Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
And you tried to make that point by getting his argument wrong, claiming it was "that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support".
His arguments (yes, that's a plural) do have more classical roots. However, since you apparently have no clue what his arguments are, I strongly doubt that you know what those roots are.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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?  |
Very few philosophers would object to referring to someone who already made the argument, and better than you ever could yourself, instead of writing a whole new book on it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
All philosophy requires you to make some sort of unfounded assumption at some point.
|
That is not only untrue, it also follows a foundationalist model of knowledge. The foundationalist model of knowledge, however, isn't used much anymore these days, since it is clear to most intelligent people that knowledge exists in a coherent body rather than in some infinite tower of stacked beliefs. Thus, the very claim that philosophy requires making unfounded assumptions is entirely meaningless.
However, what I was referring to was method rather than foundation, and it is exactly there where the difference between philosophy and belief shows. Belief is not a valid method of justifying beliefs (if it were, it would be more than a little circular), logic and rational deliberation are.