my life (PSRb). Second, what is the meaning of the argument and how is it based on PSR? Premise (1) stems from Anselm's division of beings "into the three cases: 'explained by another [dependent beings],''explained by nothing,''and explained by itself [independent/self-existing being]'" (Rowe 22). The first rule of PSR holds that every being must have an explanation for its existence. A being that is "explained by nothing" violates this first rule, and as a result, is left out of premise (1). This allows for only two possible types of beings -- either dependent or self-existent. If you hold PSR to be true, them premise (1) is uncontroversial. Because it is an "either, or" statement, only one of the two types of beings needs to exist for the premise to be true. We know that there are at least dependent beings, so premise (1) is true. Premise (2) states that everything cannot be a dependent being. Why is this the case? William Rowe does an excellent job of explaining why if PSR is true, then premise (2) is also true. He (Rowe 24-25) says let's suppose that there has never been a self-existing being, but only an infinite series of dependent beings. In this series, every being has an explanation, because it is explained by the being that came before it and that caused its existence (follows with PSRa), but what caused the series? PSRb says that the fact that the series exists requires it to have an explanation, but if there have only existed dependent beings, the series will not have an explanation. "It won't do to say that As [where As equal dependent beings] have always been producing other As -- we can't explain why there have always been As by saying that there have always been As" (Rowe 25). Thus, a self-existing being is the only explanation for the series, and premise (2) is true. Thus, because premise (1) shows that there are only two kinds of beings (dependent or self-existent), and everything cannot be a dependen...
