The Hume-Edwards principle

Statement

William L. Rowe characterises the Hume-Edwards principle, referring to arguments presented by David Hume, and later Paul Edwards, in their criticisms of the cosmological argument:

"If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained."

The principle stipulates that a causal series—even one that regresses to infinity—requires no explanatory causes beyond those that are members within that series. If every member of a series has a causal explanation within the sequence, the series in itself is explanatorily complete. Thus, it rejects arguments, such as by Duns Scotus, for the existence of higher-order, efficient causes that govern the basic principles of material causation. Notably, it contradicts Hume's own Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in which the character Demea reflects that, even if a succession of causes is infinite, the very existence of the chain still requires a cause.