An infinite substance exists and exists alone

My opponent's analysis of the PSR fails due to the fact that he does not capture half of the principle. The PSR does not merely state that everything which exists must have a cause, but that everything which has a cause must exist (quoting an unchallenged claim from round one: "anything which can exist must exist"). In this way, there are really two claims being made by the PSR:"If an object exists, then it must have a reason for its existence""If an object has a reason for its existence, then it exists"Alongside their contrapositives: "If an object does not have a reason for its existence, then it does not exist""If an object does not exist, then it does not have a reason for its existence"This is important because the latter contrapositive makes clear that no nonexistents have causes, and, thus, a necessary aspect of being nonexistent is being causeless.From this, my case can be defended without much work. Quoting R1: "Something which does not exist does not exist because it is absent from "logical space" (the field of all possibilities)." It is obvious that if something is possible it must exist (as proven multiple times), so something which does not exist must not be possible. This entails that logical space"Pro defines a "cause" as a "quality which makes one more conducive to actualization". It is patently absurd to suggest that a non-existent object can possess a quality because qualities are only meaningful insofar as they relate to a subject"I have never claimed that nonexistents have causes. In fact, I spent my previous round dispelling that notion. I have said that nonexistents have causes of nonexistence, which can be conceptualized as the lack of causes, and, as such, are not positive qualities at all - they are negations of causes, so they need not be predicable of the subject. It is said that nonexistents "have" causes of nonexistence, not because such causes are qualities inherent in them, but rather because, as my opponent so helpfully points out, nonexistents cannot have causes of existence. When I say that x has a cause of nonexistence, I merely mean that the state of affairs is such that x does not have a cause of existence, and the reason for this lack of a cause is what is important here, meaning that my opponent's argument is irrelevant, as the reason for a lack of a cause is something which exists independently of the nonexistent in question, and has causal effects on logical space, not on the nonexistent. I made a point to make this clear in my first round: causes of nonexistence must be restrictions on logical space, first and foremost. In other words, one must find the cause of causelessness, which is merely a direct application of the PSR to a lack of cause, and, since my opponent has already ceded that the PSR is valid, he must allow this. "The more plausible (and prima facie obvious) explanation is that non-existence is the default state. It is existence which requires a cause in order to escape that default state"Unsubstantiated."Pro has yet to demonstrate such a cause for his "infinite substance. Just because it lacks a reason for non-existence doesn't automatically mean it exists."I have shown clearly that there is no way for there not to be such a cause. If there exists no possible reason for something not to exist, then that thing obviously has a cause, for a lack of a cause is a reason for something not to exist. I have eliminated the possibility that an infinite substance does not exist, and the only alternative left is that it must. Let me clarify my argument: a cause of existence is merely an allowance for the actualization of a possibility, and a cause of nonexistence is the lack of such an allowance. "Remember the contrapositive of the PSR -- "If an object does not have a reason for its existence, then it does not exist."I plead that my opponent remember the second half of this contrapositive: "If an object does not exist, then it does not have a reason for its existence."My argument, simply put, runs as follows: P.1) If an object does not exist, then it does not have a reason for its existenceJustification: Contrapositive of the PSR which my opponent has admitted to accepting in full ("I'm going to go ahead and agree with everything Pro said about the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)")P.2) An infinite substance does not lack a reason for its existenceJustification: R1C.) An infinite substance existsQ.E.D.