The argument from desire
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 01:48 PM)julep Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 12:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If you can't see that I was staying that desire is in us all and that desire of material things as opposed to beneficial direction for all is diluted. If all have desire then all can meet that desire with truthful selfless direction and fulfil that desire more so than with material things.

If someone says they don't care to know meaningful things then they have no purpose.


The Christian "argument from desire" is that all people desire to know god, and that this desire itself is evidence that god exists. The argument is not that all people are born with the capability of desiring things. The argument is that all people are born desiring to know god.

You seem to be coming down on the anti side of the argument with "If someone says they don't care to know meaningful things then they have no purpose." If you agreed with the argument from desire, then you would call such a person a liar, rather than someone without a purpose. So congrats, you seem to be in agreement with the atheists on this one!

However, it's possible that you thought you made a different point in the bunch of words ending with a period (I can't in good conscience call it a sentence) before the one I quoted which would undermine my interpretation.

"No desire and thus forth desire to know of the creative force and correct direction of reciprocal thanks and giving is innate in All." Undecided
Should have been to desire, not no desire. Extremely sloppy execution on my part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 02:41 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 01:48 PM)julep Wrote:  The Christian "argument from desire" is that all people desire to know god, and that this desire itself is evidence that god exists. The argument is not that all people are born with the capability of desiring things. The argument is that all people are born desiring to know god.

You seem to be coming down on the anti side of the argument with "If someone says they don't care to know meaningful things then they have no purpose." If you agreed with the argument from desire, then you would call such a person a liar, rather than someone without a purpose. So congrats, you seem to be in agreement with the atheists on this one!

However, it's possible that you thought you made a different point in the bunch of words ending with a period (I can't in good conscience call it a sentence) before the one I quoted which would undermine my interpretation.

"No desire and thus forth desire to know of the creative force and correct direction of reciprocal thanks and giving is innate in All." Undecided
Should have been to desire, not no desire. Extremely sloppy execution on my part.

Okay. Then let's try to parse this one:

"To desire and thus forth desire to know of the creative force and correct direction of reciprocal thanks and giving is innate in All."

"Thus forth" does not mean therefore, but I assume you are using it with that intention. So, "To desire and [therefore] desire to know of the creative force" … is innate in [a]ll." So you are asserting, it seems, that a desire to know of the creative force is innate in everyone. However, you have not yet made any statement about whether this desire itself proves the existence of a creative force.

Then in the next sentence in your original text, you contradict yourself: you write that people can "not care to know" meaningful things. In that case, this desire wouldn't be a universal innate quality.

Finally, "correct direction of reciprocal thanks and giving" has nothing to do with the argument from desire. It's an interesting implication, as I have never heard of any religion that considers god to be thankful to humans---it's always the other way around, which is not reciprocal by any definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: The argument from desire
Well it definitely doesn't refute it.

You have a point about the utterly nihilistic. But that's not the majority, if you don't desire or have some sort of passion then you aren't really living, and I wouldn't have been talking about them. So not technically universal I suppose.

Lastly the reciprocal part would be the giving part without want. It is in thanks to the giving spirit of God, and respect for its All subsisting nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 12:59 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(21-12-2015 07:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Buddhists see it as a character flaw.

Yep craving or desire and clinging for sensual pleasures , clinging for views , clinging to rules and vows , clinging to the doctrine of the self or ego is the root of suffering. Yes Thumbsup The Christards desire to know god is mostly because they are afraid of death. They are afraid of oblivion. They desire and crave to exist forever after death. Christards are too attached to their ego.
A true Christian doesn't act for reward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 03:36 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Well it definitely doesn't refute it.

You have a point about the utterly nihilistic. But that's not the majority, if you don't desire or have some sort of passion then you aren't really living, and I wouldn't have been talking about them. So not technically universal I suppose.

Lastly the reciprocal part would be the giving part without want. It is in thanks to the giving spirit of God, and respect for its All subsisting nature.

I'm still waiting on your god to thank me; I'm not going to thank him first.

And reciprocity is giving with the expectation of getting something back; it very much involves wanting something (salvation, world peace, a new computer, chocolate, etc.) and doing something (praying, prostrating, paying, promising a favor, baby-sitting, lawn-mowing, fucking, etc., etc., etc.) to get it.

You conflate desire and desire to know god, and you have not shown that these are universal or that all people who desire necessarily desire to know god. There's a difference between anhedonic or "utterly nihilistic" people (who may have weird brain chemistry) and people like me, who desire things, but have no desire to know god. As you admit that desire is "not technically universal," you have just come down firmly on the opposing side of the argument from desire.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
23-12-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 03:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A true Christian doesn't act for reward.

The problem is that there is no standard against which to measure to determine who is or is not a "True Christian™". That's what happens when you base your life on self-delusion.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 04:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 03:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A true Christian doesn't act for reward.

The problem is that there is no standard against which to measure to determine who is or is not a "True Christian™". That's what happens when you base your life on self-delusion.
It's called scripture and works or the products of one's life and work. It is verifiable, easily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 04:23 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 04:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The problem is that there is no standard against which to measure to determine who is or is not a "True Christian™". That's what happens when you base your life on self-delusion.
It's called scripture and works or the products of one's life and work. It is verifiable, easily.

Then please explain why there are thousands of "Christian" denominations who disagree about doctrine. There is no single definition of what makes a "true Christian" and your opinion is no more valid than the millions of others who would disagree with your interpretation of scripture. Face it, pops, it is all bullshit piled on bullshit.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-12-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: The argument from desire
(23-12-2015 04:23 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 04:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The problem is that there is no standard against which to measure to determine who is or is not a "True Christian™". That's what happens when you base your life on self-delusion.
It's called scripture and works or the products of one's life and work. It is verifiable, easily.

And you don't realize if I use one set of scriptures I can "prove" that Seventh-Day-Adventists are the only true Christians and using another set I can prove that Baptists are the only true Christians and on and on to infinity? Or do you honestly not realize that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: The argument from desire
Lastly the reciprocal part would be the giving part without want. It is in thanks to the giving spirit of God, and respect for its All subsisting nature.

Huh? Whenever I am in church they expect me to do the giving. God ain't giving nuthin'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: