I'd like to know what you think of the "wrecking ball" which David Hume applies to science. Does he really show that the "necessary connections" which we commonly refer to as the "Laws of Nature" are merely based on psychological conditioning-- or, as he puts it, "constant conjunctions" of similar events? What do you think is-- or should be-- the impact of Hume and empiricism in this era of great scientific and technological advances? In addition, what is your assessment of Hume's attempt (as discussed in the Lavine textbook) to show that the traditional arguments for the existence of God fail?

David Hume, the great empiricist, argued that all knowledge, including mathematics and natural philosophy (what we now call natural science), depend to some extent on the science of the human being, since they have a more or less direct relationship , with human nature.

Explanation:

According to what Hume stated, I consider that there are great and amazing things that do not depend on nature because we would be seeing the human being as the axis and center of all; and today thanks to the advances in science, human nature has served to discover but not to co-create biological and intelligent things but only mechanical systems that have been useful to humans.

The laws of nature are not based on psychological conditioning, but on static principles, physical laws that scarcely the human being can discover but still cannot understand why these laws exist or why they are there in our nature or on our planet, putting " healthy limits "and making life possible.

As for what Hume says that God does not exist because his existence cannot be demonstrated, he contradicts his cause-effect theory, because if there is an effect there is a power that originated it. So if there is a house had a designer, or for example if a scientist manages to discover a vaccine, that product or vaccine was invented by someone very intelligent, likewise happens with the laws of nature "perfect in itself" a powerful and intelligent gave rise to everything that exists and to the logical order that we see in nature.

that is alot i do not no

well it depends i think people around the world are coming around to gay marriage. but if you are talking abortion then wow, so much to talk about. such as men thinking they have the right to choose if women can, the fact there are health concerns if the women can't get one, and many more arguments to discuss. so i would definitely say abortion would be a much more interesting topic.