Demea's argument: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion?

Question

What is Demea's argument in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion? Explain argument.

Answer 1

In my opinion Demea's argument is pretty weak but here is a quick overview of Demea's argument from the Dialogues:

Demea rebuts Philo’s argument that God cannot be infinite and benevolent by saying that our perspective is limited to only a small place in the universe and a small space in time. Demea says things seem evil to us now because we do not have an understanding of the overall plan of "God." If we did understand the plan of "God," then we would see that what seems to be evil now is really just a step to some greater good. Since this "seeming evil" is a step to a greater good, then it must not actually be evil but good. He says that man must have faith that these things are true and that, at some time in the future, man will understand all the mysteries of "God’s" infinitely complex plan, which will be revealed and all the parts will make sense. When Demea’s argument is broken down into its essentials, it basically confirms Philo’s argument. Demea’s is saying precisely what Philo said, namely, that God’s mercy and benevolence are not anything like what man considers merciful and benevolent.

Answer 2

Does it? Empiricism won't clarify each thing bearing directly to the existence and character of god/God. does not Philo replace his place interior the top in direction of that of believing the introduction does tutor the author?