Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?"(Dialogues) Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws. If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law."(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities."(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Of the ‘unity of the Deity’ the proof is, the uniformity of plan observable in the universe. The universe itself is a system; each part either depending upon other parts, or being connected with other parts by some common law of motion, or by the presence of some common substance. One principle of gravitation causes a stone to drop towards the earth, and the moon to wheel round it. One law of attraction carries all the different planets about the sun. This philosophers demonstrate. There are also other points of agreement amongst them, which may be considered as marks of the identity of their origin, and of their intelligent author. In all are found the conveniency and stability derived from gravitation. They all experience vicissitudes of days and nights, and changes of season. They all, at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have the same advantages from their atmospheres as we have. In all the planets the axes of rotation are permanent. Nothing is more probable, than that the same attracting influence, acting according to the same rule, reaches to the fixed stars: but, if this be only probable, another thing is certain, viz. that the same element of light does.* The light from a fixed star affects our eyes in the same manner, is refracted and reflected according to the same laws, as the light of a candle. The velocity of the light of the fixed stars, is also the same as the velocity of the light of the sun, reflected from the satellites of Jupiter. The heat of the sun, in kind, differs nothing from the heat of a coal fire. In our own globe the case is clearer. New countries are continually discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found in them: new plants perhaps or animals, but always in company with plants and animals, which we already know; and always possessing many of the same general properties. We never get amongst such original, or totally different, modes of existence, as to indicate, that we are come into the province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a different will. In truth, the same order of things attends us, wherever we go. The elements act upon one another, electricity operates, the tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its position, in one region of the earth and sea, as well as in another. One atmosphere invests all parts of the globe, and connects all: one sun illuminates; one moon exerts its specific attraction upon all parts. If there be a variety in natural effects, as, e. g. in the tides of different seas, that very variety is the result of the same cause, acting under different circumstances. In many cases this is proved; in all is probable. The inspection and comparison of living forms, add to this argument examples without number. Of all large terrestrial animals the structure is very much alike. Their senses nearly the same. Their natural functions and passions nearly the same. Their viscera nearly the same, both in substance, shape, and office. Digestion, nutrition, circulation, secretion, go on, in a similar manner, in all. The great circulating fluid is the same: for, I think, no difference has been discovered in the properties of blood, from whatever animal it be drawn. The experiment of transfusion proves, that the blood of one animal will serve for another. The skeletons also of the larger terrestrial animals, shew particular varieties, but still under a great general affinity. The resemblance is somewhat less, yet sufficiently evident, between quadrupeds and birds. They are alike in five respects, for one in which they differ. In fish, which belong to another department, as it were, of nature, the points of comparison become fewer. But we never lose sight of our analogy, e. g. we still meet with a stomach, a liver, a spine; with bile and blood; with teeth; with eyes, which eyes are only slightly varied from our own, and which variation, in truth, demonstrates, not an interruption, but a continuance, of the same exquisite plan; for it is the adaptation of the organ to the element, viz. to the different refraction of light passing into the eye out of a denser medium. The provinces, also, themselves of water and earth, are connected by the species of animals which inhabit both; and also by a large tribe of aquatic animals, which closely resemble the terrestrial in their internal structure: I mean the cetaceous tribe,* which have hot blood, respiring lungs, bowels, and other essential parts, like those of land animals. This similitude, surely, bespeaks the same creation and the same Creator."(William Paley "Natural Theology")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (2) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.”(Dialogues) Responses: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object." (J.P Morlend "Scaling The Secular City")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (3) "If we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered.
Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?"(Dialogues)
Responses:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws.
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law."(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities."(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"Of the ‘unity of the Deity’ the proof is, the uniformity of plan
observable in the universe. The universe itself is a system; each part
either depending upon other parts, or being connected with other
parts by some common law of motion, or by the presence of some
common substance. One principle of gravitation causes a stone to
drop towards the earth, and the moon to wheel round it. One law of
attraction carries all the different planets about the sun. This philosophers demonstrate. There are also other points of agreement
amongst them, which may be considered as marks of the identity of
their origin, and of their intelligent author. In all are found the
conveniency and stability derived from gravitation. They all experience vicissitudes of days and nights, and changes of season. They all,
at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have the same advantages from
their atmospheres as we have. In all the planets the axes of rotation
are permanent. Nothing is more probable, than that the same attracting influence, acting according to the same rule, reaches to the fixed
stars: but, if this be only probable, another thing is certain, viz. that
the same element of light does.* The light from a fixed star affects our
eyes in the same manner, is refracted and reflected according to the
same laws, as the light of a candle. The velocity of the light of the
fixed stars, is also the same as the velocity of the light of the sun,
reflected from the satellites of Jupiter. The heat of the sun, in kind,
differs nothing from the heat of a coal fire.
In our own globe the case is clearer. New countries are continually
discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found in them: new
plants perhaps or animals, but always in company with plants and
animals, which we already know; and always possessing many of the
same general properties. We never get amongst such original, or
totally different, modes of existence, as to indicate, that we are come
into the province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a
different will. In truth, the same order of things attends us, wherever
we go. The elements act upon one another, electricity operates, the
tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its position, in one
region of the earth and sea, as well as in another. One atmosphere invests all parts of the globe, and connects all: one sun illuminates;
one moon exerts its specific attraction upon all parts. If there be a
variety in natural effects, as, e. g. in the tides of different seas, that
very variety is the result of the same cause, acting under different
circumstances. In many cases this is proved; in all is probable.
The inspection and comparison of living forms, add to this argument examples without number. Of all large terrestrial animals the
structure is very much alike. Their senses nearly the same. Their
natural functions and passions nearly the same. Their viscera nearly
the same, both in substance, shape, and office. Digestion, nutrition,
circulation, secretion, go on, in a similar manner, in all. The great
circulating fluid is the same: for, I think, no difference has been
discovered in the properties of blood, from whatever animal it be
drawn. The experiment of transfusion proves, that the blood of one
animal will serve for another. The skeletons also of the larger terrestrial animals, shew particular varieties, but still under a great general
affinity. The resemblance is somewhat less, yet sufficiently evident,
between quadrupeds and birds. They are alike in five respects, for
one in which they differ.
In fish, which belong to another department, as it were, of nature,
the points of comparison become fewer. But we never lose sight of
our analogy, e. g. we still meet with a stomach, a liver, a spine; with
bile and blood; with teeth; with eyes, which eyes are only slightly
varied from our own, and which variation, in truth, demonstrates,
not an interruption, but a continuance, of the same exquisite plan;
for it is the adaptation of the organ to the element, viz. to the different refraction of light passing into the eye out of a denser medium.
The provinces, also, themselves of water and earth, are connected by
the species of animals which inhabit both; and also by a large tribe of
aquatic animals, which closely resemble the terrestrial in their
internal structure: I mean the cetaceous tribe,* which have hot blood,
respiring lungs, bowels, and other essential parts, like those of land
animals. This similitude, surely, bespeaks the same creation and the
same Creator."(William Paley "Natural Theology")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered.
Objection (2) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.”(Dialogues)
Responses:
"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about
unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about
the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no
one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that
the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in
common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one
object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this
object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object." (J.P Morlend "Scaling The Secular City")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered.
Objection (3) "If we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")