Q&A: Hume’s Principle of Causality
Hume’s Principle of Causality
Question
You argue that the principle of causality is a product of reason, since the mere succession of events does not indicate causality, and this is only an interpretation of human reason. However, we need to be precise here, because the succession of events is something we do in fact see with our eyes, and only the interpretation is a result of reason. In other words, the principle of causality is based both on observation and on our interpretation. If so, how can one infer from this regarding things that are outside the universe and about which we have no observation at all, such as the creation of the world?
Answer
I am not inferring from it. I bring the principle of causality as an argument against those who are unwilling to accept claims that are not based on observation. I show that the absence of an observational basis is not in itself an argument. From that point on, each claim must be discussed on its own merits.
You didn’t bring it only as an argument but also as proof for the existence of God (for example in the debate with Aviv Franco). The question is whether you can really bring proof from something that is also based on observation for something about which we have no observation.