Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Probability after the fact is the core support for 'intellegient design theory', and therefore what I chose to focus on. Thanks for playing!
|
Probability after the fact is only an issue if you accept the very arguments that were refuted by Hume. However, taking Hume's arguments into account, the whole idea of probability doesn't even come into play, since design is LESS probably than the alternative (that is, no design).
Thanks for playing, and doubly so for losing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
No, you're not right, since Hume was in fact the first philosopher to present the arguments against design in the way he did, and by implying him being unoriginal in his thinking you grossly misrepresented him. Which, once again, is not surprising, since you have shown your ignorance of his arguments.
I could go into how Aristotle emphasized the non-deliberative nature of natural teleology, or Spinoza's criticisms of the design argument in his Ethics, but I'm fairly sure that would be entirely wasted on you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Ad hominem.
|
That's the general idea of ridiculing someone, yes. Glad you got that point, at least.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Nice to know you speak for philosophers everywhere.
|
I read many hundreds of philosophical works a year, and almost all have one thing in common: when using other philosophers' arguments, they refer to other philosophers' works rather than paraphrasing their entire theories.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Give me one example of a philosophy that doesn't begin with a fundamental assumption. Preferabally more specific then just a name.
|
You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.
However, here is an example from a time when people were still foundationalists:
I can doubt everything. However, I can not doubt that I think, since doubting implies thinking. In order for me to think, I have to be there. Therefore, cogito ergo sum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
Following Ockham's Razor, there is no reason to assume a creator. If there is no reason to, we shouldn't.
Following your argument, we should assume that anything exists that can possibly be imagined and cannot be proved to be false. That includes invisible fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and a whole lot more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
Please explain to me how the idea of no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks is any more or less likely than the idea that there are no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks.
Ockham's Razor, again.