In such subjects, who can determine, where the
truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst
a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still
greater which may be imagined?
And what shadow of an argument, continued P/HILO\, can you
produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A
great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing
a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities
combine in contriving and framing a world? This is only so much
greater similarity to human affairs. By sharing the work among
several, we may so much further limit the attributes of each, and
get rid of that extensive power and knowledge, which must be
supposed in one deity, and which, according to you, can only
serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such foolish,
such vicious creatures as man, can yet often unite in framing and
executing one plan, how much more those deities or demons, whom
we may suppose several degrees more perfect!
To multiply causes without necessity, is indeed contrary to
true philosophy: but this principle applies not to the present
case. Were one deity antecedently proved by your theory, who were
possessed of every attribute requisite to the production of the
universe; it would be needless, I own, (though not absurd,) to
suppose any other deity existent. But while it is still a
question, Whether all these attributes are united in one subject,
or dispersed among several independent beings, by what phenomena
in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy? Where we see
a body raised in a scale, we are sure that there is in the
opposite scale, however concealed from sight, some counterpoising
weight equal to it; but it is still allowed to doubt, whether
that weight be an aggregate of several distinct bodies, or one
uniform united mass.
Pages:
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91