I got a logcial argument showing where I contradicted myself that consisted of 50 steps....
Don`t know what you are doing wrong 
Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:
I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.
2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)
3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')
4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)
5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)
7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])
8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)
9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)
10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.
[note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).
The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)
The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.
------
Now, i did not once contradict myself, analyzing all the logical argumentation presented by the site, it's factual that the site railroads you into a circular logic, whereas if you A) Affirm that it's not possible for C (an event that causes all contingent things to occur) to have a cause, or if B) You affirm that it's possible for C to have a prior cause (And it deliberately cites the Big Bang as an example), it will simply recur to the nature of a "Necessary Being" (One that by it's very nature necessarily exists).
Analyzing my own answers. Up to step 11, i have nothing to disagree with the logic therefore presented. It does leave an open possibility for existing a "Necessary Being", but the entire logic relies on the fact that the "Necessary Being" is, in fact, Necessary, and it's a fallacious premise when the site only actively answers you about *Possible* events, not *Necessary* events, and as such, the implication that the being is necessary is in itself being used to justify the existence of that very same being, only on the possibility that it actually exists.
It's not logic, but fallacious applicaiton of formal logic, because it's based on a previous fallacious premise.
I will show that now by presenting my different responses going from the basis of premise A)
-----
Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:
I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Necessarily, no cause of a member of an entire chain of causes is outside that chain. (by definition of 'entire')
2. Therefore, necessarily, an entire chain of causes is ungrounded. (by definition of 'ungrounded')
3. Necessarily, every concrete thing that is included in a chain of causes is included in an entire chain of causes. (by definition of 'chain')
4. Therefore, necessarily, every concrete thing that is included in a chain of causes is included in an ungrounded chain of causes. (by 1-3)
5. It is not necessary that every concrete thing is included in a chain of causes that is both infinite and ungrounded. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that is at a head of an entire chain of causes. (by 4 & 5)
7. Necessarily, any head of an entire chain of causes has no cause. (by definition of 'head')
8. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has no cause. (by 5 & 6)
9. There cannot be a contingent thing that has no cause. (by your report)
10. Therefore, it possible that there is a concrete thing that is not contingent. (by 8 & 9)
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).
The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)
The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.
-------
You see that the logic he uses is the same. It only ever recurs to the fact that the bein is in fact, Necessary, to prove that in the event that it's even remotely possible, then it therefore must exist.
EDIT: Yet another subset of answers, rebutted using the same logic. I deliberately argumented proactively to cause a situation where the only answer possible was the existence of a necessary being. Here's what i got:
Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:
I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.
2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)
3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')
4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)
5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)
7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])
8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)
9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)
10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.
[note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).
The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)
The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.
EDIT2: Responding every question with "I can't say" leads to:
Thank you for taking the survey. None of your reports imply that there is a Necessary Being, as far as I can tell.
-----
Ever more evidence for there being implict logical flaws leading to the circular logic argument to "prove" the existence of a necessary being.
