Final answer:
The claim associating Philo with the argument about a deer's existence and the order of the universe is false. Hume provided arguments about perceived disorder, while Leibniz saw a higher-order contributing to the best possible world. The existence of a deer is not dependent on human observations of cosmic order.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that according to Philo, since the universe is not perfectly ordered, the existence of a deer is unlikely is false. Philo's argument hasn't directly tackled the probability of the existence of specific creatures like deer based on the order of the universe. Instead, it is David Hume who provided a counter-argument to the argument from design, indicating that the universe does not exhibit much order, with examples such as the collision of galaxies and natural disasters like earthquakes. Hume argued that the analogy used to compare the ordered universe to human-made objects fails because we do not have other universes for comparison.
In contrast, while Gottfried Leibniz acknowledges that there may be perceived disorder, he suggests that from a higher perspective—like God's view—everything that exists contributes to the best possible world. Our limited understanding cannot comprehend the complexity and necessity of every event and entity in the universe.
Thus, the existence of a deer—or any other creature—is not contingent upon our observations of order or disorder in the universe, but rather it exists as a part of the complex ecosystem that we are still striving to fully understand.