I just showed you how something might exist of necessity, yet have a cause. — Bartricks

Can you read again what you just wrote, please?

False. Contingency and necessity are logical categories but don't apply to external things — Gregory

Were you trying to say that laws of logic don't necessarily apply outside our minds?

I see no reason to think that the absence of a cause makes something exist of necessity, rather than contingently. — Bartricks

This is very bad,man.... because contingency means that the very self of the thing is not sufficient for existence and that essentially requires an external cause for the existence, otherwise the existence will have no cause at all which I don't think I need to clarify that it defeats logic.

at least one thing has no cause of its existence - yes? — Bartricks

Yes

Do we agree that any existing thing has to be either contingent or necessary?
If yes,do we agree that if God is contingent,then He has a cause?

if God is a necessary existent, then God does not exist. — Bartricks

Do you mind if I asked you about your religion?

Anyway,the purpose of this discussion was to talk about weather Avicenna's proof is valid or not. Discussing God's attributes and what to believe and what to not believe about him is another topic

False. Contingency and necessity are logical categories but don't apply to external things — Gregory

The universe could be groundless and also NEITHER contingent or necessary. — Gregory

Hmmmm....no...a big No...the universe exists externally.. therefore the universe has to be either contingent or necessary not because I say so, It's because of logical essence.

That's why I thought you will be surprised.... you're extremely unfamiliar with Islamic philosophy and islamic scholars' belief in God.....and I think the thiests you mentioned are the ones who are very far from logic and philosophy because one can never believe that logic laws are authored by God or that God's omnipotence requires being above pure logic....the problem is that I found that even you believe that a God that is not above logic Lacks omnipotence and this is really a serious problem.
Second: you have to realize that the quran is a guidance book for all people in all ages and in all circumstances and that it was meant to be generally understandable for ancient arabian tribes so you can never expect it to highly take care of the deep philosophical language you expect.
Third: if you think that avicenna didn't intend to prove God's existence by that proof then you're wrong because he immediately after proving the existence of the necessary being he made arguments for proving his uniqueness, simplicity, omnipotence (the correct one), sufficiency, knowledge,free will, absolute goodness and so on.

It's very impressive you know what kalaam is but actually no....this proof was composed by Avicenna who wasn't a kalaam (er) but was in fact an islamic philosopher, keeping in mind that islamic kalaam and islamic philosophy were in a continuous conflict.

I know it's gonna be a surprise for many people but in islamic philosophy,God(Allah) can do any logically possible thing but any logically impossible thing doesn't fall under God's ability and that's by the agreement of all islamic philosophers and islamic belief scholars.

Can we both agree that by "the chain" we mean nothing but the total collection of contingent things?
If yes,can we agree that the collection of the contingent things is different than the collection of the contingent things plus 10 additionary contingent things?
If yes this would mean that any slight change in the members of the chain will create a new chain or in other words,the chain's existence is dependent on every single member of it, therefore the chain is contingent.

No "thing" bigger than infinity
but
"""""Nothing""""""" is not bigger than infinity
In other words,
the no.of things that are bigger than infinity is zero,but the "nothing" itself (or 0 ) is not bigger than infinity.
The fun fact is that we can use the expression "nothing" to refer to two separate meanings:
1) nothing can mean: zero of things.
2) nothing can also mean: the "nothing" itself ,which in this case is the number 0.
So basically, your misusing of the language lead to the problem you showed.