Did David Hume Disprove the Law of Cause and Effect?

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.

[jamestagge]

YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT BUT 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.

[Michael-ukpj]

What did Hume hope to achieve; if his arguments CAUSE me to stop believing in causation doesn't that disprove his arguments?

[yasminazab]

I think the best way to think about the law of cause and effect is that it’s not a (function ) as we studied in maths, a specific input must give a specific output or outputs, but to think of it as a tool of analysis clarity, understanding, expectations, but when it comes to build or change a belief it’s better to broaden your possibilities and potential

[barrygaynor]

As I recall, Immanuel Kant said David Hume awoke him from his spiritual slumbers.

[yasminazab]

Cause does not have to have a certain effect but When it is an effective it has to have a cause .

[letscarryit]

What a beautiful brilliant mind . All praise to our Triune God for Your servant RC .

[edwardlawrence]

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.

[prodigyy]

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?

[alittax]

2:50 I don't get this part. Can someone please explain? Thanks.

[Onlyhuman]

Great video ❤. Proving the existence of God is a common point between the Three Abrahamic Faiths, and Causality is one of its pillars.

[nasticanasta]

I learned so much from this man…god bless

[jamestagge]

A MORE SUCCINCT 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.

[sravasaksitam]

why are a bunch of 5th graders learning hume and kant 😂

[leeyanloke]

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.

[修行者的心灵之旅]

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

[rocketscientisttoo]

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, , ,

[Shakawkaw]

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...

[chen-chen]

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.