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