Yeah I agree that is a more interesting position, but I don’t even think it goes as far as being an “argument” – the importance of convincing others is usually downplayed in existential philosophy so arguments are usually unnecessary anyway. Personal experience is always favoured over arguments (as well you know, including mystical experience).

As I remember, Philo keeps pushing his sceptical arguments against Cleanthes but I don’t think any participant changes their views. I don’t think Philo rules out teleological arguments completely, just they can’t be used to infer divine truth. The book ends with the narrator judging that Philo (scepticism) won over Demea (a priori arguments for God) but Cleanthes (a postiori arguments) wins over Philo. Hume’s unstated view is almost certainly similar to Philo’s.

AC1

Your refutations make perfect sense if the design argument is being offered as a proof – but I reject the possibility of a logical or rhetorical proof. The only argument that can be sustained with any credibility would be an onto-mystical argument that combined philosophical reflections on the nature of being with experiential insight – and of course if we are talking about a ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-said-to-exist’ then we are entering into the territory of the ineffable.

Nice quote from Hume, but didnt “Philo” who objected to “Cleanthes” argument from design finally agree that the teleological argument was valid?