Argument from desire

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Links: Fixed markup, categorization)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
* There is no innate desire for God.
 
* There is no innate desire for God.
 
* Desires don't prove the existence of the object of said desire.
 
* Desires don't prove the existence of the object of said desire.
* The conclusion does follow.
+
* The conclusion simply does not follow.
 
* An unidentified object isn't God.
 
* An unidentified object isn't God.
  

Revision as of 21:52, 25 October 2008

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

The Argument from Desire is an argument for the existence of God, or rather some desired object. Promoted by C. S. Lewis and reportedly playing a part in his conversion to Christianity. It has the distinction of consisting entirely of false premises with a conclusion which does not follow.

The Weight of Glory:

"A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist."
"In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will. A man may love a woman and not win her; but it would be very odd if the phenomenon called “falling in love” occurred in a sexless world."

Argument

  • All innate human desires have objects that exist.
  • There is a desire for "we know not what" whose object cannot be identified.
    • God exists.

Counter Argument

  • There is no innate desire for God.
  • Desires don't prove the existence of the object of said desire.
  • The conclusion simply does not follow.
  • An unidentified object isn't God.

External link

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox