The inference from 'possible being requires an external cause' to 'there must be a being whose essence is identical to its existence' smuggles in a substantive ontological assumption that possibility and necessity are intrinsic rather than relational properties.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Assumption(Meinong, On Assumptions (1902)): A thought that merely involves entertaining the objectives it is directed at, without conviction; affirmative or negative like judgements but without belief like representations
External cause(what some argue each contingent thing needs): Something outside of an object that makes it exist or happen; for example, a match is an external cause of a flame.
Ontological: "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
Possibility and necessity(modal concepts describing different kinds of truth): Possibility = something that could be true; necessity = something that must be true.

Based on where you are in your exploration