My favorite thing to think about when doing readings for this class is the logic and reasoning used by the author. It's obvious to me that some use more sound logic, while others use assumptions and more prominently, conclusions that they themselves came to. A piece of interesting flow of logic included in this dialogue reads:
Now we can see how the argument by design works as a whole. (1) In my experience, whenever I have encountered a machine, that machine was made by a human intelligence. Therefore, (2) all machines are made by human intelligence. (3) The universe is analogous to a machine. (4) Therefore, the universe must have been made by something which is similar to a human intelligence.
This is very intriguing to me because Hume looks first at something he can see, machines. He looks at this first because his thoughts actually start at 3, where he decided that a universe is a machine originally and worked backward from there in his thoughts. Based on the analogy that a universe is a machine, his logic seems to hold up. Anything that works as a machine must have been built by something with knowledge similar to ours, and as our bodies work as a machine it seems that it would have created us as well. Even though there are some loose ends worth addressing, I like this argument.
Was anyone else intrigued by the argument this reasoning proposed?
Now we can see how the argument by design works as a whole. (1) In my experience, whenever I have encountered a machine, that machine was made by a human intelligence. Therefore, (2) all machines are made by human intelligence. (3) The universe is analogous to a machine. (4) Therefore, the universe must have been made by something which is similar to a human intelligence.
This is very intriguing to me because Hume looks first at something he can see, machines. He looks at this first because his thoughts actually start at 3, where he decided that a universe is a machine originally and worked backward from there in his thoughts. Based on the analogy that a universe is a machine, his logic seems to hold up. Anything that works as a machine must have been built by something with knowledge similar to ours, and as our bodies work as a machine it seems that it would have created us as well. Even though there are some loose ends worth addressing, I like this argument.
Was anyone else intrigued by the argument this reasoning proposed?
Comments