Hume: Comparing notes with Locke

In this blog, I want to compare the existance of God between Locke and Hume because they're both empiricists. Locke claimed that all of our thoughts, ideas, concepts and actions came from perception and gained experience. All of these perceptions would add up to the proofs of our knowledge, like how you know the taste of lemonade is sweet and sometimes sour, because you tasted it for yourself. So back to the existance of god, I feel Locke completely shoots down the theory of god, we have no percetption of god its just a made up concept for people to believe in something, Hume seems to do the same exact thing. He might not link perception and the disbelief in god, but his arguments are similar to Lockes. I feel Hume is less convincing with his support. Locke makes more contemporary sense.

Hume: Existence of God

Hume mentions God, and how we think of one as perfect. If I read correctly, it seems Hume is disproving god because the world is imprefect. This quality of the world is something god cannot posess, therefore he does not exist? The thought of a god, or the concept of a god is a useless matter according to Hume. I beleive he brings up a good point, we do not need a god, if there is no god present. Challenging this problem more, Hume argues that we can infer a whole lot, for example one footprint in the sand infers that a whole man walked this path, not just some random human foot. So what proof do we have to infer today that there is some infinite being or god out there? Certainly nothing appearing to me. Unless you take into the account of the world, it might have been created by god, its his work in progress, science could be running the earth, his own creation, until it collapses and it needs to be started all over agian. Is god running a puppet show via the world? David Hume, you confuse me.