Talk:Argument from desire

lol Sorry, but this article NEEDS to be upgraded. In my perspective, the argument copied is badly contained in the three stances under, and the refutation "there is no in... desire for God" is false once this just happens when someone put something in the local (money, science, evolution...)

Momergil 10:03, 5 December 2009 (CST)


 * I agree that the article (like allot on iron chariots) needs improving. This one in particular isn't very clear or accessible, especially to people that aren't so well read on formal logic, but I'm having trouble understanding the point that you're trying to make. Is English you're first language? Anywho, responding as best i can:


 * There is no innate desire for god. To say that there IS an innate desire for god is an unfounded assertion. Atheists like me more or less prove this fact. I don't have a need or a want for a god, and i get along just fine. So do most of the other users of this wiki. So do close to 25% of the people in my country.


 * Furthermore, I have a problem with each of the alternatives you put at the end. Once upon a time, there was no money. The need for a monetary system has only really sprung up since the neolithic revolution. A relatively short time in the history of the world. It represents less than 5% of the 200,000 year history of modern homo sapians. Money isn't an innate desire so much as a social convention.


 * I would perhaps say that we may have an innate desire to understand, but the construct of science as a systematic method for understanding the world has really only been around since the ancient Greeks. Before that we got by without it (at the cost of a much sorter life expectancy and much lower quality of life of course), and even today young earth creationists have no problems with rejecting the scientific method.


 * Evolution, well thats not really any more a desire than gravity is. Its just what happens in nature. Desire has nothing to do with it.


 * Whilst i agree the article probably needs to be rewritten for clarities sake, the main counterargument (even excepting the false premise that we have an innate desire for god) still holds true. "Desires don't prove the existence of the object of said desire." You could argue until you're blue in the face that you have an innate desire to fly, but just because you desire it doesn't mean you can flap your arms and take off. The same applies to this argument about god. Even if you were to argue that people had an innate desire for god, or an innate desire to live forever with jesus, or whatever, doesn't mean there is a god, or that you will live forever. Just because you desire something to be true doesn't mean that it is true.--Murphy 02:07, 6 December 2009 (CST)


 * I believe what Momergil was trying to say was that people only think they don't desire God because they have tried to replace God with things like money, science, or evolution. IOW, he/she seems to be advancing a tired apologist argument instead of actually trying to improve the article. But that's just how I see it.... - dcljr 02:03, 12 December 2009 (CST)