I think perhaps the most interesting to me of this reading was the concept that all of these arguments do not seem to be able to prove theism. Hume states that a being with only 90 percent of the knowledge and power that “God” has would be able to create our Universe. Which makes sense. If “God” were all powerful or all knowing than one would think that the teleological traits would be without flaw. But this is not so. Many of the Teleological things we may see in life may seem to be very persuasive until we see things that do not work as they should. I would surmise that the number of objects that have a very apparent purpose is about equal to the number of objects that do not. There are so many loopholes in the “God” of classical theism that the pantheistic option that Hume briefly mentions becomes fully viable.
After reading this passage, I started to think about how the arguments we discussed for classical theism would fare against a pantheon of Mythological beings, such as the pantheon of Ancient Egypt or Greece. To be honest, these pantheons seemed to stand up just as well, if not better. Having a vast array of deities, each with their own flaws and talents seemed to make everything much easier to understand. ”If X deity cannot do it X1 can.” There are myths and stories about how things came to be, and the “Who designed the designer” argument cannot even cause too much trouble here. The Greek Gods were brought about by the Titans, who were brought about by Earth and Sky. Which still leaves the initial start to be the big question.
Having a Pantheon would result in there not being a Triple O being, but having more than one being who is at perhaps 90 percent of the Classical Theists God, which as Hume stated would have easily have been able to create our universe, with its natural flaws and gifts. The same goes for the fine tuning argument. These beings are powerful enough to keep our universe at a spot where it is able to sustain life, but not at a point where it is so perfect that there are no catastrophe’s. There are still issues here but because no one God is a triple O being, they cannot be so blamed for the lack of perfection.
These ideas obviously do not disprove Theism, nor are they conclusive in any way towards Pantheism, however I think they do lend more merit towards disproving Atheism. The idea of having no creator at all seems a little bit ridiculous when one considers all the options that could be.
I was not raised in a Christian household, so my general knowledge of Christian lore may be a little rusty, I would be curious to know if all Christians consider “God” to be a triple O being. I think the fact that there can be intelligent design without having the trifecta of O’s is the most significant thing that I gathered from reading this.