David Hume's Dialogues Analysis

1451 Words Feb 25th, 2018 6 Pages
He says about the first question as pretty obvious and tries to give a rational description of him by using three characters: Demea, Cleanthes and Philo. Hume’s conclusion on behalf of his character – Philo, seems to be very interesting regarding about the nature of God, in particular his moral attributes. I will argue that the Hume’s point that we can conclude the god’s neutrality in terms of goodness by leaning on the evidence or experience we may notice on the Earth is not accurate, because here he does not take into account the human’s limited comprehension, possibility of wrong interpretation of moral attributes. Despite the fact that his theory almost perfectly fits into practical consideration, we can conclude the God’s goodness through reason. In this paper, I will start from a summary of the main points in the passage and analyzing them through the arguments of other philosophical authors.
The passage starts from Demea’s statement that it’s certain - God exists, but we have no idea of God’s nature, because it’s beyond human comprehension. Philo agrees with Demea, everything has a cause, thus there should be original cause that wasn’t caused, and it’s God. While our knowledge’s limited to experience, we cannot know God, we have no experience of divine nature, we know the effects by knowing the causes…