Name a need

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Knightmeister fairly well summed it up, if the post above this one failed to add anything to the same.

It sounds like maybe the argument is something like the following?

1. Every human need has an external satisfier.
2. Humans have the need for God.
3. Therefore, the human need for God has an external satisfier.

If we take 'need' as something requisite for our survival, then premise 1 seems clearly true (otherwise, we wouldn't be surviving let alone thriving -- although I would probably need clarification on what is meant by 'external'😉. But then Premise 2 seems clearly false.

Regarding Premise 2: I don't think you're talking about a 'need' per se but rather more along the lines of an emotional neediness. Yes, to a large extent we are disposed to some degree of emotional neediness stemming from the reflective nature of our consciousness. We have a 'need' for meaningful relationships and projects, we have a 'need' to avoid states that frustrate our prospects of living characteristically free from pain and suffering -- like overwhelming feelings of existential hardship and boredom, gripping fear of death, feelings of dissatisfaction of having to live with and admit ignorance, the cravings for life to be something other than what it appears, etc. But what's any of that got to do with the (de facto) question of whether or not, in fact, your God exists? It doesn't even have anything necessarily to do with the holding of beliefs related to your God concept. In case you haven't noticed, as social and rational creatures we can attend to these 'needs' of ours in any number of ways. My methods are god-concept-free primarily because I think I have obligation not to hold arbitrary, evidentially challenged metaphysics (taking 'god' as some sort of divine agent). Besides, I'd rather pursue meaningful relations with persons that I have good reasons to think exist in the first place. There are lots of reasons why I don't think your proposed methods work to satisfy my 'need' and some of them are just aesthetic: I think your methods are ugly, here and there. Point is, quit trying to pretend like your belief in a divine personal creator is the one satisfier for my and everyone else's 'need'. What chutzpa!

Originally posted by LemonJello
What chutzpa!

Oy vey! Vat a schlameel!

Originally posted by LemonJello
It sounds like maybe the argument is something like the following?

1. Every human need has an external satisfier.
2. Humans have the need for God.
3. Therefore, the human need for God has an external satisfier.

If we take 'need' as something requisite for our survival, then premise 1 seems clearly true (otherwise, we wouldn't be surviving let a ...[text shortened]... s the one satisfier for my and everyone else's 'need'. What chutzpa!

I don't think you're talking about a 'need' per se but rather more along the lines of an emotional neediness.
Okay. However, the intent of using food, water, and sex was more to illustrate the inward pain with an exterior solution in a tangible fashion... not to draw an exact line, necessarily. It was more along the lines of 'here we see a drive, there we see it's satisfaction.'

Yes, to a large extent we are disposed to some degree of emotional neediness stemming from the reflective nature of our consciousness.
And then you go to considerable lengths to flesh out nearly everything endemic to the human condition except the issue of God. You've missed the entire argument by marginalizing the main issue and elevating side issues. You cannot honestly hold that our need for meaningful relationships is somehow on par with our need for God--- especially in light of the fact that our need (inner pain/drive) for meaningful relationships has already been met and satisfied via exterior solutions (other people). If anything, your side-dish list simply underscores what has already been established, i.e., inside drives find their satisfaction in exterior realities.

Chutzpah requires at least a zest of unmitigation. Your entry here falls into that category. You have failed to respond to the salient point, and I highly doubt that it has been lost on you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I don't think you're talking about a 'need' per se but rather more along the lines of an emotional neediness.
Okay. However, the intent of using food, water, and sex was more to illustrate the inward pain with an exterior solution in a tangible fashion... not to draw an exact line, necessarily. It was more along the lines of 'here we see a failed to respond to the salient point, and I highly doubt that it has been lost on you.[/b]

And then you go to considerable lengths to flesh out nearly everything endemic to the human condition except the issue of God. You've missed the entire argument by marginalizing the main issue and elevating side issues. You cannot honestly hold that our need for meaningful relationships is somehow on par with our need for God

Oh, dear: you really, really, really misunderstood. I'm not saying the 'needs' I listed are "on par with our need for God". Rather, I'm saying that "our need for God" is nothing but an ersatz label that is, in terms of actual content, reducible to more or less the real 'needs' I already listed. What could you possibly mean when you say we have a need for God? Well, so it goes, belief in this agent, or standing in some relation to him, is somehow supposed to attend to our real existential 'needs' -- which are just along the lines of what I already listed: the need for meaningful relationships and projects, the need to avoid pain and suffering, the need to avoid feelings of existential hardship, fear of death, ignorance, cravings, etc.

Yeah, we get it Freaky. But some on here see your God-as-agent concept more clearly for what it really is: just a way to sweep these existential problems under a proverbial rug. Some of us would rather just face these challenges (which I don't deny are often palpable) and try to understand them for what they actually are. I'm afraid there aren't any cookie-cutter answers. And I guess by fleshing out belief in your God as the one satisfier readily and directly available to us all, you have also failed to understand the nature of belief: a rational agent can't just actively choose to believe this or that (at least not directly). So again, for all these reasons, quit pretending like you have the one cookie-cutter answer for us all. Oh, the chutzpa!!!

Originally posted by LemonJello
knightmeister, I don't think anyone virtually ever puts forth complicated conclusions of this nature by way of "proof". What the hell would "proof" be? Some deductively valid argument where each and every premise is self-evident? No, I'm not expecting "proof" from you or anyone. But, one thing I do expect of others is that their arguments not be just obviously fallacious. Understand the difference?

No, I'm not expecting "proof" from you or anyone. But, one thing I do expect of others is that their arguments not be just obviously fallacious. Understand the difference?--lemon----

...absolutely I understand. However , in order to find an argument fallacious one must first understand what it is trying to achieve. So often Atheists like yourself seem to think we are trying to do something we are not . Since there obviously is a need for meaning and spirituality in humans it makes you wonder whether that need might be there for a reason.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No, I'm not expecting "proof" from you or anyone. But, one thing I do expect of others is that their arguments not be just obviously fallacious. Understand the difference?--lemon----

...absolutely I understand. However , in order to find an argument fallacious one must first understand what it is trying to achieve. So often Atheists like yourself se ...[text shortened]... and spirituality in humans it makes you wonder whether that need might be there for a reason.

Certainly, that need is most likely and I believe quite satisfactorily explained as a driving force for human evolution, a normative state which encourages us to question, learn, adapt and take pride/pleasure in achieving, our consciousness. I think it's equatable to an allergic reaction to existence if you will. Why there should needs be a supernatural explanation of it I fail to see.

Originally posted by LemonJello
And then you go to considerable lengths to flesh out nearly everything endemic to the human condition except the issue of God. You've missed the entire argument by marginalizing the main issue and elevating side issues. You cannot honestly hold that our need for meaningful relationships is somehow on par with our need for God

Oh, dear: you ...[text shortened]... ding like you have the one cookie-cutter answer for us all. Oh, the chutzpa!!![/b]

Oh, dear: you really, really, really misunderstood.
Apparently so. For instance when you said:

I'm saying that "our need for God" is... in terms of actual content, reducible to more or less the real 'needs' I already listed.

... that, to me, sounds as though our need for God could readily be satisfied by, say, a hoagie or perhaps a long walk on the beach.

What could you possibly mean when you say we have a need for God?
As has been stated now almost to the point of meaninglessness, the aches and pains, the craving for, the emptiness caused by the absence of such a being as man has described as the ultimate self: God.

Well, so it goes, belief in this agent, or standing in some relation to him, is somehow supposed to attend to our real existential 'needs'
That almost sounds like you got rid of the bottom line question and decided the left-overs were of equal import. Maybe I really, really misunderstood that one, too.

But some on here see your God-as-agent concept more clearly for what it really is: just a way to sweep these existential problems under a proverbial rug.
A great way to avoid the issue while leaving behind an oh-so-subtle insult. Let's leave modern Christianity and all of its pimples aside, temporarily. Let's also ignore that pesky inconsistency of atheists forever bothering themselves with spiritual issues. Just from a perspective of history, why has man been dogged by this belief in God, if in fact, no God exists?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Oh, dear: you really, really, really misunderstood.
Apparently so. For instance when you said:

I'm saying that "our need for God" is... in terms of actual content, reducible to more or less the real 'needs' I already listed.

... that, to me, sounds as though our need for God could readily be satisfied by, say, a hoagie or perha e of history, why has man been dogged by this belief in God, if in fact, no God exists?[/b]

... that, to me, sounds as though our need for God could readily be satisfied by, say, a hoagie or perhaps a long walk on the beach.

Well, then, you really have just terrible reading comprehension. For instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily satisfied by what one would take as meaningful relationships and projects.

Look. I'm not trying to belittle your faith here, but you are really confused if you actually think we have a 'need' for some external agent named God (unless you are talking about a metaphysical or ontological necessity -- which you aren't and even if you were I still think you would be wrong but for other reasons). You have simply taken your genuine existential 'needs' and you have confused them with an idol construct. Yeah, lots of people do it/have done it. But, look, all I'm trying to say is the following: if belief in some agent named God meets to your own satisfaction some of your needs related to merely existing (as part of a normative community), then good for you. But quit trying to act like it is some universal solution, or that it somehow meets my needs, particularly when I have told you again and again that I think your methods are ugly and deficient and frustrating toward what I take as noetic obligations.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]... that, to me, sounds as though our need for God could readily be satisfied by, say, a hoagie or perhaps a long walk on the beach.

Well, then, you really have just terrible reading comprehension. For instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily ...[text shortened]... methods are ugly and deficient and frustrating toward what I take as noetic obligations.[/b]

What the hell, LJ?

Are you in bbarr's graduate class or something?

You've become seriously hardcore.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What the hell, LJ?

Are you in bbarr's graduate class or something?

You've become seriously hardcore.

Word. LJ just lights people up. Hope everybody is well, back to work for me.

Cheers!

...God is a need....

Any solid evidence that man or any individual needs God is based on the assumption that God exists. Therefore any proof of God based on that is necessarily circular.

...a necessary need for some....

Originally posted by Jay Joos
...a necessary need for some....

Actually its all or nothing.

If God exists then we necessarily need him to survive. After all the universe would be little more than a figment of his imagination.

If God doesn't exist then we either don't need him or we die.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually its all or nothing.

If God exists then we necessarily need him to survive. After all the universe would be little more than a figment of his imagination.

If God doesn't exist then we either don't need him or we die.

i can agree with that...