Commentary of Evil in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X

Good Essays
In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X, Philo have questioned how it is possible to reconcile God's infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power with the presence of evil in the world. “His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: but the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose.” (Hume, 87) Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God wishes to prevent needless suffering, but cannot, in which case God is not all-powerful, or we may admit that he does not wish to prevent evil in which case we may conclude that God is not infinitely benevolent. Or, alternatively, we can conclude that he both wishes and can prevent evil, but that he is not wise enough to know how to arrange the world so that there is no evil, in which case he is not infinitely wise.
Philo’s argument of the incompatibility of God’s existence with the existence of evil is valid, because of the following:
Philo’s argument has the premises which are God is infinitely wise, powerful and benevolent is true. The existence of evil shows God must lack either infinite benevolence or powerful or wisdom. If we assume these premises are true, then the conclusion God does not exist is true. A valid argument is one on which, if we assume the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true. Therefore it is a valid argument.
It is an unsound argument, because the premises of this argument are not true in fact: the existence of evil cannot show that God must lack either infinite benevole...

... middle of paper ... on randomly, evil things happen to people who don't deserve it. Is this state runs counter to the idea that God is just. Or God could not control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom. These replies are unsuccessful, because Van Inwagen's response is to say that God entails "being the playthings of chance." living in a world with no justice is a consequence of our separation with God; it's one more evil thing about our world. God's infinite perfection allows him to control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom, but he is executing his plan and waiting people to recognize how horrible it is to be apart from God.
In my opinion about the replies of Van Inwangen’s objection, if God is infinitely perfect, then we are limited to comprehend God, we can allow that God's infinite perfection and the evil of his great plan can be reconciled in some unknown way.
Get Access