Comparing Hume And Kierkegaard's Argument

Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different—Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational

{UGLY FIX THAT!!!} (Not actually that bad) With regards to Napoleon, “there exists no absolute relationship between him and his deeds” as any number of people could have been responsible for the actions. The deeds of Napoleon merely demonstrate the presence of a great general, but not necessarily the particular general, Napoleon. This logic would follow in relation to God and his deeds. Assuming the deeds of God are evident in the world, all they would demonstrate is the existence of the concept of God, but they could say nothing about the particular character of God; they could not establish God in the sense of a proper noun {should I have already introduced this concept}. By definition though, there is an absolute relationship between the works of God and the concept of God, and so Kierkegaard explores whether through this means we can at least establish proof for the concept of