"Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

Is this the stupidest argument for God ever made?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#181  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2015 8:35 pm

Shrunk wrote:A very neutrally worded question there. I was quivering with suspense at how he would answer. :lol:

So the ones who are "totalitarian" are not the people who take the view that it is a fact of nature that marriage is only heterosexual? OK, if you say so.


It's one of those Catholic ideas that some people seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around but for some Cs, it's not the non-democratic organization that insists on controlling beliefs as well as actions with a leader who has infallible powers that is the totalitarian danger but rather the democratically elected governments that are imposing totalitarianism by insisting on equal rights for all. I'm sure many of your friends over at the Catholic World Report can explain this far better than I.


Pity he now won't get the chance to see the error of his ways.


How do you know?
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#182  Postby Shrunk » Apr 21, 2015 9:53 pm

John Platko wrote:
Shrunk wrote:A very neutrally worded question there. I was quivering with suspense at how he would answer. :lol:

So the ones who are "totalitarian" are not the people who take the view that it is a fact of nature that marriage is only heterosexual? OK, if you say so.


It's one of those Catholic ideas that some people seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around but for some Cs, it's not the non-democratic organization that insists on controlling beliefs as well as actions with a leader who has infallible powers that is the totalitarian danger but rather the democratically elected governments that are imposing totalitarianism by insisting on equal rights for all. I'm sure many of your friends over at the Catholic World Report can explain this far better than I.


The vigor of their opposition suggests to me they're not really drinking the Kool-Aid, however. If a government decided to pass a law changing something that was actually a fact of nature, for instance declaring that gravity no longer existed, they wouldn't waste all this time protesting and fighting against it, because it would be so obviously absurd and ineffectual. At the very least, they should simply accept that the thing the gov't refers to as "marriage" is not the same "marriage" that they view as a natural phenomenon, and therefore any legislation affecting the former is irrelevant to the latter.

Pity he now won't get the chance to see the error of his ways.


How do you know?


Call it an educated guess. :)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#183  Postby Nicko » Apr 21, 2015 11:19 pm

Shrunk wrote:At the very least, they should simply accept that the thing the gov't refers to as "marriage" is not the same "marriage" that they view as a natural phenomenon, and therefore any legislation affecting the former is irrelevant to the latter.


Indeed, of all the various flavours of Christianity, Catholicism has the most experience with this distinction. To the extent that I've pointed to it's handling of divorce as a model of how SSM could be recognised by the state without raising any religious freedom issues for those who think fags make the baby Jesus cry..

People who want divorces can usually get the state to grant them. Catholics who want annulments have to jump through a few more hoops. One doesn't need an annulment to be considered divorced by the state; the civil procedure takes care of that. One only needs an annulment if one wants the RCC to sanction another marriage. Alternatively, if an annulment is refused, the second (or third, fourth, etc.) marriage can still take place, it just won't be in a Catholic church with a priest officiating.

The RCC already has a more restrictive view of marriage than wider society. The system seems to be working fine.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#184  Postby Agrippina » Apr 22, 2015 5:54 am

I wonder how the Catholic Church get their head around the notion that their ancestors, and the people from whom they stole every idea on which their religion is based, including the holidays, titles etc., used to just tell a partner they were divorced, and went on to marry someone else. Roman marriage certainly wasn't based on some religious nonsense, it was all to do with uniting families and wealth, yet the church stole the idea of marriage, the ceremonies, the priesthoods, the various religious holidays, but threw out the tradition of marriage, and made it into some nonsense that their new god was supposedly involved with. :roll:

They must think that people are really stupid enough to not see through how much of Roman religious and cultural tradition they stole, even calling the pope "pontifex." How dumb do they think people are? :nono:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 108
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#185  Postby tolman » Apr 22, 2015 9:51 am

Well, like other backward religions, they do do their best to make sure there's one born every minute.
Regardless of whether there are resources to feed them.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#186  Postby Nebogipfel » Apr 22, 2015 11:58 am

Thommo wrote:"The state can't change the nature of marriage".

Huh, it really felt like they did that here. :scratch:


Well, someone changed the nature of marriage so that "secondary wives" were no longer permissible. :think:
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#187  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2015 3:17 pm

hmmmmm. Now I have Joe Dawson attempting to give me a crash course in metaphysics over at the Catholic World Report- this is going to try my patience.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#188  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2015 3:17 pm

hmmmmm. Now I have Joe Dawson attempting to give me a crash course in metaphysics over at the Catholic World Report- this is going to try my patience.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#189  Postby igorfrankensteen » Apr 25, 2015 7:02 am

How silly.

This ancient bit of nonsense has always had it's own defeat, built into it at the start.

In order for an all-powerful infinite being to exist in order to fulfill a desire, said desire has to be commensurate.

But that would mean that the yearning would be for an infinite, and therefore impossible to fulfill.

If anything, it would prove that gods could not exist.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 66
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#190  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2015 1:53 pm

igorfrankensteen wrote:How silly.

This ancient bit of nonsense has always had it's own defeat, built into it at the start.

In order for an all-powerful infinite being to exist in order to fulfill a desire, said desire has to be commensurate.

But that would mean that the yearning would be for an infinite, and therefore impossible to fulfill.

If anything, it would prove that gods could not exist.


It's even worse than that. I'm being educated on how the 4 causes work and why final cause tells us that there's own one purpose and one right way for sex.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#191  Postby Shrunk » Apr 25, 2015 3:42 pm

John Platko wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote:How silly.

This ancient bit of nonsense has always had it's own defeat, built into it at the start.

In order for an all-powerful infinite being to exist in order to fulfill a desire, said desire has to be commensurate.

But that would mean that the yearning would be for an infinite, and therefore impossible to fulfill.

If anything, it would prove that gods could not exist.


It's even worse than that. I'm being educated on how the 4 causes work and why final cause tells us that there's own one purpose and one right way for sex.


With massive walls of condescension, I see. I feel your pain.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#192  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2015 4:16 pm

Shrunk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote:How silly.

This ancient bit of nonsense has always had it's own defeat, built into it at the start.

In order for an all-powerful infinite being to exist in order to fulfill a desire, said desire has to be commensurate.

But that would mean that the yearning would be for an infinite, and therefore impossible to fulfill.

If anything, it would prove that gods could not exist.


It's even worse than that. I'm being educated on how the 4 causes work and why final cause tells us that there's own one purpose and one right way for sex.


With massive walls of condescension, I see. I feel your pain.


I can deal with the condescension but it's the sheer length of his posts that are killing me. It's amazing how completely convinced he is that everything has an ultimate purpose and he can figure out what that purpose is.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#193  Postby Shrunk » Apr 25, 2015 4:21 pm

John Platko wrote:I can deal with the condescension but it's the sheer length of his posts that are killing me. It's amazing how completely convinced he is that everything has an ultimate purpose and he can figure out what that purpose is.


Try hitting him with Animavore's penguin argument. It won't change his mind, of course, but it might cause him a few moments of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#194  Postby igorfrankensteen » Apr 26, 2015 12:18 am

By the way... the answer to the sub-title question

Is this the stupidest argument for God ever made?


is "no."

I think the stupidest argument for God I have run across, is this one, which I have had delivered triumphantly to me on MANY and occasion:

"Well then!!" [delivered with a shit-eating grin. Upturned nose is optional.]


..........................................................

Seriously. They think that's an argument.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 66
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#195  Postby John Platko » Apr 27, 2015 6:49 pm

Shrunk wrote:
John Platko wrote:I can deal with the condescension but it's the sheer length of his posts that are killing me. It's amazing how completely convinced he is that everything has an ultimate purpose and he can figure out what that purpose is.


Try hitting him with Animavore's penguin argument. It won't change his mind, of course, but it might cause him a few moments of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.


I get the impression that many of the Catholics who post there have highly developed rationalization mechanisms that quickly short circuit uncomfortable cognitive dissonance which might lead them to a change of mind. I don't know how you manage to post as much as you do over there because, for the most part, I find the people there too despicable to spend much time with.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#196  Postby michael^3 » Apr 27, 2015 7:27 pm

Shrunk wrote:
One of the classical demonstrations of God’s existence is the so-called argument from desire. It can be stated in a very succinct manner as follows. Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it. Now we all have an innate or natural desire for ultimate fulfillment, ultimate joy, which nothing in this world can possibly satisfy. Therefore there must exist objectively a supernatural condition that grounds perfect fulfillment and happiness, which people generally refer to as “God.”...

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog ... esire.aspx


And, no, he's not joking. He really thinks this is a good argument.


The desire for God is not a proof of God. But it's not an irrational thing either. If you have it, you should go looking for God. If you don't have it, you can continue to pursue any other gratification this material plane has to offer. There is little more to say about this really.
Happy the man who delights in God's law and meditates on it day and night.
michael^3
 
Posts: 1985

Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#197  Postby Animavore » Apr 27, 2015 7:39 pm

michael^3 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
One of the classical demonstrations of God’s existence is the so-called argument from desire. It can be stated in a very succinct manner as follows. Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it. Now we all have an innate or natural desire for ultimate fulfillment, ultimate joy, which nothing in this world can possibly satisfy. Therefore there must exist objectively a supernatural condition that grounds perfect fulfillment and happiness, which people generally refer to as “God.”...

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog ... esire.aspx


And, no, he's not joking. He really thinks this is a good argument.


The desire for God is not a proof of God. But it's not an irrational thing either. If you have it, you should go looking for God. If you don't have it, you can continue to pursue any other gratification this material plane has to offer. There is little more to say about this really.

If you have what?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43332
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#198  Postby michael^3 » Apr 27, 2015 7:46 pm

Animavore wrote:If you have what?


A desire for God
Happy the man who delights in God's law and meditates on it day and night.
michael^3
 
Posts: 1985

Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#199  Postby Animavore » Apr 27, 2015 7:52 pm

michael^3 wrote:
Animavore wrote:If you have what?


A desire for God


The argument says we all have this desire. Pointing out there are those that don't debunks it :thumbup:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43332
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#200  Postby michael^3 » Apr 27, 2015 7:56 pm

Animavore wrote:
michael^3 wrote:
Animavore wrote:If you have what?


A desire for God


The argument says we all have this desire. Pointing out there are those that don't debunks it :thumbup:


I agree.
Happy the man who delights in God's law and meditates on it day and night.
michael^3
 
Posts: 1985

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest