Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
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).
|
Do you even understand what probality after the fact IS? It's becoming clearer and clearer that you don't.
I also find it amusing that you keep referencing Hume, when the conclusion he drews is that bottom up reasoning (emperical science) can't prove anything. What was it you said earlier?
Quote:
|
Since it is not based on any empirical inference or logical deduction, and there is a much stronger competitive theory, believing in it is irrational. Since it is both irrational and unscientific, it is irrelevant - it has no predictive, explanatory or other value, apart from providing people with an easy to understand end-all "explanation" for everything.
|
Ironic that even one of the great empirisists concludes that nothing can be proven via the very route you're trying to repudate.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You still haven't provided an example.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Congrats. You do realise that
this was Descarte's fundamental assumption yes? He build all of his latter reasoning on this buidling block. Once again, you have still yet to find a philosophy that doesn't begin with an assumption, and draws any real conclusion.
Might I add he came to the conclusion a higher power must exist.
Quote:
|
Following Ockham's Razor, there is no reason to assume a creator. If there is no reason to, we shouldn't.
|
Following Ockham's Razor there's no reason to
assume there isn't either. You're trying to apply his model out of context. I take it you also never read the part where even he acknowledges that his theory doesn't not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct. (we are of course assuming atheism is the simplest theory, something that is somewhat subjective when taken this far into the abstract)
We have two opposing theories:
A higher power exists
A higher power does not exist
Ockhams Razor is meerly ment to stop us from making more assumptions then we have to. The point that you are missing is that
both of these points of view are fundamental assumptions. One could even argue that OR supports creationism, as it is the much simpler of the two theories.