Nicholas of Autrecourt is philosopher who lived in the 14th century named ad late middle age. The period when he lived is the period in which the scholastic thought of the middle age was criticised, and the religion and the philosophy went their separate ways. Nicholas, adapting himself to this period attempts to make a criticism of the scholastic authorities. He bases his criticisms on the evidence in the knowledge. He say that the evidence can be obtained through experience and noncontradiction. He claims the fact that the knowledge that is not obtained from these two sources is philosophically not obligatory but probable. He also applies his so-called claims to the principle of causality; and he tries to show that causal relation is not verified as priori or posteriori. While he is doing so, he makes use of the atomic teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers and early Mu’tezilî theologians and the causalty criticism of Ghazzâlî. The ciriticims he made to obligation of the principle of the causality even though it was influenced by the point of view of Ghazzâlî transforms it and prioritises the causality and substance ciriticism of David Hume in many respects. Thus in this article the causality criticism of Nicholas of Artecourt is handled in terms of its causes, sources and its influence.