Mereology is the branch of philosophy which studies parts and wholes and their relations. In two previous posts I outlined an argument for a causal proposition; in this post I present another such argument, but one couched in mereological terms. In essence it is the same argument, but uses distinct concepts.

Here is the argument:

1. Everything real is either a part or a whole
2. Every part, qua part, is dependent
3. The existence of finite things is not a whole
4. Therefore the existence of finite things is a part
5. Therefore the existence of finite things is dependent
6. Whatever is dependent is dependent upon a cause
7. Therefore the existence of finite things is dependent upon a cause

Premise 3 is true because if the existence of a thing were a whole thing, the thing would just be existence, i.e. subsistent existence. But finite things are not existence, they are things which have existence. For example, a giraffe is not existence, it is a giraffe which has existence.