 It might seem that a separate argument for the C&amp;D Rule is unneeded – that having demonstrated a non-deceiving God, the veracity of the rule is a straightforward consequence. But this is too fast. Why should only the C&amp;D Rule be a straightforward consequence, but not also a more general infallibility of all our judgments? Essentially this point is made in the First Meditation, at the introduction of the Evil Genius Doubt. As we saw, the meditator there observes that what seems to follow from the standard view – whereby God “is said to be supremely good,” rather than a deceiver – is that God would not allow us ever to be mistaken in our judgments: