7.7 The argument from religious need
1. Human beings really need God
59 comments
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt on the first point, I think it's more a case of:
1. Lots of human beings feel the need to follow a higher power of some sort.
It has been said that "necessity is the mother of invention." So primitive humans who needed a god invented more than 5000 of them over the centuries.
Good thing most societies have evolved well past needing such foolishness.
1. I have a list of lottery numbers
2. People win the lottery
3. I have the winning numbers.
1. Moron indulges in dazed wishful thinking.
1) I really need millions of dollars
Cool! I'm going to Hawaii!
1. Human beings really need - or at least really like - the IDEA of God
Fixed.
I don't disagree that religion can be good. But that's not a convincing argument that religion is TRUE.
This is the kind of person that, when confronted with an undeniable truth, like, if god exists and heals amputees, why do amputees never grow limbs back, they just furrow their brows in frustration and repeat their last statement in the hope that you didn't hear them the last time and the repeating the statement will somehow, magically, make it valid.
Somehow, I'm reminded of this:
Penguins are black and white. Old TV shows are a black and white. Therefore, some penguins are old TV shows.
Few non-sequiters and violations of several logical and argumentative fallacies.
It does no follow that human beings really need God. If that was true, then atheism wouldn't exist, as it would be physically impossible to live without God. Hence, human beings do NOT really need God.
It does not follow that necessity precludes and inevitably confirms something's existence. The old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention" comes to mind.
False premises may lead to a true conclusion - that would make it valid - but since your premises are patently and demonstrably false, your argument is not sound, and is therefore not logically permissible.
Humans really need common sense.
1. Human beings really need Time Machines
See what I did there? Blew your argument out of the water, didn't it?
This argument is so flawed it's not funny.
What humans really need are cures for AIDS or cancer, but so far they don't exist. Where is your God?
1. Human beings (as a species) need adequate food supplies.
Oh, wait, there are whole countries starving...
I really need a HD video camera which works in perfect darkness, suffers from no grainy images, can record for weeks on end with no heat issues, can stay powered for even longer and costs only a couple hundred dollars......
It seems that what we need may not actually exist.
I need a food that is more enjoyable than a million orgasms.
Oh look, it probably really doesn't exist.
This doesn't work as a syllogism even if you assume point 1 to be true. Point 2 contains an expression of potentiality ("probably"). A syllogism requires the first two points to be absolutes in order to prove the third.
Piss off back to Philosophy 101, come back, then piss off again.
"1. Human beings really need God
1. I am a human being who doesn't really need a so-called 'God'.doesn't exist.
Your call, Mariano.
Lets see how that works....closes eyes
1. I really need a new pickup
Opens eye
Well, I need a house, does it mean that it exists?. Sorry, I have to buy it, like everybody.
Another argument solveable by 7.7:
1. Starving children across the world need food.
Makes... sense?
7.7 The argument from religious need
1. Human beings really need God
The key word here being "probably" - it "probably" really exists, which implies that it might not. Are you really sure that's the message you want to send, as a promoter of God and religion?
And what makes you think human beings necessarily need God, anyway? A lot of people seem to get along just fine without him.
1. Not everyone (e.g. me) has spiritual needs. There are ways to fullfil one's spiritual needs besides Christianity. "God" might not be what he pretends to be.
What you are actually saying is:
A variation of the Cosmological argument. Not clever but they need to grasp at these things, they believe things for no reason as it is so accepting anything that appears to support it is a given.
Easily defused if you come across it, this, the Cosmological Argument or Pascal's Wager.
Also substitute God with any fictitious creature or deity and watch them go "That's totally illogical"
So thank you for admitting that the old philosophical question 'Did God create Man, or did Man create God' is now answered.
Maryanus here thought he'd come up with a mindblowing - and Atheist-destroying - piece of argumental logic. It's only gone and blown up in his own face.
Just ask Giveitaday, SpukiKitty, checkmate, and many more besides.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
