Editing Cosmological argument (section)

=== The Hume-Edwards principle ===
[[William L. Rowe]] characterises the Hume-Edwards principle, referring to arguments presented by [[David Hume]], and later [[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Paul Edwards]], in their criticisms of the cosmological argument:<ref name=Pruss>Alexander R. Pruss, [https://archive.today/20130202224654/http://www.springerlink.com/content/q134n458307w0125 The Hume-Edwards Principle and the Cosmological Argument], ''International Journal for Philosophy of Religion''</ref>

{{Blockquote|"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.<ref name=Pruss /> 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.<ref name=SEPScot /> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hume |first=David|year=1779 |title= Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion |publisher=Penguin Books |place=London }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Calvert |first=Brian |title=Another problem about Part IX of Hume's Dialogues |journal=International Journal for Philosophy of Religion |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=65–70 |doi=10.1007/BF00131845 |year=1983 |s2cid=189828318}}</ref>