David Hume in his famous work called Dialogues concerning natural religion he questions himself about the god: can we prove his existence and know what he looks like. He says about the first question as pretty obvious and tries to give a rational description of him by using three characters: Demea, Cleanthes and Philo. Hume’s conclusion on behalf of his character – Philo, seems to be very interesting regarding about the nature of God, in particular his moral attributes. I will argue that the Hume’s point that we can conclude the god’s neutrality in terms of goodness by leaning on the evidence or experience we may notice on the Earth is not accurate, because here he does not take into account ...view middle of the document...
As behind machines we see intelligence, and the universe is like a machine, there should be something similar to human intelligence in God.
Demea objects his logic, as he used design to prove God’s nature already implying nature. Philo supports Demea’s objection, but provide different approach. First, it’s questionable to compare universe and a machine as a part of it. It’s wrong because we’re aware of a little part of the universe and no idea of the rest of it, so it’s possible that the rest isn’t like a machine. Another point’s that things are known because they are repeating, over and over again, but the universe is created once, no experience of its cause, we know about things by knowing that causes are repeating.
Next, Philo turns the attention on moral attributes of God, he asks Cleanthes why there’s suffering in the world, if universe is the perfect machine created by infinite God. Then he tries to examine the goodness of God, and asks: if he willing to prevent evil, but not able – then he’s incompetent; if he able, but not willing – then he’s evil; if both able and willing – why there’s suffering? So there’s a conflict between two God’s moral attributes, either he’s infinitely good or all-powerful or none of it.
Demea’s conclusion’s simply to believe in God’s goodness, as we cannot know the whole picture of universe; it may be perfectly balanced. Cleanthes understands the conflict and he immolates God’s infinity of power. So he’s finite powerful and created the world at his best. However Philo says it won’t help, we haven’t evidence to say that it’s the best world he could create with his abilities; he provides the analogy of rudimentary palace: even the architect’s talented; we cannot confirm it only by looking at his work done using limited resources.
Furthermore, he explains the reason of suffering. First, pain’s used to make people act, while pleasure can be used. Second, laws are universal, bad things happen to whoever you’re good or bad, as well as good things, while good/bad things could happen to good/bad people respectively. Third, all we have is the abilities to survive not to live, while life could be created to make us happy. Finally, there’s meticulous precision of activities in nature, while it could be without such fragility.
In the end, he concludes: it isn’t sufficient to say about God’s goodness, using only part of universe, as it’s possible that everything in the world leads to something in unknown way. Nonetheless, it’s wrong to say he’s good or evil, because there’s evil and good in the world as well as he’s some good and evil, because there should be the struggle between these counter powers, so there’re moments when someone dominates, but we have situations only caused by the 2nd explanation of suffering. So God is neither good nor evil, therefore morally he is neutral.
The Hume’s argument about neutrality of god gradually follows from 4 unnecessary evils that I am going to argue. First, he resents about the way...