e. contingent Truths and necessary Truths, it is necessary now to distinguish between beings whose existence is a contingent Truth, and that One and Only Supreme Being Whose existence is the Necessary Truth that explains Ultimate Reality. God is truly the long sought after “Theory of Everything”, that makes sense of absolutely everything, as to why Reality exists in the first place.
Granted, therefore, that a chain of contingently existing beings cannot go on forever, as we logically proved in the last point, it stands to reason that this terminates at a Non-Contingently Existing Being, i.e. Necessarily Existent Being instead.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. Creator God. Therefore, God exists.
[A Necessarily Existent Being differs from contingently existing creatures. Its existence is Eternal/Permanent. It neither goes out of or comes into existence. This resembles the Creator God of traditional Judeo-Christian Revelation.]
And therefore, we have proved a Supreme Being exists, a Necessarily Existent Being, or Necessary Being, on whom all contingent beings depend. This is a logical proof of the existence of Almighty God. He exists as the One Supreme Being, the Only Necessary Being, on whom all other contingent or subordinate beings depend.
Summary of the Argument:
1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. a Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

I disagree with 2. An infinite regress is not inconsistent with being here now. When you talk about 'getting here', I would ask 'from where'? Even in an infinite regress, there is only a finite sequence *between* any two events.

[brewerb]

Here is an Argument from Contingency that demonstrates God's Existence in 4 simple steps:

1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
Examples of contingent beings include you and I, planets, stars, monkeys, elephants, trees etc. Each one of these contingently existing beings depends on earlier beings in order to exist. They are thus not the Ultimate Cause of Objective Reality but are part of Creation or contingent existence.
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
That this is so should be clear from the foregoing. If the chain of contingently existing beings went on forever, then we would never have arrived at the present moment, or the present series of contingent beings, in other words, you and I would never have existed. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings does not go on forever. But what is the alternative?
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
As in the well known science of modal logic, philosophers study the Possible and the Necessary, i.e. contingent Truths and necessary Truths, it is necessary now to distinguish between beings whose existence is a contingent Truth, and that One and Only Supreme Being Whose existence is the Necessary Truth that explains Ultimate Reality. God is truly the long sought after “Theory of Everything”, that makes sense of absolutely everything, as to why Reality exists in the first place.
Granted, therefore, that a chain of contingently existing beings cannot go on forever, as we logically proved in the last point, it stands to reason that this terminates at a Non-Contingently Existing Being, i.e. Necessarily Existent Being instead.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. Creator God. Therefore, God exists.
[A Necessarily Existent Being differs from contingently existing creatures. Its existence is Eternal/Permanent. It neither goes out of or comes into existence. This resembles the Creator God of traditional Judeo-Christian Revelation.]
And therefore, we have proved a Supreme Being exists, a Necessarily Existent Being, or Necessary Being, on whom all contingent beings depend. This is a logical proof of the existence of Almighty God. He exists as the One Supreme Being, the Only Necessary Being, on whom all other contingent or subordinate beings depend.
Summary of the Argument:
1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. a Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

It amazes me, the hoops some people will jump thru to make their imaginary friend believable.

Can't argue a god into existence jack ass. What else do you have?

[Deesse23]

I am wondering when this spamming troll/preacher will be stopped (looking at you, admins), because he wont stop by himself. Just like AF he will spam the forum with thread after thread, after thread. He will abuse AD as his soapbox. He clearly isnt interested in a honest conversation. Else there was enough to discuss in his first two threads. He has a mission and some scrips, and he is going to mercilessly apply them to this forum, spam wise. Evidence: He posted the Kalam, was asking for comments, and when criticized he pretended no (valid) comment/criticism was done and claimed to "move on".

He also claimed there is a "trans ideology", which may classify as hate speech, according to forum rules.

P.S.: Anyone knows if the universe/multiverse classifies as a "being"?

[Inkubus]

Deesse, I don't think you're entering into the spirit of things. Without the monkeys we have no circus. The scenario you describe is exactly the the way AD now works.

[SYZ]

Summary of the Argument:
1.      Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).
2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
3.      The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.
4.      And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. a Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

1.  Not so.  Absurd presupposition   -  non sequitur.

2.   "    "

3.   "    "

4.   "    "

At any rate, I don't think you understand the fullest meanings of the
word "contingent".

Your contingency in this case is based on the actuality of a supernatural
entity catalyzing everything in the Universe from some supposed "day one".

         

[brewerb]

Deesse, without the monkeys we have no circus. The scenario you describe is exactly the the way AD now works. 

I don't think you're entering into the spirit of things.

AD's version of the Book of Job?

[SaxonX]

Nope, a bunch of concepts and conditions you can't demonstrate hold outside,before or exist independent of the the universe. Sorry you don't just get to assert stuff you have to demonstrate it.

[LastPoet]

Why do you have to get in a forum full of mostly mature atheists, with a long verborhrea of pseudo philosophy?

Aren't you happy with your beliefs? What is missing?

Since you believe, you could concentrate on doing the right thing like volunteer to help the homeless, provide the most you can to your family, help an elderly person cross the road, etc...

Are you so blinded by your religion that you can't see the fall ahead of you?

This seems an internet thing, as for all the religious people here in Portugal, knowing that i am an atheist still say i am a good person, i help the ones that need. I respect them and their right to believe, as they do with my right to not believe. Who damaged you so much that, instead of having a decent conversation, you go to many forums trying to make yourself wise with half arsed arguments?

IMHO you are mostly trying to convince yourself, that you are so smart to beat atheists. Very well, take it and fuck off, you brought nothing to the table. The believers I know personally were kind and moved on. You should try that, to have an honest talk someday. Your god might know it would be good for ya.

[Edible crust]

Deesse, I don't think you're entering into the spirit of things. Without the monkeys we have no circus. The scenario you describe is exactly the the way AD now works.

Get rid of the monkeys!
There's plenty of clowns to keep the circus going.

[jerry mcmasters]

Why do you have to get in a forum full of mostly mature atheists, with a long verborhrea of pseudo philosophy?

Aren't you happy with your beliefs? What is missing?

I think the charitable answer would be Christianity is an evangelical religion, so to take it at its own word there should be an obligation to try to convert others to save them from Hell or whatever.  I doubt that's what's going on in these cases though, probably it's just basic human seeking of stimulation and interaction with others.

[Astreja]

Xavier, you cannot philosophize a god into existence.

Show us the actual god, in the physical world, or STFU.

[Reltzik]

2.      It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.
That this is so should be clear from the foregoing. If the chain of contingently existing beings went on forever, then we would never have arrived at the present moment, or the present series of contingent beings, in other words, you and I would never have existed. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings does not go on forever. But what is the alternative?

I'm going to stop right there, because this is the second time you've hit us with this no-infinities-allowed business.  There's more wrong with the argument than just this, but I want to get this one sorted out before we run into it a third time.

Why is an infinite chain of contingencies impossible?

You say we would never have arrived at the present moment... from WHICH moment?  Oversimplifying a bit by mapping this onto a discrete set like the integers, if we're currently at moment t=0, with moments t=1, 2, 3, etc somewhere in the future and t=-1, -2, -3 etc in the past, why could we not have arrived at t=0 from, say, t= -3?  From t= -100?  Which moment could we never have arrived at this moment from?

[Gwaithmir]

It seems to me that #2 is somewhat moot, since before the universe expanded from its zero point, there was no time. Anyway, I leave stuff like this to professional cosmologists, not to scientifically unqualified theologians.

[Xavier]

Reltzik: Ok. You could never have arrived at the present moment by starting from t=-∞ (infinity). Please explain how, by successive addition of temporal moment to moment, or finite steps, you would get from -infinity to ANY finite number, let alone 0,1,2,3 today etc. I'll wait.

However, the argument here does not even require that. It just requires that (1) every being in existence cannot be dependent on a prior being. (2) some being will have to be able to exist without dependence on a prior being (3) this being exists necessarily, not contingently.

Here's a Mathematical Form of the Contingency Argument:

(1) Let each contingently existing being consider himself Bn
(2) Then, because he exists contingently, he depends for his existence on a prior being Bn-1.
(3) Now, Bn-1 likewise, if it is contingent, depends on Bn-2.
(4) Nevertheless, this series cannot go on until Infinity.
(5) At a certain time, we will arrive at a B1, the First Being in existence, and
(6) since there is no "zeroth" Being or B0, B1 exists Necessarily, i.e. is not a contingent being, since He exists without dependence on a prior being (no B0).
(7) Therefore, B1, the First Being in existence, is the Necessarily Existent Being God.

Danu:

"If every contingent being depends upon a prior being for its existence, then the first cause existed prior to the universe.

Agreed.

In order for the first cause to exist "prior" to the universe, it must exist in time.

 

Denied. The First Cause existed timelessly, i.e. eternally before the Universe, i.e. space time began.

If it existed temporally before the universe, then you have the problem of the first cause existing infinitely into the past which you have claimed can't happen. Premises one and two are in direct conflict. They can't both be true.

The argument was not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that one cannot be formed by successive addition. God was not formed, for e.g. by the successive addition of finite power to finite power, or finite moment to finite moment. Christian Theism has never held that.

Additionally, 4 doesn't follow from 1-3.

Please explain why. A necessarily existent being, unlike contingent beings, never began to exist, by definition of necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in the past. Again, a necessarily existent beings, unlike contingent beings (and the contingent universe, in the proposed Big Crunch), will never cease to exist, since that is incompatible with necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in both the past and the future. So which part of being Eternal are you claiming does not follow from being Necessary?

Also, the argument is not "arguing" or "philosophizing" God into existence, anymore than one "philosophizes Gravity into existence". It is using a logical argument that demonstrates a Necessary First Being must exist just like Gravity must exist.

Just a pleasant Debate. No need for anyone to be offended. God Bless.

[Astreja]

Here's a Mathematical Form of the Contingency Argument... {snip}

Mathematics can't demonstrate the existence of gods either, Xavier.  The logic of the Contingency Argument fails the moment you try to jump to "Therefore, God."   It doesn't even demonstrate a first being, let alone an eternally-existing super-powered being known for drowning planets, killing firstborn, and committing sexual assault on a betrothed young woman so that it would have a fall guy for the CruciFiction (a.k.a. the Passover Long Weekend Inconvenience).

[Reltzik]

Reltzik: Ok. You could never have arrived at the present moment by starting from t=-∞ (infinity). Please explain how, by successive addition of temporal moment to moment, or finite steps, you would get from -infinity to ANY finite number, let alone 0,1,2,3 today etc. I'll wait.

I can't, and I don't need to.

I don't maintain there was such a thing as t=-∞.  I implicitly said there wasn't when I indexed t with the integers, because -∞ is not a member of the set of integers.  Yet the integers are still infinite.

The key point here is whether you can identify a lower bound on t.  For any particular t = k of your choosing, how would you be able to demonstrate that there was no t = j such that j < k?  How would you be able to demonstrate that there was no contingency upon which k depended?

Without a mechanism to do that, you don't have the tools to prove a finite chain.

Are you of the belief that ruling out an actual infinity, without ruling out a potential infinity, is sufficient to show something to be finite?

I asked you a question in your Kalam thread, and I'll ask it again here: Do you know the difference between potential and actual infinity?

However, the argument here does not even require that. It just requires that (1) every being in existence cannot be dependent on a prior being. (2) some being will have to be able to exist without dependence on a prior being (3) this being exists necessarily, not contingently.

Here's a Mathematical Form of the Contingency Argument:

(1) Let each contingently existing being consider himself Bn
(2) Then, because he exists contingently, he depends for his existence on a prior being Bn-1.
(3) Now, Bn-1 likewise, if it is contingent, depends on Bn-2.
(4) Nevertheless, this series cannot go on until Infinity.
(5) At a certain time, we will arrive at a B1, the First Being in existence, and
(6) since there is no "zeroth" Being or B0, B1 exists Necessarily, i.e. is not a contingent being, since He exists without dependence on a prior being (no B0).
(7) Therefore, B1, the First Being in existence, is the Necessarily Existent Being God.

It's the step from point 4 to point 5 that I've been taking issue with.  The series can't go on to infinity, but it doesn't need to go on until there's an actual Bn-∞.  It just needs to have no lower bound.  If you're going to use a mathematical concept like infinity, use a mathematical definition of infinity.  Preferably a definition formulated since set theory got developed.  Definitely something other than Aristotle's philosophical actual infinity / potential infinity / finitude trilemma that you're invoking without realizing that it's a trilemma.  (Or maybe you do realize it's a trilemma and you're just hoping that we won't.  That particular type of ambiguity is one of the more telling things about dealing with religious apologists.)

But also, I've also got a big problem with using the vague and ripe-for-equivocation term "Being" here, especially when you are hinting at personhood with the pronoun "he".  You also haven't ruled out a multiplicity of non-contingent items (which would make less of a chain and more of a multitree).

(I might also take issue with in you assuming a well-ordered chain, ruling out a bound but open interval, but I invited you glossing over that point when I oversimplified matters by choosing the integers rather than the reals or some other densely-ordered set, so I won't complain about it now.)

And chuck out point 7 entirely as blank assertion.  Even if you prove a the existence of a singular necessarily existent being, that doesn't make it God.  If that hypothetical original contingency (and original cause, to rope that argument into all of this) were the mythical Cosmic Egg, then it would not be the thing you Christians call God, and you've done nothing to demonstrate it was.  Even if you were to have earned an inch by getting to point 6, that doesn't mean you get gifted a mile in the form of point 7.  I pounced on the jump from point 4 to point 5 because I have a strong math background and its misuse rankles me, but the jump from point 6 to point 7 reeks of apologist self-entitlement to such a degree that someone thinking I would swallow it whole is just insulting.

[Minimalist]

I found his science test courtesy of Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/4th-gr...ence-quiz/

An image purportedly showing a "4th Grade Science Quiz" hit the Internet in April 2013, showing a classroom test entitled "Dinosaurs: Genesis and the Gospel" and consisting of several true/false and short-answer questions about dinosaurs and the Bible, which a student had all answered correctly in accordance with religious Young Earth creationism (rather than scientific) principles:

They are idiots.

[SaxonX]

Math and Logic  that makes assumptions based on rules within the universe again you actually need to show any of these concepts apply before the universe or outside it or totally independent of it  .If you can't do this all your math is as dust as it's built foundational assumptions that only apply within the universe and  no simply defining it into necessity doesn't make it so.

[Dānu]

Danu:

In order for the first cause to exist "prior" to the universe, it must exist in time.

 

Denied. The First Cause existed timelessly, i.e. eternally before the Universe, i.e. space time began.

You can't deny it without justification after having used the word "prior" -- either prior meant temporally or it meant something else; if not temporally, then you need to supply the alternative.

Simply saying "denied" is ipse dixit and therefore invalid. What is wrong with you that you think you can just say "denied" and unpleasant facts go away?

If it existed temporally before the universe, then you have the problem of the first cause existing infinitely into the past which you have claimed can't happen. Premises one and two are in direct conflict. They can't both be true.

The argument was not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that one cannot be formed by successive addition. God was not formed, for e.g. by the successive addition of finite power to finite power, or finite moment to finite moment. Christian Theism has never held that.

As I pointed out at AF, nobody is saying that either series formed by successive addition; that is an invalid argument because it implies that the series was at some point finite and then became infinite through successive addition. That's not how infinite series work and so your argument embodies a false assumption that the series was at some point finite. That's not a valid starting point. Once finite, always finite; once infinite alwas infinite. By arguing that you're adding to a finite series, you are basically just introducing an irrelevant red herring as operations on finite serieses have nothing to do with operations on infinite series. They're oil and water; you can't mix the two.

Additionally, 4 doesn't follow from 1-3.

Please explain why. A necessarily existent being, unlike contingent beings, never began to exist, by definition of necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in the past. Again, a necessarily existent beings, unlike contingent beings (and the contingent universe, in the proposed Big Crunch), will never cease to exist, since that is incompatible with necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in both the past and the future. So which part of being Eternal are you claiming does not follow from being Necessary?

1-3 establish a first cause. They do not establish any characteristics of that first cause. It could be a god, it doesn't necessarily have to be a god; it can be something completely different.

[SYZ]

... Just a pleasant Debate. No need for anyone to be offended. God Bless.

Nope.  It's not been a "pleasant" debate at all since you started your
tsunami of bullshit—on an atheist forum of all places!  Christianity
per se doesn't particularly offend me, but your patronising attitude
certainly does.  You need to show more comity for this forum and its
members, and acknowledge that as atheists, our worldviews have just
as much right to be respected as do theists' viewpoints.

You spend far too much (all?) of your time here either proselytizing or
berating us and demeaning our opinions.  You need to understand that
as atheists, we don't really give a fuck about all the absurd links you post
in an ultimately fruitless effort to qualify your absurd religious beliefs.

    Please do us all a favour, and just go away.

[Paleophyte]

Here is an Argument

Arguments aren't evidence. Imagine that you're a prosecutor in a murder trial. You make brilliant arguments about why the defendant must have done the dastardly deed. Then the defense stands up and simply points out that there's no evidence that the alleged victim is even dead.

1. Every contingently existing being depends on a prior being for its existence (by definition).

This assumes that contingency is valid and not simply an artifact of our perspective. From our PoV it would appear that it is necessary to have raisins in order to get raisin bread. However, we have precisely one reality to draw conclusions from and it contains both raisins, bread, and raisin bread. As such, everything may exist necessarily simply by virtue of the fact that they do exist. To argue otherwise you'd have to demonstrate that it was possible for raisin bread to not exist where it clearly does. Much like arguing that the tail of the elephant is contingent upon its trunk.

2. It is therefore impossible for the chain of contingently existing beings to go on forever.

This is simply wrong. You're talking about a chain of contingency here, not temporal causality. It requires no time for A to depend on B, so an infinitely long chain of contingency is entirely possible.

3. The chain of contingently existing beings therefore ends at a Necessarily Existent Being.

Total non sequitur. Assuming the points above were correct, all it's done is shown that your chain of contingency must terminate in a Necessary fact. There's no evidence that it would be animate, intelligent, or in any way aware of your existence. In fact, as we follow the chain of contingency from you or me, we find that we arrive at progressively simpler and more insensate entities. We arrive eventually at energy and subatomic particles. That's not heading in the direction of a deity.

4. And this Necessarily Existent Being is Eternal, i.e. Creator God. Therefore, God exists.

Another total non sequitur. If the universe isn't eternal then there's no good reason to believe that all chains of contingency don't terminate with the extinction of the Necessary element.

Summary: Your argument is futile and missing a lot of steps.

[Rahn127]

As far as I know, awareness and intelligence only can come from a living brain.
That brain developed through a very long line of evolution and includes very small cells that did not have brains.

Intelligence from within a brain is dependent upon a natural world that exists prior to it's own existence.
Nature comes first, then intelligence can emerge from the soup of life.

As far as time goes, the present moment is all we have. It's an ever changing present moment. That's it. This moment could be eternal. I have no way of knowing if it is or not. There is no past. There is no future. There is only an ever changing present.

[Cavebear]

It amazes me, the hoops some people will jump thru to make their imaginary friend believable.

Can't argue a god into existence jack ass. What else do you have?

But isn't that what theists do?