《圣经》;因为房屋都是有人建造的。但建造万物的就是神”(希伯来书3:4,新译本)导致许多可以理解的感觉,如果一个房子需要一个设计师和建筑工人那么一些小东西,但更复杂的如一个人类细胞也需要设计师和建设者的选择是一个细胞是由于盲目操作力的一些愚蠢的遗赠,无生命的物质。然而，没有一个科学家能够从无中生有。物理定律指出，现有的材料只能被转化，从而导致圣经作者以赛亚的结论;他用窑匠和泥作比喻，说:“匠人的工作，连匠人的工作，也没有造成我。”(以赛亚书29:16)。我们看到一幅美丽的油画挂在美术馆里，内心对这位艺术家的技艺感到惊奇;我们读了一本书，认出了它的作者。当我们在红灯前停车时，我们知道已经制定了法律。我们可能不明白为什么会有某些法律，我们可能不明白艺术家或作者试图在他们的作品中描绘什么，但我们不会用缺乏理解来怀疑它们的存在。休谟认为,同样的圣经文本在希伯来书3:4当他告诉克林斯·斐洛,”克林斯·,如果我们看到一个房子,我们得出结论,以最大的确定性,它有一个架构师或builder”(2.8 D),然而对于休谟类比不认为我们需要建立一个物质世界的经验来证明一个后验声称任何特定的物质世界的原因。没有这样的经验，我们就没有必要的理由来宣称物质宇宙一定有一个理性的原因。然而，他的论点失败了，因为我们不需要看到正在建造的房子，就知道它是由建造者按照建筑师给他们的蓝图建造的。他进一步论证说，即使在宇宙的相似性之间的推断是合理的，比如一所房子，也不会因此就得出有一个“完美的”上帝创造了它。同样地，一所房子需要很多人来建造。 这很可能是一些神，同样的道理，也不能证明这个神需要完美的智慧或善良的结论是正确的。
The Bible states; “for every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4, KJV) leading many to understandable feel that if a house needs a designer and a builder then surely something as small but vastly more complex such as a human cell also needs a designer and a builder for the alternative would be that a cell came about due to the blind operation of forces bequeathed from some unintelligent, inanimate matter. Yet no scientist has been able to make something from nothing. The laws of physics state that existing materials can only be transformed giving rise to the conclusion of the Bible writer Isaiah; when using an analogy of a potter and his clay he said, “for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?” We see a beautiful painting hanging in an art gallery and inwardly marvel at the artist’s skill; we read a book and recognise that it had an author. When we stop at a red traffic light we understand that a law has been set forth. We may not understand why certain laws are there, we may not understand what the artist or author was trying to portray in their works yet we do not use that lack of understanding to doubt that they exist.Hume considers that same Bible text in Hebrews 3:4 when he has Philo tell Cleanthes, “If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder” (D 2.8), yet for Hume the analogy fails arguing that we would need experience in the creation of a material world to justify an a posteriori claim as to the cause of any particular material world. Lacking such experience we therefore lack the needed justification for claiming that the material universe must have an intelligent cause. His argument fails however as we do not need to see a house being built to know that it was constructed by builders following a blueprint given to them by the architect. He further argues that even if the inference is justified between the similarities of the universe and say, a house, it would not therefore follow that there is a ‘perfect’ God that created it. It may well have been a number of gods for likewise a house takes a number of people to build (D 5.8), nor would the inference justify the conclusion that this God would need to be perfectly intelligent or good.