David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

In Hume's dialogue on nature's religion, we are to discuss the purpose of God and its nature, more specifically the three roles that humans can infer God and its nature Was introduced. Three words, Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes, are involved in discussions on this issue, but they all help to support their views on this issue. The focus of discussion was the "design theory" proposed by Cleanthes, Demea and Philo tried to destroy it.

Discussion as to whether God exists or not is a long-term argument over centuries. In David Hume's "Natural Religious Dialogue", this problem is solved through dialogue and discussion between Hume's fictional role Cleanthes and Philo. The argument advocated by Cleanthes is that the existence of God can be confirmed by humans and presented in the form of "design controversy". Philo then made several opposing views to explain why this discussion failed. In this article we will discuss the design theory of Cleanthes and detail criticism of Philo's position on Cleanthes.

In a dialogue on David Hume's natural religion, he evaluated two general evil ways and design controversies. The two versions of the "sin problem" are the first stronger version called the logical problem of evil as they apply to the presence or absence of God, and the second version which is not bad is called evil . Evidence Problems The logic of evil says that there is no evil if God is an omnipotent, omniscient, all encompassing being. Because there is evil, there should be no god. The evil problem of the evidence is Hum's accepted version. We can think that the existence of evil is part of a series of evidence to evaluate the existence of God and based on the evidence we can not conclude that God is perfect. Hume allows complete God's possibility, but to say this argument is not enough for us to reach that conclusion

In the dialogue on nature and religion of David Hume, Philo claims that "such idea of ​​God" is consistent with the essence of the world. God formed the world and everything in it. Therefore abstract logical parallelism exists between the essence of the world and the essence of God. Philo's argument can answer Gretchen's challenge. As long as Gretchen is given an explanation of how God has so many evil evidences in the world she will see this as a satisfying reaction.