Again premise three says ‘Generally, when effects resemble each other, their causes do as well’. In Hume’s objection it says if two things are exactly alike, then they are general caused by things that are exactly alike. The world is not exactly like a machine though, some parts may be comparable but there are immense differences. One example from class was a crater created by a bomb and a crater created by a meteorite. Another example is a forest fire; it could be created by a lighting strike or by human fault.
In fact, Hume argued that it is precisely because our actions are causally decided by prior events and conditions that our desires, motivations, and beliefs shape our actions. For Hume, the idea of free will is not undermined by determinism, but rather relies on
Types of the reason from Teleological argument have been around for a while yet have increased restored intrigue as of late. Has Hume figured out how to demonstrate the improbability of such views or would they be covered to counter his feedback? Take a position in the level-headed discussion and show where your rivals aren't right. The argument for configuration depends on the supposition of a maker, or God that outlined the universe with the gathered closely resembling nature of the apparent request of the world, and the question found in computers and all things considered, something so requested must be the aftereffect of a Teleological argument.
When it comes to Hume’s theories, specifically the principles of ideas, we can evaluate them based on their identities. Out of the three associative principles, “causation is the strongest and the only one that takes us beyond our senses” (Morris and Charlotte). Causation establishes a link between the present and the past and this can be compared to the relation between the cause and effect. Hume tries to show the ways we associate ideas, and the reasons why it’s supposed to stay that way. He doesn’t focus on explaining why we do it this way, he automatically assumes that humans understand this concept.
First, Paley’s so-called design that attempt to reason to God's existence from demonstrating the order of the whole Universe and its regularities or laws of nature. The attempt to reason to God's existence from the orderliness indicated in living organisms, their complexity, and being well-suited for the tasks of reproduction and survival. Paley's Natural Theology gives elaborate details of a local design argument. Hume work through his three characters presented his criticisms, but Cleanthes showed strong arguments that were similar in a way to Paley’s to counter his Hume’s explanations. In my opinion, Hume accepts the point that design argument is more likely that the universe had been designed and there was an intelligent designer.
Hume has failed to take a few things into account. The first of this would be concerning reasoning backing up your morality. As we all have grownup, we are often told to not do things such as do not smoke or do not steal etc and when we ask why not to, we are told simply because it is bad. For those people who remain in question about why smoking is bad and who are maybe standing on the fence between doing it and not doing it is where I feel reason comes into play. We are then shown facts that say “Smoking is bad because x…y…z…” which then solidify our reasoning and backs up our morality.
Philosopher David Hume’s argument against William Paley’s addresses the most common criticism in why Paley is wrong. Hume’s points out two major flaws in Paley’s argument that there is a creator of the universe. The first argument is the lack of evidence, in which he states that the existence of such a creator can only be proved through the a pattern of observation, which there is no pattern for. This addresses how without any form of pattern through observation that it is difficult to make a correlation between the universe and its designer (Speaks). Secondly he argumes that there are limitations to the design argument that Paley does not address.
The teleological argument, or otherwise known as the argument from design and the intelligent design argument, is a philosophical theory put forward by William Paley with its final premise of proving that god exists. The argument includes a handful of elements, however close to the fringe yet within the margin, of logic in order to assist the facilitation of accepting the premise as a truth. As we examine the argument, and its implications in the context in which it was given, we can begin to see the boundary of logic become veiled and intuition and assumptions start to interpose. The teleological argument is most commonly started with a supposition parable dealing with a watch, so lets start out with that. Suppose you are walking down along a river and along the way you spot something in the dirt.
Hume counters this argument by saying that there is no way for us to know this. There is no logical truth
Moreover, he argues against the cosmological existence of God is by equating causation to the ‘habit of mind’, or past experiences. He uses the example of a billiard ball hitting another ball. We know, from past experience, that the original ball’s motion will transfer into the ball that it hits, although, according to Hume, we have no actual evidence that the first ball causes the second ball to move; for all we know, this could be just a trick of the mind. It is only our past experience that tells us anything about this ‘cause-and-effect’ relationship. Further,
Hume argues that there is no justifiable reason that such
Hume’s response to this is through is character Philo, Philo said that we should not judge the attributes of god on something like Paley proposes. Philo argues that we cannot judge the entirety of the universe on one single part of nature because nature has an infinite number of springs of principle. Also that we cannot base God on our
Hume makes a good case for his argument, he basically wanted to show that it is difficult to find any idea that has not come from an impression. The only weakness that I could find in Hume’s argument is that in the end it leads us to skepticism because we cannot find any solid reason to believe we “know” anything, reality is just a bunch of impressions and ideas, Hume seemed to be skeptical of his own
Hume argues that there is no way to experience through impressions things like our souls, and that therefore the notion of a soul or other things - such as God - that are not directly available to us in the form of impressions are merely illusions, and we have no reason to believe in
Hume on the other hand can only confirm what has already happened, being that is the most truthful and logical
