And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, 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.  And if the weight requisite very much exceeds any thing which we have ever seen conjoined in any single body, the former supposition becomes still more probable and natural.  An intelligent being of such vast power and capacity as is necessary to produce the universe, or, to speak in the language of ancient philosophy, so prodigious an animal exceeds all analogy, and even comprehension.

But further, cleanthes:  men are mortal, and renew their species by generation; and this is common to all living creatures.  The two great sexes of male and female, says Milton, animate the world.  Why must this circumstance, so universal, so essential, be excluded from those numerous and limited deities?  Behold, then, the theogony of ancient times brought back upon us.

And why not become a perfect Anthropomorphite?  Why not assert the deity or deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, &c.?  Epicurus maintained, that no man had ever seen reason but in a human figure; therefore the gods must have a human figure.  And this argument, which is deservedly so much ridiculed by Cicero, becomes, according to you, solid and philosophical.