David Hume's Argument From Design

The argument from design is an analogy and works by comparing the universe to an object. An example of the comparison would be to say the world resembles a car. All cars have creators, therefore, the world has to have a creator, and that must be God. The argument concludes by saying by observing the world we can gather evidence that the intelligence of a human that creates a car, bike or some other item resembles, in a less perfect form, God. However, Hume thinks this argument fails. Hume does not think we can compare the creation of the universe to a creation of a car or the creator of the universe to the creator of a car. Hume continues to reject this claim by pointing out that the existence of natural evil and moral evil in the world make it very unlikely that God exists. Hume does not think that with all the natural disasters, threats, attacks, homicides etc. that there can be such a perfect being like God. If God is willing and able to prevent evil than why is there so much evil? Hume thinks there is so much evil because there isn’t a God.
Hume also believes that with all the evil in the world if there is a God then he must not be perfect like the Bible claims he is. When an individual appeals to evolutionary biology they believe in a combination of both evolution and the existence of God. For example, a fish’s eyeball has many features and powers. It seems that only a deity could have created that, but also seems probable that the fish’s eye has evolved over time.
Dawkins agrees with Hume that the existence of God and belief in God cannot be rationally justified just by inferring.
but does some of his own opinions as well. One of Dawkins views is that when it comes to religion people usually believe what their parents do: what they grew up believing. Many individuals do not look for evidence or justification in their religion, but believe in something because that is all they know. Another one of Dawkins’ views on religion differs from Humes in that Dawkins states that believing in God requires more clarification. Dawkins questions why the existence of the universe has to have a creator, but God does not. He wonders why is the existence of God is a brute fact while other things need clarification on how they came about. Therefore, Dawkins does not think that the world had to have a creator, like the car did, so he also rejects the argument from design, and states that it
fails.
I think Dawkins is right that people tend to believe in the same religion as their parents. I agree that people should not believe in something because that is all they have been taught, but that they should be able to prove their beliefs. However, theists can reject Dawkins’ claim about God having to have a creator. God is an almighty high power. God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. God is not a human in human form, and does not need a creator, and God is not subject to laws of logic. There really is no proof that God exists other than God’s word that is stated in the Bible, which is powerful proof. As humans it may not make sense to us. With the way life unfolds and the directions our life takes us it seems only probable that a God controls our life and everything in it. Something that is all powerful, all knowing and all good cannot be created, and cannot be controlled like we are. There is nothing above God, therefore, making it impossible for God to have a creator. The universe is a thing, and things have to be created, however God is not a “thing”. Scientists questions God existence, but science is never finished; it's never perfect. It's a human understanding of truth. The human understanding of truth cannot begin to comprehend the existence or creation of such a being. Both philosophers also believe that belief in God is never rationalized due to the problem of evil. A theist would admit that this problem bothers them as well, however, you should not dismiss God because of it. In fact, dismissing God only makes the problem worse. Denying God's existence in order to solve the problem of evil is like purposely crashing your car into a wall because it had a scratch or dent on it. People who allow evil to drive them to being atheist have no means to criticize something evil. Instead of solving the problem they've institutionalized it. If there is no God, then there is no ultimate goodness, so there can be no true evil either. Without God, everything becomes a matter of human preference.