The First-Cause Argument

1. Demea’s chief complaint against Cleanthes’s Design Argument is that it does not firmly
establish the existence and the nature of God (as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition:
a unique and infinitely perfect being who transcends time and space and is the creator of the
universe). Since the Design Argument is an inductive argument, it only makes the
conclusion more or less probable, but does not prove the conclusion. Demea prefers
deductive arguments for the existence of God which would guarantee or prove the existence
of God beyond any shadow of doubt. This is why Demea provides the First-Cause Argument
in Part IX, pp.54~5.

2. The First-Cause Argument is a deductive argument with one premiss which is known a
posteriori. We observe that for anything X which begins to exist, there is another thing Y
which is the cause or reason of X’s coming into existence. We observe that this rule has no
exception, so we are certain that it’s true.
We also commonly understand God (at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition) as an eternal
being who always exists. Since God does not come into existence from nonexistence, God
does not require another cause or reason for God’s existence. Thus we shall say that God is
uncaused or self-caused or self-explanatory.
We can now state the First-Cause Argument as follows:

(1) Observed fact (known a posteriori): Everything which begins to exist has another
cause or reason explaining why it exists.
(2) Definition (known a priori): God is uncaused or self-caused or self-explanatory.
(3) Take anything which begins to exist now (call it ‘C0’). That thing must be caused by
another thing (call it ‘C-1’) which begun to exist some time back, which in turn is
caused by another thing (call it ‘C-2’) which begun to exist some time further back,
and so on. Thus we have the following causal chain extending backward in time:
C-n  …  C-4  C-3  C-2  C-1  C0
(4) Either: Or:
The causal chain extends finitely The causal chain extends infinitely
back into the past back into the past.
| |
(5) Then there is a first uncaused cause, (6) Then the whole causal chain requires
which by definition is God. a cause or reason explaining why it
exists (rather than not exist, or exist

instead of some other causal chain),

and this ultimate cause or reason is
by definition God.
(7) Therefore, necessarily, God exists.

The First-Cause Argument, as you can see, is a dilemma, which is a type of deductive
argument.

1
3. Cleanthes makes three criticisms of the First-Cause Argument.
(a) Consider the option on the right hand column of the First-Cause Argument. On this
option we are assuming that the whole causal chain is infinite in length. On this
assumption, it seems to follow that (6) there must be another cause or reason outside the
causal chain which explains why the causal chain exists as a whole.
Cleanthes argues that this inference (6) does not follow. The whole causal chain
is not a separate thing that exists in addition to the causal links in the chain. So, if we
have explained why each link in the chain exists, then we have thereby explained why the
whole causal chain exists (and there is no need to offer a separate explanation why the
whole causal chain exists).
Now, we do have an explanation of why each link in the chain exists. It exists
because there is a previous link in the chain which has brought it into existence. And
since there is an infinite number of links, for each link there is a previous link which
explains why it exists. Thus we have a complete explanation of why the chain exists,
without there being any need to appeal to a cause or reason outside the causal chain.
(b) Let’s remain on the option on the right hand column, where we assume that the whole
causal chain is infinite in length. If the physical universe (i.e., the whole causal chain) is
eternal, then why can’t it be the cause of its own existence? If we assume that the
existence of the physical universe requires explanation in terms of another being—i.e.,
God—who is uncaused or self-caused or self-explanatory, we can just as well assume that
the existence of the physical universe is uncaused or self-caused or self-explanatory, and
for the exact same reasons. God is supposed to be uncaused or self-caused or self-
explanatory because God is an eternal being. But if the physical universe has existed
from eternity, then by the same token we may conclude that it is uncaused or self-caused
or self-explanatory.
(c) Now let’s discuss what Cleanthes believes to be the strongest criticism of the First-Cause
Argument. This argument applies regardless of whether the causal chain is infinite or
finite in length. Recall Hume’s Fork. According to Hume, there is either:
i. a priori knowledge about relations of ideas, or
ii. a posteriori knowledge about matters of fact.
That is, we can have a priori knowledge only about the relations obtaining between the
ideas in our own minds. We have a priori knowledge that 2 + 2 = 4, for instance, because
our idea of 4 is identical to our idea of the sum of two twos. We have a priori knowledge
that a triangle has three sides because our idea of a triangle is a complex idea containing
the idea of three sides. In the same way, we have a priori knowledge that a bachelor is a
male because our idea of bachelorhood contains the idea of being a male. We also have a
priori knowledge about deductive inferences, because deductive inferences concern
logically necessary relations between statements which we know about independently of
experience. Hume’s way of testing whether we have a priori knowledge is this: if you
cannot conceive that something is false, then it is something you know a priori (and not
a posteriori). So, try to imagine that 2 + 2 isn’t 4. You won’t succeed, and that’s how
you know 2 + 2 = 4 is something you know a priori.

2
 Unlike relations of ideas, which obtain in our own minds, matters of fact are facts
about the world outside of our own minds. We can only have a posteriori knowledge
about matters of fact because we can only learn about what’s beyond our minds through
observation and inductive inference. Hume’s way of testing whether we have a
posteriori knowledge is this: if you can conceive that something is false, then it is
something you know a posteriori (and not a priori). So, try to imagine that the Statue of
Liberty is not in New York City, but in Paris. As a matter of fact the Statue of Liberty is
in NYC, but you will find that you can easily imagine it being false.
Rationalists like Descartes want to claim that we can gain a priori knowledge
about matters of fact outside our own minds. For instance, Descartes believed that he
proved the existence of God outside our own minds, simply given a priori knowledge
about clear and distinct ideas in our own minds. But Hume denied this. Hume’s Fork is
meant to deny that there is any a priori knowledge which can inform us about matters of
fact outside our minds.
Now, whether something exists or not outside our minds is always a matter of fact
which we can only learn about a posteriori. Think about the pyramids in Egypt. How do
you know they exist? You use direct observation and and inductive reasoning (e.g., in
your case, most likely argument from authority, see Weston Ch.IV). This is true, Hume
claims, about any question of existence or nonexistence: we can answer such a question
only through an a posteriori investigation involving experience and inductive inference.
This applies also to God’s existence. Unlike 2 + 2 = 4, which we cannot conceive to be
false, we can think it false that God actually exists. Hence the question of God’s
existence is something which we can only learn about a posteriori, and can only be
answered by experience and inductive argument. (And this explains why Hume is so
fond of the Design Argument, and devotes so much space to a discussion of it.)
Thus it follows that no a priori knowledge will establish the existence of God. At
best, a priori knowledge will only tell us what we understand by the idea of God, but it
cannot prove anything beyond that. Note also that this last argument applies to any
deductive argument for the existence of God, such as Descartes’s Trademark Argument
and the Ontological Argument.