The rationalist demand for sufficient reason is an exacting standard any necessary-existence argument has to meet on its own terms. Applied to T, S, and Φ, the demand takes three forms (a contrast demand, an origin demand, and Pruss's modal refinement). The replies below grant the Leibnizian point freely. A rationalist argument that terminates in a brute fact has betrayed its own standard, and a conclusion terminating in brute necessity would betray the standard this argument was raised under. The argument does not so terminate. It terminates where the demand itself runs out of contrast.

(Leibniz, G. W., (1714) 1989) gives the demand its canonical form: nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise. (Pruss, Alexander R., 2006) has given it the most rigorous contemporary defense: if every contingent fact has an explanation, the chain must terminate in something whose existence is not contingent. The demand is not parochial; it is the demand that reality be intelligible all the way down.

Applied to this argument, it presses that T∧S∧Φ obtaining necessarily is itself a fact about reality, and facts about reality are subject to the PSR. If the necessity is brute, the argument has violated its own commitment. If it is grounded, whatever grounds it stands outside or beneath structure as the true necessary ground. Three forms of the objection are taken up below.

*First.* The contrast demand presses that without a reason why the structure obtains rather than not, the argument has merely relocated bruteness from physics to metaphysics, and a brute necessity is not more intelligible than a brute contingency, only more deeply hidden.

The demand presupposes a contrast the argument has already foreclosed. 'Why structure rather than not?' supposes that ∅ is a coherent alternative whose non-obtaining requires explanation. As [§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>) establishes, ∅ is not: nothing individuates it, nothing distinguishes its obtaining from its non-obtaining, nothing for any description to attach to. The PSR demands a reason for obtaining rather than not obtaining; where the 'not obtaining' side is incoherent, the demand does not find a gap but fails to articulate one. The question presupposes a contrast its own terms cannot sustain.

*Second.* The origin demand grants the ∅ result but presses for a beginning: even if ∅ is incoherent as a state, the structure must have begun, and there must be some account of why T, S, and Φ obtain now rather than a prior arrangement.

The demand, on this analysis, is not unanswered but unaskable in the form it was issued in. A beginning is an event: a transition from non-existence to existence. Such a transition requires T, S, and Φ to take place: a temporal succession in which the prior state does not contain the structure and the subsequent state does, within a Space that can host both, carried by Substance. To propose a beginning for the structure is to propose a transition before transitions are possible, which is to describe nothing at all. The word 'prior' has no application outside the succession it names. The demand uses T, S, and Φ in its own formulation and then asks why they obtain, using the very conditions of the asking.

*Third.* Pruss's modal refinement drops the demand for explanation of necessary facts and confines the PSR to contingent facts. The modal PSR does not require ∅ to be coherent as an alternative. It simply notes that every contingent fact admits of explanation, and asks whether the structure's instantiation in this world is such a contingent fact.

The refinement survives, but it survives by conceding the conclusion. A PSR confined to contingent facts leaves the necessity of T, S, and Φ unchallenged: that is what 'confined to contingent facts' means. The structure is not in its scope. What the modal PSR captures are the causal sequences and events within the structure: why this reaction rather than that, why this memory rather than another. The present account (necessary structural conditions plus contingent investigation of everything within them) leaves every such question open to investigation. A theist who adopts the modal PSR is no longer arguing against the structure's necessity but engaging contingent facts within the structure, the domain the present account is designed to accommodate.

One further engagement is owed at this site. Pruss's central deployment of the modal PSR is not the abstract form addressed above (why T∧S∧Φ rather than ∅) but the *Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact* argument (*The Principle of Sufficient Reason* -(Pruss, Alexander R., 2006); *Necessary Existence* with Rasmussen -(Pruss, Alexander R., and Joshua L. Rasmussen, 2018)): the conjunction of all contingent facts (the BCCF) is itself contingent and by modal PSR requires an explanation outside it.

On the book's framework the BCCF is the conjunction of all contingent configurations of Nature: this cosmos, these initial conditions, this particular sequence of events. Each contingent fact within Nature has a contingent cause or explanation within Nature's causal structure; the modal PSR is satisfied at that level. This is compatible with genuine chance and does not quietly presuppose determinism. Where a transition is governed by an objective probability distribution rather than a deterministic law, the distribution itself, fixed by the prior state and Nature's causal structure, is what the modal PSR is owed. It is a reason why the outcome falls within a determinate range of possibilities, weighted in a determinate way, not a further hidden fact that secretly settles which member of the range is realized. To demand the latter is to demand that chance covertly be non-chance, which begs the question against genuine indeterminism rather than pressing a live PSR violation. This is exactly the room [§4.4.9](<4.4.9 Modal Collapse Objection.md>) draws on when it invokes quantum indeterminacy against modal collapse: an open token outcome is not a PSR debt left unpaid but the kind of contingent fact the modal PSR was always going to leave open once explanation is distinguished from determination.

The reply does not, however, rest on the Hume–Edwards principle that explaining each contingent conjunct thereby explains their conjunction, the very inference Pruss's BCCF argument is built to reject. Its load-bearing move is instead the foreclosure of the external demand itself. The demand for an explanation *outside* the BCCF commonly motivates a necessary explainer, but the three candidates considered here—∅, Nature itself, and a necessary being whose free act selects the BCCF—do not exhaust every theory of explanation by logic alone. They organize the principal options engaged by this book. ∅ is foreclosed. Nature does not explain the BCCF *necessarily*; if it did, the BCCF would be necessary, and contingent facts would collapse into necessities (the modal-collapse risk [§4.4.9](<4.4.9 Modal Collapse Objection.md>) addresses). The third candidate is the theist's actual proposal — a necessary agent whose libertarian choice explains a contingent outcome without necessitating it, escaping the modal-collapse horn. It is engaged, not ignored: that a ground external to Nature is available at all is what [§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>) and the Supernatural Preclusion of Chapter 6 foreclose, while whether the necessary ground is *personal and agent-causal* is taken up on its own terms at [§4.2.1](<4.2.1 The Changeless Ground.md>), [§5.1](<5.1 Theistic Arguments for a Divine Ground.md>), and Chapter 6. What this site settles is narrower — the modal PSR does not by itself convert the demand for an external explainer into a demand for a *necessary personal* one; that inference is what those sections test, not one the PSR delivers here. Nature explains the structural preconditions under which contingent configurations obtain; the contingent selection among configurations is internal to Nature.

The selection-among-possibilities question (why this configuration rather than another) is addressed at [§2.8.4](<2.8.4 Necessity Precedes Contingency.md>) and [§5.1](<5.1 Theistic Arguments for a Divine Ground.md>): contingency is a property of configurations within Nature, not of Nature itself, and the demand that selection receive an external necessary explanation posits a grounding framework outside Nature. Section 2.7 forecloses ∅, but it does not by itself refute every proposed external ground; those proposals require the dedicated engagements in Chapters 5–6. This is the disambiguation the reply turns on: the BCCF is not *granted* an internal sufficient reason for the conjunction-as-a-whole (that would be the Hume–Edwards move Pruss is right to reject) but *exempted* from the external demand, because that demand has no coherent target. Each contingent conjunct keeps its contingent explanation within Nature's causal structure; the conjunction as a totality is neither handed a further internal explanation nor left awaiting an external one, since each candidate external explainer is foreclosed as set out above.

The BCCF argument does not by itself establish a necessary personal explainer; further premises are needed to identify the explainer as personal and external to Nature. Conversely, the present section has not shown that no coherent totality-level explanatory demand can be raised. Its narrower reply is that local explanations within Nature and the necessity of Nature do not automatically generate the personal-explainer conclusion.

The dissolution carries further than the deflection of three demands. It shows that the demand was never available as a motivation for the argument to an external necessary ground in the first place. If ∅ is not a coherent alternative to the structure of Reality ([§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>)), then the contingency of the structure cannot serve as a starting point for the argument to a necessary divine cause, because the structure has been shown to be not contingent but necessary. Its necessity renders the demand incoherent rather than redirecting it toward a divine answer. The PSR argument for theism is not answered by the Necessity of Nature; it is dissolved at its foundation.

A fourth move deserves naming. The Thomist may press that structural necessity is not the right kind of necessity: that classical theism demands the necessity of essence possessed by a being whose essence is its existence (Feser, Edward, 2017); (Koons, Robert C., 1997); (Rasmussen, Joshua, 2019). The observation is correct and the counter-construction is live, but it is not a fourth variant of the PSR; it is taken up on its own terms in [§4.2.1](<4.2.1 The Changeless Ground.md>) (a being outside the structure) and §5 (a being beneath it).

A fifth move presses a structural parallel rather than a PSR variant. If structure is self-grounding, why is the classical God not equally so? The *causa sui* construction holds that the divine nature is its own sufficient reason, requiring no external explanation, and the suggestion is that the present reading must concede the same status to whatever it proposes as the necessary ground.

The setup is incomplete on its face. Nature does not need an outside ground in the way that objects within Nature need their grounding conditions, because Nature is not an object that occupies anything outside itself. Nature *is* what occupying-anything consists in. The question 'what makes Nature possible?' assumes something outside Nature within which its possibility could be grounded, but that outside does not exist. To be possible is to be permitted by Nature. Nature does not permit itself from some external vantage point; it is what permission consists in.

The parallel fails because the two cases are structurally different in a precise way. Nature is not self-grounding in the sense that it is an entity which happens to satisfy the conditions for grounding from the inside. It is self-grounding in the stronger sense that it just is the conditions under which grounding operates: the logical space within which any explanatory demand, any sufficient reason, any grounding relation first becomes possible. There is no grounding framework outside Nature within which the question of Nature's own ground could be posed, because the framework is Nature.

The distinction is sharp: God, on the *causa sui* construction, is proposed as a thing that grounds itself. Nature is not a thing. It is what things are in. A self-grounding thing still requires the conditions in which self-grounding is possible, and those conditions are Nature.

A constructive complement to the three deflections is available once the cyclic-recurrence result of [§7.6](<7.6 Singularity.md>) is in view. The BCCF paragraph above handles the modal PSR at the contingent-fact level via Nature's internal causal structure; the cyclic-recurrence result closes two further pressures the contingent-fact reply leaves standing. The Kalām-style press for a first state at which the causal regress would otherwise terminate without a reason is foreclosed twice over. The structural closure of Temporality — □T together with ∅-preclusion and the domain-local reading of negation (§[§2.3](<2.3 Necessary Possibility of Change.md>)–2.4, [§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>)) — leaves no coherent "before" or "outside" from which a first state could depart. The second closure is Singularity Preclusion (the Corollary of T6 at [§7.6](<7.6 Singularity.md>)); a least moment of the manifold, if there is one, is a boundary with nothing on its far side, not an absolute beginning. This is not ad-hoc denial but the same structural argument applied at cosmological scale. The Leibnizian press for an external explainer of the cycle-as-totality is foreclosed because the cycle's recurrence under invariant law is the modal necessity of □(T∧S∧Φ) playing out across past-unbounded time, not a further contingent fact requiring external grounding. The PSR is met on rationalist terms at both levels at which it can coherently be pressed against the present account: every event has a sufficient reason within the cycle, and the cycle's recurrence is the structural necessity playing out rather than a contingency requiring an outside reason.

*What closes.* Three forms of the demand, and none finds a gap: the contrast demand presupposes ∅ as a coherent alternative [§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>) forecloses; the origin demand uses T, S, and Φ in the very act of asking why they obtain; and Pruss's modal refinement, confined to contingent facts, leaves structural necessity outside its scope. Two further results follow once the deflections are in place. The dissolution removes the contingency-of-Reality starting point that would otherwise carry the PSR to an external necessary ground, and the *causa sui* parallel fails on the thing-versus-conditions distinction: structure is not a thing that grounds itself but what grounding consists in.

One last consideration, stated narrowly. The PSR is a live rationalist commitment this argument endorses, not a threat to be neutralized. The narrower Leibnizian point (that contingent facts admit of explanation) is not what the argument denies. What the argument denies is that the structural necessities are contingent facts in need of explanation against an available alternative. Humean contingency is taken up at [§4.1.4](<4.1.4 Humean Contingency.md>): whether bare succession can be granted while the productive bond that makes it a succession is denied.


---

← [4.1.2 Two-Dimensional Semantics](<4.1.2 Two-Dimensional Semantics.md>) | [4.1.4 Humean Contingency](<4.1.4 Humean Contingency.md>) →
