Sunday, November 3, 2019
God -- Or Some Lesser Designer
In Chapter V, Philo devises several arguments that accept that the universe has a designer, but deny that that designer is God. Given our traditional definition that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is Philo correct? Or is there a response to his arguments? Does it matter if the designer is the traditional God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David Hume challenges the traditional definition of a God, which is widely known as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient creator. Instead of the usual definition, Hume proposes the idea of our creator as simply a creator and not the traditional definition. His reasoning encompasses the fact there is suffering in our world. If God were to be the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God he is known to be, then he would have the knowledge, desire, and ability to end suffering in this world. However, Hume argues that there is still suffering and evilness in the world, which then implies the creator is not all perfect and all good. By looking at Hume’s argument, it makes sense to believe in a straight-forward creator instead of the traditional definition. However, there is still evidence of perfection in our world. For example, the human body works intricately and perfectly to perform a range of duties so how is it possible to say the universe’s creator is not all-powerful and all good? It can also be said that this perfect God provided us with free will and free choice. This would mean that we as human beings make choices that are not perfect. Hume raises a very important topic of discussion which many people question over the years. Hume’s idea of our creator goes against the traditional thought and this causes controversy, especially with religion. Although Hume gives a credible explanation, I believe that Hume's argument is partially correct. I believe that given the intricacy of nature and everything that isn’t modified by man has a sense of perfection in detail that only an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God can create.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter V of David Hume’s Dialogues, Philo argues that the universe has a designer of sorts but challenges whether it is the ‘God’ of the major religions of the world. This challenges our generally accepted ideas about God as the all-powerful, all knowing, and well-meaning entity we have come to believe in. Philo’s argument appears sound and his doubts about God logical. He proposes three convincing ideas—the strongest being that the world is “very faulty and imperfect,” so an omnibenevolent, perfect deity would not create such a world (37). He explains, “There are many inexplicable difficulties in the works of nature which, if we allow a perfect author to be proved a priori, are easily solved…” (35). In other words, Philo explains that the world has problems, and so the creator is not perfect, as we often assume. As well, Philo suggests that we have no idea if this world is just one of many worlds that the designer created and cast aside. He suggests that, “Many worlds might have been botched and bungled throughout an eternity…” (36). There is no way for us to indubitably know whether our world is just a half-finished project being conducted by a designer or group of designers. Our traditional idea of God from the Bible is an infallible God who knows everything. However, in Philo’s argument, he is explaining that Cleanthes—and man in general—often make unreasonable assumptions about the ‘perfect’ God. His last argument even asks if a team of designers might have created our world “as a great number of men join in building a ship” (36). How do we know this is not the case? Philo’s ultimate statement is that it does not matter whether the cosmic power that created the world is God, many Gods, or an all-knowing designer—what matters is that our world exists in all its imperfection.
ReplyDeletePhilo could be correct. Hovering over the argument of whether God is the designer of the universe or not, the actual designer would need to have the power to create such a complex creation like God. God, being omnipotent would constitute the creator be omnipotent and omniscient as well. They would need to know how to make someone or something omnipotent and omniscient. As said in a criticism of the Teleological argument, Hume explains that “It is impossible, (he argues), to infer the perfect nature of a creator from the nature of its creation.” As we’ve observed when it attains to the human condition, we cannot in fact create something that is perfect. We can’t even ourselves be perfect. So what type of creator what create something with a unique set of qualities that they themselves can’t even attain? That would be one that doesn’t exist. American philosopher of science Wesley Salmon continued Hume’s insight by saying, “all things in the universe which exhibit order are, to our knowledge, created by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. He also argued that there are no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything.” We are all imperfect so, once again I explain that a creator can’t create something that is perfect. So I personally do not believe someone created God if he actually does exists. If we say that he does exist and we totally dispel the art of evolution, you can say creationism is a very reasonable thing that may or may not have occurred.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter V of Hume’s Dialogues, the characters argue about if there is a universal designer, and how powerful this designer would be. Philo has many points to argue that there is a universal designer, but the question is whether the universal designer is the God that is read about in books such as the Bible, Torah, or the Quran. In these books, God is believed to be an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being. However, Philo believes that even if there is a universal designer that he is unlike the ones we read about in these books. He argues that the world is, “very faulty and imperfect,” (37) and as such an omnibenevolent God would be impossible because there are many problems in the world a God as such would not allow. Another problem Philo had was the fact that humans do not know if we are living on the first world that was created or if we live on one of Gods tester worlds. To prove this Philo mentioned that God would have infinite time to create a universe, but have a finite amount of material to work with. So in such god would be able to test an infinite number of realities and no one would be the wiser. If this were true, it would rule out a god who is omniscient. Lastly, Philo tries to disprove a God that is omnipotent. To disprove this he uses a famous paradox where if a God was omnipotent would he be able to create a stone heavy enough that he could not lift it. Now the problem with this would be that if he could create such a stone, he would not be able to lift it, and if he could lift it then he would not be able to create a stone that heavy. This argument that the God would not be Omnipotent. In finish, the God described from religious texts is infallible, and would be able to know everything about what he created, but how Philo describes it, the theory of this perfect God has had holes poked into it.
ReplyDelete