Hume is based on the principle of positivism and his empiricism rejects the principle of causality as a rule of rational and non-experience. He only interpreted it as the alternation of two phenomena. He regards causality as a correlation between thought and the appearance of a meaning rather than a correlation between object and existence. However, what is said that between the two there is a dependent relationship of existence, this is scientifically unacceptable, partly the answer to the important rebuttal of Hume's words, will be explained in the following points:
If the principle of causality (cause-effect relationship) is denied, then no event can be anticipated before its appearance. Thus, there will be so many possibilities for various events to occur at any time.
If the principle of causality is neglected, there will be no single law and law of science and experiment that can be accepted. Because every law and scientific rule, comes from the principle of causality.
If the principle of causality is denied, then not a single argument will exist in the mind. Because in essence, conclusions and conclusions are always the result that arises from the premises. And denying causality means denying arguments and theories.
If the principle of causality is denied, then everyone can deny the relationship between the activities and the influence of the activities they do. In this way, the way to fall into every crime will be wide open.
If the principle of causality is only known as the meaning of the alternation of two phenomena, then phenomena such as day and night - which are always alternating with one another - must be considered as manifestations of cause and effect. Yet we know that none of them are the cause of the other
If the principle of causality is denied, there will not be the slightest bit of certainty and universality in belief.
If the principle of causality is denied, there is absolutely no way to affirm objective forms. And this is synonymous with idealism.
If the principle of causality is denied by the analogy that being is an object reality, then there will be no method for affirming the relevance of perceptions to extraneous evidence.
If prior to the experiment, the principle of causality was denied as a rational principle, then it must be that scientists, before witnessing and conducting their observations, had absolutely no confidence in it. Yet their main reason for making the observation itself stems from their previous belief, which says that every effect arises from a cause, and not a single phenomenon arises without a cause. (Please pay close attention to this matter).
If causality is interpreted as an alternation, then in the case of two contemporary (not alternating) phenomena, such as hand motion and pencil motion in hand, there will be no cause that we can perceive, even though we understand that between these two movements there is a relationship