Common experience tell us that Nature exhibits the interchange between continuity and discontinuity - growing up marked by sudden changes, heating which gradually leads to boiling, gradual growing apart of friends leading to sudden ruptures, etc.
The meaning of the existence of god for empiricists Arguments For the existence Teleological Moral Trancendental David Hume was one of the great empiricists, especially in the area of the philosophy of religion.
The ability for empiricism to produce sceptic conclusions that concern our knowledge of God was greatly apparent in the work of Hobbes in which he holds on to similar empiricist principles concerning the foundations of human knowledge.
One of the most apparent aspects of the position that Hobbes takes on this subject is his claim that we have no idea of God and this can make our comprehension of him difficult.
In his writing "Leviathan" he states: Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude, nor concieve infinite swiftness, infinitie time, or infinite force, or infinite power And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us concieve him for he is incomprehensible, and his greatness and power are inconcievable but that we may honor him.
If no impression can be produced, we must conclude that the term altogether is therefore deemed insignificant. Given the significance of the "copy-principle" in the phylosophical system that Hume presents, and it clear revelance to the debate of the idea of God that we have, it is suprising to find that in the Treatise, Hume rarely mentions our idea of God, or even provides any kind of a detailed account of the nature and the origin of this idea.
It would be a grave mistake though, to assume that that these problems of theology as they concern our idea of God, are not in Humes mind, but to neglect this topic in the face of the continuing debate and the clear revelance to Hume's philosophy in the writing of the Treatise, which clearly conveeys a sceptical idea or message.
It may be argued that Hume's delivery or presentation of his theory of ideas in his writings of the Enquiry shows that the sceptical reading is not as obvious maybe as it appears. In this context Hume seems to use the idea of God to describe or illustrate his copy- principle.
When we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded or sublime, we always find that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from precedent feeling or sentiment. Even those ideas, which at first view, seem the most wide of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutinty to be derived from it.
The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and Good Being, arises from the reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom. Hume feels the account of our idea of God, as has been presented in this passage, follws simply Locke's line of reasoning.
Our idea of the existence of God is very complex and comes from very simple ideas steeped in the reflections on the way of operations of our own mind which upon we argue without limit. These remarks given in the Enguiry about the very nature and the origins of our ideas of God could be construed to show that the theory of ideas that Hume presents, such as the ideas in the Treatise, has no clear sceptical implications this seems to follow alog Hobbeisan lines but contrary to these views, there is a good reasonto conclude that Hume's Lockean description of our idea of God appears to really be less that sincere.
Hume continues on to show that the "optimists" of God in trying to deal with these difficulties actually are degrading God with the implication that God resembles them in any way to strive to make him more understandable or "comprehensible".
What is more important than this, is that in the Enquiry XI Hume presents a critique of our conjectures about the nature of God and the attribute he may have, based in the evidence of design in the world.
The Diety is known to us only by his productions, and is a single being in the universe, not comprehended under any species or genus, from whose experienced attributes or qualities, we can, by analogy, infer any attribute or quality in him Clearly then, there is a closely knit connection between the sceptical implications of Hume's empiricists theory of ideas, as based in his copy-principle, and then with his related critique of of the argument for God's existence from design.
A basic or fundamental point trhat seems to emerge from all of thisis that Hume seems to agree with Hobbes that in our idea of God tends to follow the same path of that of a blind man trying to obtain the idea of fire. Hume continues his critques of arguments for God's existence.
One of Hume's more explicit assaults is in his writings in the Dialogues Part IX, in these writings he mentions Clarke and reduces his argument to a mere few sentences. Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence, it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself, or to be the cause of its own existence.
In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite sucession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent D,90 It is also essential to his argument to prove that the necessarily-existen being cannot be of unintelligent inactive matter matter.
Clarke's argument that is being expressed by Hume, is rooted on the contingency for the existence of matter and a particular form of the world.
Ant particle of matter, it is said, "may be concieved to be annihilated; and any form may be concieve to be altered.
Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore is not impossible. D91 Clarke provides another argument that is not mentioned by Hume in the Dialogues to show that it is quite impossible for matter to truly be"the final and original being" it states that we cannot explain the origin of motion and intelligence in the world if matter is the first, original self existing being.
The basic principle idea that Clarke is relying on to come to this conclusionis,once again that "nothing can come from nothing". The principle in this case is seems to be interpreted that it is inplying "in order of causes and effects, the cause must always be more excellent that the effect" Demonstrations,38 On this account, it is virtually impossible that "any effect could have such perfection, which was not in the cause" Clarke and other like-minded thinkers, using the basis of this principle described as the causal-adequacy principle these thinkers attempt to maintain that it is possible to demonstrate for certain that matter and motion are not able to produce thought and intelligence.
So therefore, the self-existent being must be intellectually, immaterial being, they claimed that to suppose the contrary would be just plain contradiction. Hume on Miracles- Miracles are an essential and even a fundamental part of many of the monotheistic religions i.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. The observance or the account of miracles as presented in the scriptures of elsewhere in religious writings, are supposed to confirm the authenticity and even the authority of scripture and the prophets, but most importantly, establish that God has revealed himself to humans beings through the demonstration of these special acts or events.
From Christianity's point of view there is one miracle that is particulary of significance, and that being the resurrection of Christ. To doubt or question the validity or truth of this event is fundamentally to doubt the very core and distinct meaning and the doctrine of the Christian religion.
It would be to cast doubt on the claim that Christ is God and the saviour of human kind. A major concern that Hume has, as is presented in SectionX of the first Enquiry, was to discredit these miracle claims if this kind.
According to Hume's description "a miracle is a violation of a law of nature" EU, Hume adds that a miracle is not only a violation law of nature,but also requires the direct activity of God or some "invisible agent" is a significant requirement.
Nevertheless, the key issuefor Hume's critique of miracles, is whether or not we ever have reason to believe on the basis of testimony that a law of nature has been violated.Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience.
This view is commonly contrasted with rationalism, which states that knowledge may be derived from reason independently of the senses. Jan 30, · For example, we can infer the existence of God from the empirical evidence that the universe began to exist since anything which begins to exist requires an external cause, and God is the only kind of causal entity external to the universe that is sufficient to explain the effect in question.
The birth of positivism - The neopositivism of the Vienna Circle – The positivism between scientific thought and philosophical reflection.
Can an empiricist believe in God? Update Cancel. ad by EverQuote. empiricists unfairly limit the evidence for God. They seem to think you can only rely on science or philosophy, but nothing else. You can make rational arguments for the existence of God such as “I believe in God because the universe shows evidence of finely tuned.
The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world..
The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with . While some scientific types traditionally dismiss belief in a creation by a Creator, ironically some Empiricists put their faith in forces that supposedly created Big Bang.
Just ask a Big-Bang Believer to explain the existence of heat, pressure, and other conditions that combined to bring about BIG BANG — but existed before the Bang? Having an Atheist .