On the PSR

I. Introduction: I'd like to propose an argument for the following thesis, PSR: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in its own necessity or in an external cause. PSR would have all kinds of neat implications in a variety of fields including the philosophy of religion. II. The Argument: Let X denote any arbitrary member of the domain of things that exist. 1. X has an explanation of its existence either in its own necessity or in an external cause. [Premise] 2. Therefore, everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in its own necessity or in an external cause. [(1), U.G.] Why believe premise (1)? Well, I've got two reasons. First, because, X is more likely to have an explanation of its existence given that it exists than that it does not. In other words, the very existence of X actually counts as evidence of its explicability. This is because P(X has an explanation of its existence|X doesn't exist) = 0, whereas P(X has an explanation of its existence|X exists) is (significantly) higher than 0. So, (1) is supported by incontrovertible evidence. Second, consider the following argument: 3. X either depends upon something other than itself in order to exist, or it does not. 4. If X depends upon something other than itself in order to exist, then X has an explanation of its existence in an external cause. 5. If X doesn't depend upon anything other than itself in order to exist, then X has an explanation of its existence in its own necessity. 6. Therefore, X has an explanation of its existence, either in its own necessity or in an external cause. [(3)-(5) Constructive Dilemma]

Premise (3) is just an instance of the law of excluded middle, and (4) is practically tautologous. But, why believe (5)? Aseity doesn't imply metaphysical necessity, does it? Well, yes, it does actually. If X depends on nothing other than itself in order to exist, then X doesn't need anything other than itself to satisfy its necessary conditions for existence. But, since X's necessary conditions for existence have been satisfiedas it belongs to the domain of things that existthese conditions must have been satisfied out of necessity or by X itself. However, X obviously couldn't have caused itself to exist! You have to exist in order to perform actions or participate in events. Thus, you'd have to exist logically prior to performing the action or participating in the event of causing yourself to exist. But, then, you already exist! Therefore, X must exist necessarily. III. Conclusion: So, we've got some good evidence for (1) as well as a pretty powerful deductive argument. On this basis, I think PSR is a well-supported claim, and that's beyond its intuitive plausibility.