Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
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 Hume's refutation of the design argument still stands, and stands strongly, so ignoring it or calling it "outdated" is just stupid.
|
I guess the fact that I agreed with you in principal went right over your head. My point was that Hume's refutaion of the design arguement specifically has much more classical roots.
As for the rest I simply found it amusing that you felt the need to validate an arguement that stands on it's own by 'name dropping' a dead philosopher. Since you seem so 'well read' what would Hume say about you externally validating your arguements?
Quote:
|
Philosophy dictates that one bases one's arguments on rational deliberation and logic, not belief, and thus argumenting based on belief is unphilosophical.
|
All philosophy requires you to make some sort of unfounded assumption at some point.