Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
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".
|
Probability after the fact is the core support for 'intellegient design theory', and therefore what I chose to focus on. Thanks for playing!
Quote:
|
His arguments (yes, that's a plural) do have more classical roots.
|
So I'm right? I guess this is your way of saying you don't know where they came from originally, as evidenced by your next comment.
Quote:
|
However, since you apparently have no clue what his arguments are, I strongly doubt that you know what those roots are.
|
Ad hominem.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Nice to know you speak for philosophers everywhere.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Give me one example of a philosophy that doesn't begin with a fundamental assumption. Preferabally more specific then just a name.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You
believe that the universe had no creator. You can't prove that (and please when I say creator stop trying to put a christian spin on it as I don't like words put in my mouth). Yes the arguement is completly circular, which is why I find it amusing that you say one side of the circle is any more valid then the other.
Please explain to me how the idea of a higher power is any more or less likly then the idea that there is no higher power.