Assume Leibniz, Kant and Hume were given the following claim: "Every event is determined by a cause according to constant laws". How would each of the three philosophers defend and explain this claim? Make sure to identify how each of their three philosophical systems differ, especially as regards to causation.
Starting with Leibniz, one could say that for him, any event could be explained by a prior cause and that prior cause must also be explained by an earlier cause. But referring to prior cause cannot really explain the reason for the existence of any event. There has to be a cause that is outside the series of causes. The final or sufficient reason for all things is to be found in the substance whose own existence is necessary and requires no prior cause and no explanation, that is, a "necessary Being whose essence involves existence". This being is God. He is the cause or sufficient reason or the ordinary events we experience in the world. Leibniz rejected the theory of atoms, that is, of matter as primary and substituted it with Monads which, unlike atoms, are not extended bodies. A monad is a metaphysically existent point and behaves according to its own pre-established purpose. When each monad behaves ...
How would Hume, Leibniz and Kant react to the saying "Every event is determined by a cause according to constant laws"? This is the subject that this post addresses.