God’s Existence;Hume’s Argument

 God's Existence
God’s Existence

An analysis of one of Hume’s arguments touching on God’s existence. You can choose Exercise 11, 12, or 13 on pages 202-5.

Once again:
1) Summarize the argument on God’s existence, identifying the assumptions (or first principles), the chain of reasoning (include intermediate conclusions if you wish), and the conclusion. Verbally describe them and assign a number to each step.According to the Philosophy of Religion.

  • Even if we grant that the universe was designed, there is no evidence that this was the God of Christian theism. A lesser being could have designed the universe.
    Hume is using one of his guiding principles here: that a cause must be proportional to its effect.
  • The existence of evil and imperfection in the world does indeed suggest a limited designer.
    Hume noted that Epicurus’ questions about the ‘inconsistent triad’ are still unanswered.
  • Analogies between the way the universe works and the way
    machines work are unsound. The world is more like a vast floating vegetable, and the thing about vegetables is that they grow themselves,apparently without the need for a designer.
  • To make an analogy between the designers of human machines
    and the designer of the universe is just anthropomorphism – we are trying to explain the universe in our own image.
  • The universe could have developed into a comparatively ordered state simply by chance.
    This is Hume’s so-called ‘Epicurean Hypothesis’. Epicurus (341–270 BCE)taught that the basic constituents of the world were indivisible atoms – an interesting guess in the light of twentieth-century atomic physics

2) Construct a standard diagram for the argument, using the numbers you have assigned. You can do this on the computer with the help of the Insert Symbol and the underline function, but it’s all right if you draw it by hand and attach it.
3) Ask the Assertibility Question and decide whether you find the argument convincing, and why or why not. Does the conclusion follow from the reasons given? If not what is the formal fallacy, or what further reasons or evidence must be shown?

Written by