According to Hume, why can't we have knowledge on the relation of cause and effect?

a. We can never observe constant conjunction between events.

b. We can never observe the cause and effect at the same time.

c. We can never observe a necessary connection between events.

d. We can never observe the atoms that make up the cause and the effect of events.

c. We can never observe a necessary connection between events.

Explanation:

Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without contradiction because causal connections are assumptions not subject to reason.

We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience. Therefore, we have no rational support for believing in causation. Hume suggests that our assumptions are based on habit, not reason, and that, ultimately, our assumptions about matters of fact are based in probability.

c. We can never observe a necessary connection between events.

Explanation:

According to Hume, he argues that we can never conceive any necessary connection between the events of cause and effect. This is as a result that there is no other impression to which our idea may likely be traced.

So, according to Hume, he believes that when we have an experience of one event that it likey leads to assume an "unobserved" cause.