Did David Hume Disprove the Law of Cause and Effect?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Some people say the philosopher David Hume disproved the law of cause and effect, but this claim gives Hume too much credit-or discredit. In this brief clip, R.C. Sproul explains what Hume actually had in mind and why this is relevant to our defense of the Christian faith.
Watch the full message: ligm.in/3kxA524
YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT BUT SIMPLER.............Hume defined an analogy employing two billiard balls and claimed our inability to know unequivocally via induction that a second stationary ball, ball 2 would be made to move if struck by a moving ball, ball 1. Both balls were on a level billiard table.
Hume chose the billiard balls for his analogy to the exclusion of all other possible objects, e.g., crochet balls, bricks, rocks, apples, etc. How was he able to do this? Because all of those objects are distinct in their physicality/characteristics and in that, different from each other in some measure. If then he made that choice it was by his recognition of his ability to distinguish between them, the characteristics consequent of their form and function. So, there can be no claim by anyone that he did not or could not know of or respect their physicality, i.e., their physical characteristics.
Hume also defined one of the balls, ball 1 as moving and ball 2 as stationary (initially). By definition then, he knew of the phenomenon of motion and that it effected an object’s physical status in a given context of consideration. He then claimed that we could not know via induction that should ball 1 strike ball 2 that it would cause the latter to move, that we could only expect that it would but due only to our experience in witness to such.
So, again, Hume knew of the characteristics of the billiard balls which he would have had to, to have chosen them as opposed to all other objects. He also acknowledged his understanding of the phenomenon of motion (of ball 1) for it is structural to the analogy and since he knew of the physical characteristics of the balls (by which he chose them), he would have had to have known that motion was NOT part of those characteristics for it is intangible and only “of concern for” or “about” the physicality of the ball. He knew that ball 1 was moving and though exactly the same in all physical respects to ball 2, ball 2 was NOT moving but stationary. Why? because motion had been imparted to ball 1. In other words, motion was connected in some way to the ball which was moving (there cannot be motion without its object (without the object moving)) and motion was an effect of the progressive change of the physical status of the ball in a particular context.
If then the motion was NOT a physical characteristic of ball 1 and was a phenomenon which was not present in a ball being itself (as with ball 2 which was stationary before being struck by ball 1), in and of itself. Absent some imposition upon ball 1 which was otherwise in its natural state, or stationary, BY DEFINITION, motion has to have been imparted to ball 1 (motion was not there otherwise). By our understanding of this in all that stated above, we know that the motion of ball 1 would have had to have been imparted by another object which struck it (so that object was moving before it struck ball 1), imparting that motion. Remember that ball 1 could not have merely started moving by itself with no interaction of other objects because motion is a phenomenon not part of the physicality of the ball but rather “about it”. The motion had to have come from somewhere and something. After being struck, the motion was there. The only source of the motion was the object which struck it which possessed the phenomenon of motion prior to the strike.
Thus we know unequivocally that ball 1 striking ball 2 would cause it to move as with the striking of ball 1 by the unnamed object (a pool cue perhaps).
Any comments would be very welcome.
Well James, you would need to hit ball 1 into ball 2! So analyzing causation in observing reality is a continuum, more like a movie than a snapshot.
@@edwardlawrence5666 Thanks for the response. I don’t know if you are agreeing with me or not. It is just that Hume defies his own theory in his definition of it. As per his own description, our reasoning process would be inductive and therefore we could learn or know nothing for a fact as to the interrelations of the various entities (or their sense impressions). However, it is by deduction (a deductive process embedded within the inductive process of the proposition) that we know that motion cannot be a characteristic of the billiard balls and thus has to have been imparted to the ball moving and therefore, would impart that motion to the other ball if struck.
One cannot escape that……the billiard balls were chosen for their characteristics or he would have chosen something else…..motion cannot be one of their characteristics for it is intangible and a phenomenon only and were it, both balls would be moving….therefore, it had to have been imparted for one of the balls was effected by it. Hume was wrong.
What do you think?
What did Hume hope to achieve; if his arguments CAUSE me to stop believing in causation doesn't that disprove his arguments?
He wanted you to think outside the box. In other words, there may be causes other than God.
@@monkeyman193I’m not sure I agree with your comment.
Hume believed he was attempting a ‘scientific’ approach to grapple with metaphysical questions of epistemology (along with other things). His argument was meant to be a thorough examination of the empirical aspect of epistemology. And he pointed out that based on the Lockean understanding (though Hume greatly expanded it with his laws of association and the like) as to how we obtain knowledge, Hume points out that there is no direct experience (that is no direct experience of cause per se presented to the sense organs - only a series of events). He reduces the notion of caus to a mere psychological state. The implication ironically shelf his whole project of forwarding a ‘scientific empirical’ explanation.
@@monkeyman193 so inside the box then lol
As I recall, Immanuel Kant said David Hume awoke him from his spiritual slumbers.
Dogmatic slumber* the dogma being leibnizeanism
What a beautiful brilliant mind . All praise to our Triune God for Your servant RC .
The “law of cause and effect” is a law developed by human observation of the working of reality. It is a set of ideas about how things work. Hume was skeptical that this law was a thing in reality. It is an interpretation of reality not reality itself. Reality works such as it is observed . Hume said don’t make interpretations into realities. Our interpretations can and do change.
Brilliant philosopher!
I agree with his skepticism in regards to the surety of knowing the cause of an effect, but he expresses,”We have no guarantee that the sequences hitherto observed will re-appear unaltered in future experience.”
This is his reply to laws of sciences. But what if I refer to the first law of motion, that an object will only change its position when a force is exerted on it.
If his critique be explicable, then how can this law be falsified, as in what other alteration can ensue? Can an object move without any interference to its rest state?
2:50 I don't get this part. Can someone please explain? Thanks.
I learned so much from this man…god bless
God.
I too owe RC a debt of gratitude for the skills that God has given him to explain some of the complex issues of the day. Rest In Peace RC.
Great video ❤. Proving the existence of God is a common point between the Three Abrahamic Faiths, and Causality is one of its pillars.
A MORE SUCCINCT CRITIQUE..................ANY THOUGHTS?....................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness).
2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like.
3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions.
4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition.
5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics.
6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball.
7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball.
8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.
Its not a law.
When one is born, his innate IQ (Intelligent Quotient), EQ (Emotional Quotient), SQ (Spiritual Quotient) and MQ (Moral Quotient), along with the potential of hobbies and skills, temperament and characteristic are all different from his parents’. What is the reason? The Light of Wisdom Church has a well-spoken question-and-answer book that I recommend to everyone. Let's discuss and learn together. If you think it makes sense, we must not only believe it ourselves, but also spread it to more people. Evangelism is not only the job of pastors, but also the responsibility of every believer. This is also the aspect that the Lord values most when ascending to the kingdom of heaven.
why are a bunch of 5th graders learning hume and kant 😂
Does the Bible reveal the law of cause and effect? For more details, please watch the sermon of the Light of Wisdom Church, welcome everyone to study and discuss together. Video “The Wisdom of Cause and Effect in the Bible | I Am the way, the truth and the life 01”
If you think it makes sense, we must not only believe it ourselves, but also spread it to more people. Evangelism is not only the job of pastors, but also the responsibility of every believer. This is also the aspect that the Lord values most when ascending to the kingdom of heaven
😮
We have objective proof of some causes than can be measured using instruments. We dont have any objective proof of: Gods, miracles, a a priori soul, morality, etc.
So I am confused how this man uses the argument 'we cant perceive some causes so we can apply that to theism and that is a sound argument for the existence of God'.
This feels like a sales pitch...
Your "objective proof" is imaginary, vanity, ignorance.
@@nameless-yd6ko Please google 'semantics', or redo grade 4
Sir David Hume was one of the co-conspirators with the French Count de Buffon (who headed the French academy of science which controlled which scientific papers got published in France) and others including Charles Darwin's grandfather to covertly establish the idea of "deep time" being associated with the age of the Earth. One step at a time,,,
Please direct to sources of this information. Any specific websites or books on the topic or authors you suggest might be helpful. The evolution and other science falsely so-called deceptions should be rebutted and the Word of God can render all falsehoods moot. I would appreciate to have more to study and be blessed to have such understanding of man's thoughts that Christ may take captive and cause repentance to glorify the Father.
When one is born, his innate IQ (Intelligent Quotient), EQ (Emotional Quotient), SQ (Spiritual Quotient) and MQ (Moral Quotient), along with the potential of hobbies and skills, temperament and characteristic are all different from his parents’. What is the reason? The Light of Wisdom Church has a well-spoken question-and-answer book that I recommend to everyone. Let's discuss and learn together.If you think it makes sense, we must not only believe it ourselves, but also spread it to more people. Evangelism is not only the job of pastors, but also the responsibility of every believer. This is also the aspect that the Lord values most when ascending to the kingdom of heaven.