Desire and ability lead to action. Or am I off?

[MarsCydonia]

Good evening gents,

I am having this argument with a christian (a result of discussing the argument from divine hiddeness), in which I am arguing that a someone having a desire (wanting to eat ice cream) plus the ability to satisfy that desire (obtaining ice cream) will invariably lead to accomplish that desire.

With the precaution that no other desire negates the original (not wanting to get fatter from the calories, not wanting to spend the time or the energy to get the ice cream), or that no force/factor negates the ability to satisfy that desire (you're locked in prison).

However, the christian contends that this does not follow.

Your opinion?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

How does that not follow? As you laid it out, X wants Y and nothing is impeding X from obtaining Y. If that is the case, X would obtain why. The only thing that could stop X is if something in impeding it. What is the Christians objection (if any)?

 

[MarsCydonia]

That if he does not want to gain weight (he's the one that brought up the ice cream analogy) then he chooses not to eat the ice cream but still wants to eat it.

Since he still wants it, then the desire to eat it is not negated. That's his argument.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Someone desires ice scream, but does not desire to gain weight from eating it. That means this person is facing an impediment to their desire (granted, another desire). Am I missing something? They seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I do believe the objective is two negate the argument from divine hiddeness that I presented earlier in our discussion.

P1: God wants mankind to know he exists
The whole point of christianity is God "loves" mankind and wants mankind to be near him but since sin, people cannot be near god unless they accept god's "forgiveness for sin" clause a.k.a Jesus as their savior from their sin. You, yourself stated that god wants souls in heaven.
P2: God has the power to establish his existence to mankind clearly and unambiguously
Because god is supposed to all-knowledgeable and all-powerful (you've agreed) so there is nothing beyond his ability to accomplish.
C1: (from p1 and p2) God's existence should be clear and unambiguous as nothing would stop god from accomplishing this.
P3: God's his existence a relationship is not clear and unambiguous.
Since there are a multitude of religions whose adherents sincerely believe in a different god, varying sincere but different god-beliefs (deism, pantheism, etc.) and people who sincerely do not believe.
C2: (from c1 and p3) god does not exist.

Rather than attempting to disprove one of the premises, he's attempting to argue that P1 (desire) and P2 (ability) do not lead to C1.

The reason I presented this argument is because we're commenting on a blog where the author asserted that god's existence should be clear and unambiguous and the christian asked "why should it be"?

And I replied, "Doesn't god want people to believe in his existence and is he not all-knowledgeable and all-powerful"?

And it lead to the argument from there.

 

[Visaki]

The reason I presented this argument is because we're commenting on a blog where the author asserted that god's existence should be clear and unambiguous and the christian asked "why should it be"?

And I replied, "Doesn't god want people to believe in his existence and is he not all-knowledgeable and all-powerful"?

And it lead to the argument from there.

That's about the same what I sometimes say online; either God doesn't exist or He wants me to be an atheist. In other words if an all-powerful, all-knowing god wants me to believe in his existence I have no other choice than to believe (he would know and have the power to present what evidence my belief would require) and since I do not believe he either doesn't want me to believe or he doesn't exist.

It's actually quite depressing how many theists don't understand that argument. I do not think it's that complicated.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Rather than attempting to disprove one of the premises, he's attempting to argue that P1 (desire) and P2 (ability) do not lead to C1.

Yeah, but it seems like the way he was arguing (with the ice cream example) was by introducing a different desire that runs counter to the first. That would basically be a non sequitur to the point you are making and also proves your point. Unless something else blocks one's desire (different desires or an actual impediment) desire leads to obtainment.

 

[thenexttodie]

Good evening gents,

I am having this argument with a christian (a result of discussing the argument from divine hiddeness), in which I am arguing that a someone having a desire (wanting to eat ice cream) plus the ability to satisfy that desire (obtaining ice cream) will invariably lead to accomplish that desire.

With the precaution that no other desire negates the original (not wanting to get fatter from the calories, not wanting to spend the time or the energy to get the ice cream), or that no force/factor negates the ability to satisfy that desire (you're locked in prison).

However, the christian contends that this does not follow.

Your opinion?

It's not only a question of negating (or superceding) a desire. There is also exists a tendency for us to do evil.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Good evening gents,

I am having this argument with a christian (a result of discussing the argument from divine hiddeness), in which I am arguing that a someone having a desire (wanting to eat ice cream) plus the ability to satisfy that desire (obtaining ice cream) will invariably lead to accomplish that desire.

With the precaution that no other desire negates the original (not wanting to get fatter from the calories, not wanting to spend the time or the energy to get the ice cream), or that no force/factor negates the ability to satisfy that desire (you're locked in prison).

However, the christian contends that this does not follow.

Your opinion?

It's not only a question of negating (or superceding) a desire. There is also exists a tendency for us to do evil.

Hey now. Speak for yourself.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

That if he does not want to gain weight (he's the one that brought up the ice cream analogy) then he chooses not to eat the ice cream but still wants to eat it.

Since he still wants it, then the desire to eat it is not negated. That's his argument.

I think he's confusing his desires.

His primary desire - the one that takes precedence - is not to gain weight, rather than to eat the ice cream.

I'm not sure what he thinks his analogy has to do with the theist argument you later cited.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

I'm not sure what he thinks his analogy has to do with the theist argument you later cited.

Kindest regards,

James

As a christian, he disagrees with the conclusion of the argument and as such, he needed to find a way to invalidate it. If he shows that:
P1: I want to eat ice cream
P2: I have the power to eat ice cream
Does not lead to
C1: I will eat ice cream but rather can lead to C1: I will not eat ice cream

Then he believes that the above invalidates that the P1 and P2 of my argument lead to C1.

Basically, he's arguing that having a desire and the ability to accomplish it does not lead to its accomplishment.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I'm not sure what he thinks his analogy has to do with the theist argument you later cited.

Kindest regards,

James

As a christian, he disagrees with the conclusion of the argument and as such, he needed to find a way to invalidate it. If he shows that:
P1: I want to eat ice cream
P2: I have the power to eat ice cream
Does not lead to
C1: I will eat ice cream but rather can lead to C1: I will not eat ice cream

Then he believes that the above invalidates that the P1 and P2 of my argument lead to C1.

Basically, he's arguing that having a desire and the ability to accomplish it does not lead to its accomplishment.

Well, I feel weird arguing against, but wouldn't having the desire and the ability to accomplish that desire not lead to its accomplishment if you had a reason to not do so that overrode your desire (and ability)? Just as a generic example, if I had the desire to do "A" and the ability to do "A" but I don't do "A" because it's illegal or would otherwise have other negative effects I'd rather avoid.

Now, to flip this around, this would only apply when external forces would make accomplishing your personal desire a net negative. For a "god" being with all the power in the universe I don't think this would actually apply. Even the "free will" argument, a god could make itself clearly known yet still allow people the free will to live their lives as they see fit, choosing to worship it or not.

In other words, if P1 and P2 don't apply to a god, then what external forces are limiting that god's ability to achieve its goals? If something is limiting its goals, is it really a god? Of course, you'd likely see a counter to the effect of "god limits his own powers" for some BS reason or another, but then you have to wonder how a mere transient mortal got such intimate knowledge of the mind of a mythical being...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In other words, if P1 and P2 don't apply to a god, then what external forces are limiting that god's ability to achieve its goals? If something is limiting its goals, is it really a god? Of course, you'd likely see a counter to the effect of "god limits his own powers" for some BS reason or another, but then you have to wonder how a mere transient mortal got such intimate knowledge of the mind of a mythical being...

Precisely my point - how the "ice-cream" analogy applies to a creator-entity, whether individual or group, is beyond me.

And why would a all-powerful deity "limit itself"? Being all-powerful, there's no reason why it would limit itself - unless the limits are not under its control, such as the law of non-contradiction, like "can god create a object it can't move?", which means that god is limited by something else, which has to pre-exist it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

It's not only a question of negating (or superceding) a desire. There is also exists a tendency for us to do evil.

Hey now. Speak for yourself.

It's hard enough to figure out exactly what someone might want in the first place. Maybe impossible. A mother and father might want whats best for their son, but give them both a few million dollars and they will destroy their lives. A person might intend to be a benevolent ruler or governer but once in power he will abuse his authority and use it only to commit crimes.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

It's hard enough to figure out exactly what someone might want in the first place. Maybe impossible. A mother and father might want whats best for their son, but give them both a few million dollars and they will destroy their lives. A person might intend to be a benevolent ruler or governer but once in power he will abuse his authority and use it only to commit crimes.

Kind of a blanket assertion there, no? If I had a few million dollars I doubt my life would be ruined... that would pay off debts, get a few toys, be invested and make sure the kids were covered through college and beyond. You should say "might", not "will".

 

[thenexttodie]

Kind of a blanket assertion there, no? If I had a few million dollars I doubt my life would be ruined... that would pay off debts, get a few toys, be invested and make sure the kids were covered through college and beyond. You should say "might", not "will".

I am sure every lottery winner tells themselves this.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Kind of a blanket assertion there, no? If I had a few million dollars I doubt my life would be ruined... that would pay off debts, get a few toys, be invested and make sure the kids were covered through college and beyond. You should say "might", not "will".

I am sure every lottery winner tells themselves this.

The problem with your assertion is that it only takes one to prove you wrong.

 

[thenexttodie]

The problem with your assertion is that it only takes one to prove you wrong.

Actually it only takes one to prove the OP wrong.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Actually it only takes one to prove the OP wrong.

Not only have you missed one important part of the point but you really shouldn't extend your tendency to do evil to everyone else.

Just as I don't attribue your tendency to troll to every christian "sinner".

 

[thenexttodie]

Not only have you missed one important part of the point..

Which part was that?

but you really shouldn't extend your tendency to do evil to everyone else.

You're right. I would be extremely interested in any suggestions you have on how to stop doing that.