Analyzing David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Rules were broken with David Hume’s letter concerning natural religion pertaining to the fact that these kinds of claims were barbaric in the 18th century. These claims or justifications were scolded during these times especially because many traditions were based on a nation “Under God” like the United States of America. This controversial letter was published after his death based on this reasoning. Cleanthes however, has a difficult time finding solid evidence to back up his claims relating to nature vs. machine. In this argument, Cleanthes is using analogy form to support his conclusion, which is a weak form of proving a point. Cleanthes tends to lack good analogies by using weak inductive arguments, relevant similarities, and by incorporating fallacies to back up his argument.

Standardization:
1). Machines have purpose, regularity, and complexity and they require an intelligent designer
2). Nature also has purpose, regularity, and complexity
Therefore,
3). Nature also requires an intelligent designer

When looking at arguments and identifying if the premises match up with the conclusions, we look at the true premise test. Premises are used to support the conclusion that defines the argument. With unreliable and weak premises, the whole form of the argument is not convincing or even true for that matter. The true premise test looks directly at the fact that the premises are true. However, there are ways associated with the true premise test to prove it incorrect. For instance, we look at Cleanthes argument and see that it is all based on observations, but maybe in ten years these premises could be scientifically proven. Perhaps we will all end up seeing the intelligent designers of nature and machines, and they will both tell us that machine and nature both have purpose, regularity, and complexity. To start off we look at the first premise in the standardization of Cleanthes argument. It is