Philosophy Final Paper
In this paper, I will argue that Philo offers better arguments for explanation of God’s existence than Demea and Cleanthes. During Hume’s days, the 1700s, science was not very advance and many philosophical arguments were based off of empirical observations. This paper contains information regarding how the argument between the three panned out and contains my thoughts on the conversation. While I do not have all the answers on these matters, I will provide my views and arguments in hopes of presenting a different perspective.
In Hume’s writing, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he writes about an imaginary conversation between three people Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. Demea is very orthodox and believes in God but is skeptical about investigations. He believes that God is a perfect being but other than that, humans know nothing else; to imagine anything else is heresy. Demas thinks that with limited human knowledge, one can only make weak arguments about God and these arguments may lead to false ideas and even skepticism. He questions science and philosophy but believes in theology. Unlike Demea, Cleanthes believes in theology …show more content…
This says that every effect from the universe results from chance events. If we believe that matter is finite, like contemporary physics, and that God is infinite, Philo concludes that there has to be infinite parallel universes with infinite differences. This idea scares both Cleanthes and Demea.
Demea offers his own input on Philo’s theory of matter motion in that it would require something to start it and thus only God could have done this. Philo responds by saying that just because there is a wonderful system of matter, does not mean that an intelligent being had to have put it into effect. Matter could have easily begun within itself. Following this, Philo switches to examining God
In this paper, I will argue that Philo offers better arguments for explanation of God’s existence than Demea and Cleanthes. During Hume’s days, the 1700s, science was not very advance and many philosophical arguments were based off of empirical observations. This paper contains information regarding how the argument between the three panned out and contains my thoughts on the conversation. While I do not have all the answers on these matters, I will provide my views and arguments in hopes of presenting a different perspective.
In Hume’s writing, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he writes about an imaginary conversation between three people Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. Demea is very orthodox and believes in God but is skeptical about investigations. He believes that God is a perfect being but other than that, humans know nothing else; to imagine anything else is heresy. Demas thinks that with limited human knowledge, one can only make weak arguments about God and these arguments may lead to false ideas and even skepticism. He questions science and philosophy but believes in theology. Unlike Demea, Cleanthes believes in theology …show more content…
This says that every effect from the universe results from chance events. If we believe that matter is finite, like contemporary physics, and that God is infinite, Philo concludes that there has to be infinite parallel universes with infinite differences. This idea scares both Cleanthes and Demea.
Demea offers his own input on Philo’s theory of matter motion in that it would require something to start it and thus only God could have done this. Philo responds by saying that just because there is a wonderful system of matter, does not mean that an intelligent being had to have put it into effect. Matter could have easily begun within itself. Following this, Philo switches to examining God