Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
All Hume managed to do is conclude empericism doesn't get you anywhere, and if you think he's the first to argue that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support for the theory of 'creationism' you really need to do some more classical reading, or even better come up with your own opinions rather hten just regurgitating outdated philosophy.
As for the rest just because an arguement has been debunked doesn't mean that it still doesn't fall into the realm of philosophy. Every philosopher has gaping holes in their logic, but you don't seem to have any problem accrediting them.
|
You obviously didn't read much of Hume. I was specifically referring to his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which effectively destroys most previous viability of the design argument.
Wanting to come up with your own opinions is no excuse for ignoring the findings of the past. Hume's refutation of the design argument still stands, and stands strongly, so ignoring it or calling it "outdated" is just stupid.
As for what's philosophy and what not... an argument ceases to be philosophical if it is no longer subjected to the essence of philosophy: rationality.
Invoking the design argument without any new argumentation comes down to ignoring all the arguments made against it, and thus invoking it based on irrational belief rather than logic. Philosophy dictates that one bases one's arguments on rational deliberation and logic, not belief, and thus argumenting based on belief is unphilosophical.