This is obviously the product of many intense years of theological study and academic rigor. With this line of argument, Christianity makes perfect sense now. Let's see if we can follow the logic:
1. I'm hungry for a BLT therefore BLTs exist.
2. I'm thirsty for a cold beer therefore cold beer exists.
3. I yearn for God therefore God exists.
So far so good, right?
4. I really want a pink unicorn therefore unicorns exits.
5. I want the spaghetti monster to forgive my sins therefore FSM exists.
6. I really want Christians to apply logic to their beliefs therefore Christians who apply logic to there beliefs exist.
I guess Rebecca Goldstein will have to add one more to her list. Sheesh...
Wow, I feel sorry for the guy. Spectacularly bad thinking.
ReplyDelete"I guess Rebecca Goldstein will have to add one more to her list." Maybe not. #32 kinda has it covered, doesn't it? :)
ReplyDeleteOne could squeeze this in the Argument from Pragmatism but there's something a little more direct about I-want-it-so-it-exists. That seems to be a vulgar representation of James's "leap of faith."
ReplyDeleteFather Barron's claim "Your hunger is not a sign that food is a projection, but your hunger in fact proves the existence of food—your hunger proves the reality of food" seems to be beyond what James would entertain.
So, I'm still up for adding #37 unless you can talk me out of it. :)