Firmitas

First Claim

Revision 1
© 2011-2019 by Zack Smith. All rights reserved.

First Claim

In this fallacy, the arguer says that because A has a definite cause, that definite cause must itself have a definite cause, going back in time until you reach a first cause that the thinker identifies as his preference e.g. a certain god, which has no cause.

Its form
  • Event A is caused by Event B.
  • Event B is caused by Event C.
  • Event C is caused by Event D.
  • And so on...
  • Until finally some Event Y must be caused by the preferred god of the arguer.
  • Therefore the preferred god of the arguer has no cause.

As you can see, this is a jumble of confused argumentation. It can be congealed down to this contradiction:

  • Everything has a cause that ultimately is the preferred god of the arguer.
  • The preferred god of the arguer has no cause.

No reason is given for the god not having a cause.

Weaknesses

To argue initially that everything has a cause and then say that the first cause (the god) does not have a cause is an obvious contradiction and defeats the logic.