¶ … Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume offers a complex and multifaceted analysis of the concept of God. The ongoing debate between atheism and theism is resolved in part by an assertion that human beings are technically incapable of absolutely knowing or defining, or at least simply speaking about God. Moreover, the debate between theism and atheism is nullified by the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, to define God in terms satisfying or agreeable to all parties. There are anthropomorphic gods, creator gods, gods that interact with or interfere with human lives and gods that are distant and detached. Hume argues that any argument related to theism vs. atheism is invalid unless a definition of terms is provided clearly and adhered to consistently. Yet paradoxically, any discussion of God is cloaked in "perpetual ambiguity" because of the limitations of both human language and human cognition (Hume 217). Through the persona of Philo, Hume minimizes the dispute between theism and atheism by describing the debate as being "merely verbal," about semantics, and never actually approaching a meaningful conversation (Hume 217). Philo notes that there is an "incomprehensible difference between the human and the divine mind,"...
The atheist makes assumptions about God, as does the theist. It is impossible to prove or disprove God when it is impossible to even agree upon what God is. Furthermore, Philo points out that one cannot be defined as being a theist or an atheist before a clear definition of terms is established. A person who affirms the Christian view of God does not own the definition of God, for there are many other concepts of God in different cultures and religions. By extension, one who denies the Christian model of God is not necessarily an atheist. The Christian fundamentalist might deem that person to be an atheist because he or she denies the Christian view of deity, but the individual branded an atheist in this way could believe in a different view of God or Absolute Reality. What Hume suggests, through Philo's argument, is that Christianity should not be considered the absolute religion that defines the terms of God.
Thus, Sam argues that although the world often seems unjust (and is filled with innumerable instances of evil), yet P. is solved through the belief that every condition (good, in this case) necessitates an equal and opposite condition (evil, as it were.) However, Gretchen counters by asking whether those who behave in an evil way are ever punished for their transgressions, and whether there is any motivation for people to
Accidental possessions are those that an entity can achieve and fail, yet he exists. If a set of required possessions is mutual by various individuals than the set of possessions represents the essence of a natural sorts. The point of Aristotelian science is to find out the continuations of the natural kinds. Kinds can then be prearranged with hierarchically within a classificatory arrangement of genus and types. When we
The question arising from this claim is whether evidence exists to prove that there exists an infinitely good, powerful, and wise God where morality naturally emerges. Humes argues that is hard to imagine that an all-good, powerful God exists in this world full of pain and misery. From these claims, one can argue that this insight, or God, has both evil and good, as is present in man if
" Defenses against it may be equally inconclusive, but in their fertility they at least promise a solution some day. Bibliography Adams, Marilyn McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Belliotti, Raymond a. Roman Philosophy and the Good Life. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2009. DeRose, Keith. "Plantinga, Presumption, Possibility, and the Problem of Evil," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21 (1991), 497-512. Draper, Paul. "Probabilistic Arguments from Evil," Religious Studies 28
Evil and Suffering The logical problem of evil is that if God is all-good then evil should not exist. Perhaps one can argue, then, that evil is a creation of man and that God cannot not prevent that, but God being Omnipotent, and, therefore, by definition able to accomplish all should be capable of preventing if not destructing evil. Either then God is not all good, or he is not all
Once again, the theist can simply point out that human knowledge -- either our own, or in the collective sense -- is not only incomplete but not even necessarily close to complete. Furthermore, inference from incomplete evidence is dangerous; before Columbus, European philosophers would have felt themselves on firm "rational ground" to suppose that no edible starchy tuber existed, and yet the potato would have proved them wrong. Attempts to
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now