Abstract. Causal reasoning is an important universal human capacity that is useful in explanation, learning, prediction, and control. Causal judgments may rely on the integration of covariation information, pre-existing knowledge about plausible causal mechanisms, and counterfactual reasoning.

Types of causal reasoning include:

• Deduction. Deductive reasoning implies a general rule; an event is a guaranteed conclusion.
• Induction. Inductive reasoning is an inference made with uncertainty; the conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed.
• Abduction.
• Causal attributions.
• Causal motivations.

The causal explanation is referring not so much to the logic of a theory but rather to the explanation of the internal physical mechanism of phenomenon. The causal explanation is based on assumption that by finding and explaining the cause of a phenomenon we explain the phenomenon.

The phenomenon is exemplified in ordinary causal transitive reasoning. When told, for example, that A causes B and that B causes C, people can infer that A causes C, or when told, for instance, that Sanding causes dust and Dust causes sneezing, they conclude that Sanding causes sneezing.

By definition, the cause must occur before the effect, and the cause is the “activator” or “ignitor” in the relationship. The effect always happens at some point in time after the cause. A cause and effect relationship has a signature characteristic—the cause makes the effect happen.

In your causal argument, you get the chance to make these things clear. Examples of this type of argument might look something like this: An argumentative essay focused on why the U.S. has a high number of children who are “food insecure”. An argumentative essay exploring the specific causes of climate change.

In sum, the following criteria must be met for a correlation to be considered causal:

1. The two variables must vary together.
2. The relationship must be plausible.
3. The cause must precede the effect in time.
4. The relationship must be nonspurious (not due to a third variable).

A causal claim takes the form of “x causes y,” with x referring to the cause and y referring to the effect. A causal argument provides the premises to support a conclusion about a cause and effect relationship.

Causal arguments need:

• A detailed examination of each possible cause and effect.
• A description and explanation of the relaionship between any links.
• Evidence that your description and explanation are accurate and thorough.

A Causal Argument is strong when 1) its premises sufficiently confirm a correlation between the proposed cause and the proposed effect, and 2) its premises sufficiently disconfirm all plausible alternative conclusions.

Three major categories in a Causal Arguments are:

• Arguments that state a cause and then examine it’s effects.
• Arguments that state an effect and then trace the effect back to its causes.
• Arguments that move through a series of links: A causes B, which leads to C and perhaps to D.

An inductive argument can always be stronger, always be weaker. Generally, if there is more than a 50-50 chance that the conclusion will follow from the (presumed) truth of the premises, then it is strong; otherwise it is weak.

Argument by Cause. Argument by cause attempts to establish a cause and effect relationship between two events. This is a form of reasoning that argues that the interactions of two or more incidents are not merely coincidental, but was actually related in some meaningful way.

Thus Aquinas’ five ways defined God as the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being, the Absolute Being and the Grand Designer. It should be noted that Aquinas’ arguments are based on some aspects of the sensible world. Aquinas’ arguments are therefore a posteriori in nature.

First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back. The term was used by Greek thinkers and became an underlying assumption in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Aquinas argued that the observable order of causation is not self-explanatory.

A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred to as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, or the causal argument. Whichever term is employed, there are two basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: in esse (essentiality), and in fieri (becoming).

Thus, a cosmological argument for the existence of God will study the order of things or examine why things are the way they are in order to demonstrate the existence of God. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, as it could not have come from nothing.