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:

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.

i dont believe in religion. lets all be peace

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.