Hume weakened analogical arguments for God.

[Pyrrho]

I'm quoting a small large chunks of it; I could quote the whole chunk, but that would be crazy. Hume writes huge paragraphs. So many semicolons..
What Hume shows is that theism rests on imprecise analogy.

That the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the productions of art, is evident; and according to all the rules of good reasoning, we ought to infer, if we argue at all concerning them, that their causes have a proportional analogy. But as there are also considerable differences, we have reason to suppose a proportional difference in the causes

But there is a species of controversy, which, from the very nature of language and of human ideas, is involved in perpetual ambiguity, and can never, by any precaution or any definitions, be able to reach a reasonable certainty or precision. These are the controversies concerning the degrees of any quality or circumstance.

Where then, cry I to both these antagonists, is the subject of your dispute? The Theist allows, that the original intelligence is very different from human reason: The Atheist allows, that the original principle of order bears some remote analogy to it. Will you quarrel, Gentlemen, about the degrees, and enter into a controversy, which admits not of any precise meaning, nor consequently of any determination? If you should be so obstinate, I should not be surprised to find you insensibly change sides; while the Theist, on the one hand, exaggerates the dissimilarity between the Supreme Being, and frail, imperfect, variable, fleeting, and mortal creatures; and the Atheist, on the other, magnifies the analogy among all the operations of Nature, in every period, every situation, and every position. Consider then, where the real point of controversy lies; and if you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure yourselves of your animosity.

---

Oh, I forget to say that I think! Hume has pointed out the weak, inconclusive nature of these analogies and of the analogy based premises in other arguments for god. Therefore, the case for theism and religion is very underwhelming and inconclusive.

Two things. First, you are quoting a book that is a dialogue, in which characters say various, incompatible things. So it would be a big mistake to suppose that everything everyone says represents what Hume thought. I could stop at this, as it is, by far, the most important point.

The second thing is, Hume wrote in a time and place where it was illegal to be an atheist or say certain sorts of irreligious things. So there are some things that he could not say without serious consequences. So when he has something in one of his other writings, that is not a dialog, about god and religion, you need to keep this fact in mind when trying to understand his meaning and real position.


But yes, Hume observed that the argument from design is pure crap, and shows it to anyone paying attention in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume is one of the several sources for demonstrating the complete imbecility of the arguments that have been used for the purpose of proving the existence of god. All of the traditional arguments, in all of their forms, are pure crap.