Congratulations, you have proved whatever it is you wanted to prove. What did you want to prove?

6)the chain is made up of each single one of its members,in other words,the existence of members causes the chain to exist, therefore the chain is can not be necessary. — BARAA

This premise is problematic. It treats the chain as composite, but it might instead merely be divisible. The divisions might even be illusory.

Which would mean the members of the chain are contingent on the chain's existence, which can then be necessary.

I think it is a very good argument. Indeed, I think it is sound so long as we clarify that by 'necessary' what's really meant is 'self-explanatory'. (Existing 'necessarily' and existing in a self-explanatory way - that is, with 'aseity' - are subtly different, for something can, I htink, exist with aseity, yet also exist contingently.....God being one such thing.....for God exists with aseity, yet God can destroy himself if he so chooses and thus his existence is contingent).

So, everything that exists either has a nature that explains its existence (in which case it is self-explanatory), or it does not.

Those things whose existence is not self-explanatory obviously stand in need of explanation. And we cannot explain their existence by endlessly citing other things whose existence is not self-explanatory, as that simply delays the explanation.

Thus, all existing things that are not self-explanatory must have been caused to be by a thing or things that are self-explanatory.

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.

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.

isn't this a version of the Kalaam cosmological argument?

That's true of most contemporary theists - they believe omnipotence involves being able to do all things logically possible or some suitably qualified variation.

But that's not true omnipotence (as Descartes recognised). Such a god is constrained. But an omnipotent being cannot be constrained, for what, exactly, could constrain such a being? And a being who was not so constrained would be more powerful than one who was - yet to be more powerful than an omnipotent being is a contradiction in terms. So the idea that God's power is constrained by logic is thoroughly confused and modern theists should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting such things.

So, God is the author of the laws of logic. He must be. The author of the laws of logic has more power than a god who is constrained by those laws. Thus any god constrained by those laws is not omnipotent - for they have less power than the god whose laws they are.

Thus, God, being omnipotent, must be the author of the laws of logic. And, as such, God can do absolutely anything, including contradictory things, for their inconceivability is a function of no more than God's decreeing them so, a decree that he is not constrained by. Those who think otherwise are just confused.

That's the problem with introducing the notion of necessity. If God exists, nothing exists 'of necessity', for nothing constrains God and thus God can do anything, including destroying anything.

To believe in necessity is to believe that there exists a universe independent of God that has laws that constrain God. And again, that is confused - it reflects a failure to understand what true omnipotence involves.

God, then, being omnipotent, does not exist of necessity. He doesn't 'have' to exist and could choose not to if he so wished. That is clearly a being with greater power than one that had to exist, is it not?

God, then, exists contingently, as do all things given that there's nothing an omnipotent being cannot destroy if he so wishes.

This is entirely consistent with Avicenna's argument, or at least the spirit of it. For what's crucial to Avicenna's argument is the idea of things whose existence is explained by their natures, rather than things that require explanation by something else.

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.

And this is what the Koran says:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Allah! There is no God but He,
the Living, the Self-subsisting, the Eternal.
No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep.
All things in heaven and earth are His.
Who could intercede in His presence without His permission?
He knows what appears in front of and behind His creatures.
Nor can they encompass any knowledge of Him except what he wills.
His throne extends over the heavens and the earth,
and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them,
for He is the Highest and Most Exalted.

I'm not a muslim and nor am I familiar with the Koran, but a quick search revealed that passage. And it accurately characterises omnipotence. The scholars do not (at least not if they say that God is subject to the laws of logic - as most do, though with some notable exceptions). God is "self-subsisting". But that is not - not - the same as existing with necessity. And nowhere in that passage do we find any suggestion that God is subject to the laws of logic. His will is clearly unconstrained.

And here's Jesus on God's omnipotence:

“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Quite!

I suppose I should add that I am not questioning God's existence in denying that he exists of necessity. I think God demonstrably exists and there's no room for any reasonable doubt on the matter after it is suitably considered. Something doesn't exist 'more' if it is exists of necessity (though I think some people confusedly think that it does, and so insist God exists of 'necessity' as a way of expressing the strength of their belief in his actual existence).

It's Greek bias that say that "if God could destroy Himself He is not necessary". Eckhart maybe right said that (assuming God exists i say) God is all possibilities, even the possibility to not exist. Saying that God's nature constrains him to the "logical" and yet that he is all being sounds very loopy. In fact the idea of God becomes looping in many respects. Does God freely choose the good? If yes, than he can do sin. If no, than he wills freely and necessarily at the same time, an antimony humans cannot figure out. Does God strive or work? If it's effortless to be God, how is he powerful? How is he great? Again, it's Greek bias (platonism to be specific) the turned the Unity of Forms in a person (3 persons for Christians) and said "THIS is perfection!"

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.

People do often say the world is "contingent" and needs something spiritual and "necessary" to be its "ground of being. These might just be philosophical categories they are making up to make the existence of the universe more personal for them. The universe could be groundless and also NEITHER contingent or necessary. It would exist as a brute fact (just is, random, quaint) and if we have a sound scientific explanation for the past of the universe, that is all we would need. Necessity deals with abstract logic.

I believe God can do anything and that God does not exist of necessity, but I'm not Greek and I did not arrive at this belief via reading Greek philosophy.

If something exists of necessity, it cannot not exist, yes? But God is omnipotent and so he can destroy anything, including himself. Thus, neither he nor anything else exists of necessity.

As to your other questions, they are all easily answered. Does God freely choose the good? Not entirely sure what you mean, but assuming you mean 'does God freely decide to do good?' then the answer is just 'yes' (why would it be no? You say 'because then he can sin' - yes, what's the problem with that? Remember: we've just dispensed with necessity. So, he is not 'necessarily good', he's just 'good'. That's entirely consistent with being capable of doing wrong. God is entirely capable of doing wrong, it's just that he wouldn't be God if he did. But he's free to stop being God anytime he wants - he wouldn't be God unless that were so.

Does God strive or work? Not sure, but he certainly could if he wanted. Again, what's the problem?

You ask 'how is he great?' He fully approves of himself, that's how.

Does God strive or work? Not sure, but he certainly could if he wanted. Again, what's the problem?

You ask 'how is he great?' He fully approves of himself, that's how. — Bartricks

Everyone approves of themselves at times. Why does this make God special? Maybe yesterday he committed his mortal sin and is now Satan. Are you still going to follow him tomorrow?

We have writers on here going from Islamic conceptions to Zeus-like ideas. Why would anyone promote ideas about somebody who doesn't exist?

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.

You're just appealing to scholars and not addressing anything I argued.

I genuinely couldn't care less what the Koran or the Bible or Jesus says about anything, I was simply noting that they agree with me (and Descartes).

I care only about understanding God and God's omnipotence and to do that I am using the tool God gave me - gave all of us - to do it with, namely our reason.

God can do anything at all. And thus God can destroy anything and everything. Thus anything and everything exists contingently.

I know that Avicenna was trying to prove God, and like I say, I think his proof works. But it does not depend upon God being necessary, rather it depends on God's existence being self explanatory.

Hmmmm....no...a big No...the universe exists externally.. therefore the universe has to be either contingent or necessary not because I say so but because of logical essence — BARAA

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

It's impossible to prove the supernatural. I can claim there exists a fairy's butt in your nose but that would just be nonsense, the same nonsense that comes from theistic claims

Furthermore, how did this "God" become so good. He would have to act and be victorious BEFOREHAND in order to become good. People think that a divinity can just be all good without doing anything. That sounds ridiculous. Read Sartre please

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

Everyone approves of themselves at times. Why does this make God special? Maybe yesterday he committed his mortal sin and is now Satan. Are you still going to follow him tomorrow? — Gregory

I'm not God. I know, hard to believe - but I'm not. So I am not the author of the laws of Reason. Not, then, the author of the laws of logic, and not the author of the moral laws. Not, then, the author of the laws that constitutively determine what is, and is not good or bad, right or wrong.

And that's why, if I fully approve of myself, I do not thereby make myself great. Whether I am great or not is determined by attitudes other than my own - whether I am great or not, whether anyone is, is constitutively determined by what attitude God is adopting towards me, you, everyone.

God, however, is God. He 'is' the author of the moral laws. And God is omnipotent. And as God is omnipotent he can reasonably be expected fully to approve of himself. And as he fully approves of himself, and 'being approved of by God' is just what greatness consists in, he is therefore great.

For an analogy: if the chair of a committee says 'meeting adjourned' then the meeting is adjourned. Saying it makes it so. But if you say "meeting adjourned' that does not adjourn the meeting. Why? Because you're not its chair.

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

Yes, and I have argued that the argument is a good one, except that it mistakenly invokes the concepts of contingency and necessity, whereas the argument will only work if we talk about existences that need explanation and existences that do not.

I then explained why. The contingent does not need explaining by the necessary. The 'not self-explanatory' need explaining by the 'self explanatory'.

I noted too that if God is a necessary existent, then God does not exist. That is, the idea of God as a necessary existent contains a contradiction. For if God exists of necessity, then he is not omnipotent, in which csae he is not God.

So what I am doing is criticising Avicenna's argument - I am accepting that there is something to it, but then explaining why I think it needs amending. That's just what philosophy is about, is it not? We don't just report arguments, we assess them.

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

Do you mind if I asked you about your religion?

I'm a rationalist. I follow reason ruthlessly, and reason tells me that she is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being - that is, God. So I believe in God, but on the basis of a beautiful argument, which it turns out is to believe in God by listening to God.

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?

Yes, I agree - because it is self-evident to reason - that any existing thing has either to exist contingently or necessarily.
But no, God exists contingently but does not have a cause of his existence.

To follow on, we know that not everything that exists has a cause of its existence, for otherwise we would have to posit infinite causes.

So we know by the light of reason that if anything has a cause of its existence, at least one thing has no cause of its existence - yes?

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

Yes