tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5958724246751385629..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: One thing I have learned from HumeAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-60063864598238939062021-07-31T14:22:45.615-05:002021-07-31T14:22:45.615-05:00Hume thinks there is causation, but that it is not...Hume thinks there is causation, but that it is nothing but orderly sequentiality: each time cotton and fire are brought together, cotton burns, and that's all that it means to say that the bringing of the two together results in cotton burning.<br /><br />This account of causation cannot be applied to one-time events, like God's creating the world. But in any case, it's clearly a bad account of causation. (A standard counterexample: night is always followed by day, but night doesn't cause day.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48577344812602532982021-07-31T12:47:43.901-05:002021-07-31T12:47:43.901-05:00Dear Pruss, I'd like to ask a few questions ab...<br />Dear Pruss, I'd like to ask a few questions about Hume. I will be happy if you reply.<br /><br />Did Hume reject causality? When we bring cotton and fire side by side, we see that the cotton burns. If Hume denies causality, what is the reason for the burning of cotton in this case, according to him?<br /><br />Hume says that the principle of causality cannot be applied to the subject of God. To present God as a first cause, the creator of the entire universe, according to him, is against both reason and experience; because the principle of causality is something that can only be understood and established in the context of experience.<br /><br />How did theist philosophers respond to this view of Hume?Müslüman Felsefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17114593961507356582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-40823720647813132492008-01-01T22:31:00.000-06:002008-01-01T22:31:00.000-06:00But what does it mean that the past is fixed and t...But what does it mean that the past is fixed and the future is not? For some people it means that we need to give up on classical logic. For others it just means that we can cause future events but not past ones. The first option is unattractive; the second begs the question against those who allow backwards causation.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9271914012158357732007-12-28T18:15:00.000-06:002007-12-28T18:15:00.000-06:00Hi, I tend to agree but my (admittedly unsophistic...Hi, I tend to agree but my (admittedly unsophisticated) intuition is that things (of any sort) can't cause things that have already happened; perhaps because things that have already happened don't stand in need of being caused ...<BR/><BR/>Even if some A were to depend (in some way) upon some B in its future, would A not have been caused by whatever predetermined B (that predetermination following from the past being fixed, and A being dependent upon B)?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com