Hume's Dialogues Against The Argument From Evil

1025 Words Feb 4th, 2018 4 Pages
In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Philo Presents an interesting argument, which is referred to as the argument from evil. The basic idea of the argument is that because there is so much evil and pain in this world there is no way there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. The purpose of this paper is to show that the argument fails, by defending a view on which the presence of evil is completely compatible with this type of God that has been described.

1. The Argument From Evil Philo’s argument from evil is as follows, “We grant that his power is infinite: whatever he wills to happen does happen. But neither man nor any other animal is happy; therefore God doesn’t will their happiness. His knowledge is infinite: he is never mistaken in his choice of means to any end. But the course of nature doesn’t lead to human or animal happiness; therefore nature isn’t established for that purpose.” Here is a more organized way of viewing his argument. (A1) If God exists, then there is an omni-being. [omni-being: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent] (A2) If there were an omni-being, then there would be no evil. (A3) There is evil. (A4) So, there is no omni-being. (A5) So, God does not exist.
(A1) Is how we plan on defining God in this world. By saying he is an omni-being we are assuming this God has three attributes. First we say that he is omnipotent ie; all-powerful. Second we say that he is omniscient or in other words he is all…
Open Document