An infinite substance exists and exists alone

D. E. QFor the sake of clarity, I'm not going to use Pro's line-by-line rebuttal style. Let's keep it simple and start with the main point that both Pro and I agree on:Either an infinite substance DOES have a positive reason for existence (and therefore exists), or it does NOT have a positive reason for existence (and therefore does not exist). Therefore, (following Pro's own modal reasoning) in order to win the debate, Pro must either show that. .. -- an infinite substance has a positive reason for existence, or-- it is impossible for an infinite substance to lack a positive reason for existencePro opted for the latter route, but he did not successfully affirm that. Instead, he showed that it is impossible for an infinite substance to have a positive reason for non-existence. Allow me to emphasize that there is a HUGE difference between. .. a positive reason for non-existenceanda lack of positive reason for existenceThese are blatantly dissimilar concepts. A lack of positive reason for non-existence does not preclude the possibility of non-existence. Yet this is the only thing which Pro ended up demonstrating. On the other hand, a lack of lack of positive reason for existence (read: positive reason for existence) DOES preclude the possibility of non-existence via Law of Non-Contradiction. Pro did not successfully demonstrate this for an infinite substance. This debate comes down to what Pro THINKS he has proven versus what he has ACTUALLY proven. Consider Pro's statement:"I showed that there can be neither an external nor internal cause of an infinite substance's nonexistence"If we translate this in accordance with his R3 clarification we get:"I showed that there can be neither an external nor internal lack of reason for an infinite substance's existence"What exactly does this even mean? How can a "lack of cause" be external or internal? A "lack of cause" is non-existent, and therefore cannot have the quality [predicate] of being either externally-existent or internally-existent. In fact, it cannot be existent at all! Pro's statement literally only makes sense if it is referring to a positive reason for non-existence. Moreover, just take a look at Pro's opening round. He argued that-- there are no internal contradictions in the idea of an infinite substance-- an infinite substance is everything, so there's no such thing as "external" in relation to itAn internal contradiction is not a "lack of reason". It is clearly a positive reason for non-existence. The second point is a clever semantic trick which prohibits any outside entity from restricting the substance's existence. Again, this is refuting the possibility of an actually-existent positive reason for non-existence. So, in conclusion, Pro did not even attempt to argue that a "lack of positive reason for existence" is impossible. Both of his proofs instead show that a positive reason for non-existence is impossible, which is irrelevant. We can concede both proofs, and he still wouldn't have fulfilled his burden because even if nothing is forcing the infinite substance into non-existence, it is still possible that the substance does not exist (since it doesn't necessarily fulfill the PSR's condition). Ultimately, the only way to conclusively prove that the infinite substance cannot lack a positive reason for existence is. .. showing that it has a positive reason for existence. No amount of word-play can get around it. Pro's burden of proof is not fulfilled.