Part X of Hume's "Dialogues"


In hume's dialogues, Part x, Philo presents the trilemma attributed to epicurus: "is God willing but unable to prevent evil? able but unwilling? both willing and able? whence, Then is evil?" some critics say philo is trying to disprove god's existence. Some say he is not. I say he grants God exists as the first cause in order to show natural religion is impossible. For natural religion must establish god's benevolence, But it cannot combat "moderate scepticism" to establish any moral attribute of god. It would have to show first that men are for the most part happy--A proposition no one can prove both because it is contrary to everyone's feeling and experience and because it is impossible to compute all the pains and pleasures of all men. Philo's argument stands independently of the more frequently discussed four causes argument of part xi

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,660

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

62 (#187,925)

6 months
1 (#388,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Similar books and articles

Scepticism and Belief in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.Stanley Tweyman - 1986 - Distributors for the U.S.A. And Canada, Kluwer Academic.
What's True About Hume's 'True Religion'?Don Garrett - 2012 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (2):199-220.
Part IX of Hume's Dialogues.D. C. Stove - 1978 - Philosophical Quarterly 28 (113):300-309.
Another Problem About Part IX of Hume's "Dialogues".Brian Calvert - 1983 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 (2):65-70.