Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Philo indicates in the first premise of his first argument of Part X, that the only way society was able to implement religion and a supreme Deity that would also build longevity, needed some sort of image of association. Philo is classified as a skeptic, he interjects that the idea of there being a God has no proof of existence through the sentiments of man that claim no real testimony of divine intervention of any higher intellect without using some sort of system. There is no order of cohesion that determines what should give sufficient enough reason for religion; but to implement such ideologies’ into existence would require some type of human characteristics (anthropomorphism). Philo is trying to prove that creating a source for inspirational for all to believe without question of a God that seems to have human characteristics should be considered blasphemy. In my eyes humans are more acceptable to beliefs of others before questioning possibilities. What respect doe God's grace and mercy actually resemble the grace and mercy of humans? If God created evil and good, then Philo asks if God is impotent, or malevolent, or both? It is possible to see the things on this planet and make observations of order which Cleanthes compares vegetation and animals are more like machinery. Yet machines do not have the capability to feel happiness or sorrow to preserve them from propagation of life. Philo then questions how are people to believe in the understanding of attributes from a perfect God that is incomprehensible.

Demea thinks that all man should understand the truth of religion and should not enter into a higher consciousness or reasoning of a Deity, this would be considered blasphemy. He constantly questions how one should vie...

... middle of paper ...

...ll be incoherent in an ambiguous understanding of truth versus false. Philo tries to establish the existence of God does not work or have any reason to say he exist or doesn't without proof. If a supreme entity was to exist, there would be three particular characteristics of such a creature would not exist from the perspective of omniscient, omnipotent, or considered to be perfectly benevolent. None of these properties are of an existence, therefore when explaining the essence and nature of God, there are no such beings or deities in the entire world who possess all three qualities. If this was possible, then that would have to be from a high level of intelligence that no human would be able to comprehend in any fashion of known existence, thus refuting there being and existence of a supreme being all together.

Works Cited

dialogues concerning natural religion