Modal Argument from Desire for the Existence of God

This is just a basic modal argument that is similar to my modal contingency argument. I hope you enjoy:

1. An innate desire is a desire that a person has because of their nature.

2. It is possible that every innate desire has an object in reality that satisfies it.

3. Humans have an innate desire for unbounded beauty, goodness, and truth (the transcendentals).


4. Since humans have an innate desire for unbounded beauty, goodness, and truth, it is possible that there is an object in reality that satisfies it (from premise 2).


5. The only thing that could satisfy the innate desire for unbounded beauty, goodness, and truth would be unbounded being for the transcendentals are different ways to apprehend being.


6. Since unbounded beauty, goodness, and truth could only exist as unbounded being, it is possible that unbounded being exists (from premises 2, 3, and 5).


7. If it is possible that unbounded being exists, then unbounded being exists.


8. Since it is possible that unbounded being exists, unbounded being exists (from premise 7 and S5 or B depending on the system of modal logic).


9. If unbounded being exists, then God exists.


10. Since unbounded being exists, God exists.

Comments

  1. crak3rJanuary 4, 2022 at 5:03 AM

    Unbounded goodness truth and beauty are incoherent concepts. An actual desire for an infinite amount or unbounded amount of something can be possible but since infinites in the actual world are impossible the argument fails. I can desire for an unbounded amount of money but such an object can't exist in reality or at least hasn't been shown to exist and it is most likely not possible for it to exist until it's demonstrated otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Engaged ThomistJanuary 5, 2022 at 6:56 PM

      Hi there, I hope you are doing well. So I am unsure how unbounded goodness, truth, and beauty is an unbounded concept, especially since these things are just other names for unbounded being. You say that an actual infinite is impossible in the actual world, but I think that your point conflates two things: an actual infinite number of objects with an infinite being. I'm agnostic on whether there can be an actual infinite number of objects, but I see nothing incoherent in there being an infinite being. An infinite being would just be a being which has no limits on its existence and I don't see how this is impossible. It also seems that your point about desiring an unbounded amount of money misunderstands the argument. I'm not saying that every desire has a possible correlate in reality, but, rather, that every natural desire has an objective correlate and we don't have an innate or natural desire for money, but you do have a natural desire for unbounded goodness, truth, and beauty given that no finite amount of these things can satisfy you. I would say that this fact is phenomenologically obvious. I hope that helps, God Bless :)

      Delete
    2. crak3rJanuary 6, 2022 at 10:16 AM

      Thanks for your reply. I'm actually a theist now. Your modal contingency argument convinced me. Thank you!

      Delete
    3. The Engaged ThomistJanuary 7, 2022 at 8:09 PM

      I'm glad I could help :)

      Delete
    4. JacobJanuary 10, 2022 at 2:46 PM

      "I'm not saying that every desire has a possible correlate in reality, but, rather, that every natural desire has an objective correlate"

      Could you elaborate on the difference? Because P2 specifies that it is an object in reality, and not only an intelligible object.

      As an aside, I don't think modal arguments like these can work with a Thomistic epistemology, since possibility is metaphysically and epistemically posterior to actuality, we know what is possible and potential in virtue of something in act, so the only way we could affirm premises that say the existence of God is possible is to already know that God actually exists, which would be the case in virtue of some quia demonstrations or perhaps direct revelation, etc., which is ultimately why Thomas rejects the ontological argument and says that only God could use the argument, since it implies deriving God's existence from knowledge of God's essence.

      Delete
    5. The Engaged ThomistJanuary 11, 2022 at 7:00 PM

      A natural desire would be one that flows from your nature, like your desire for food. This differs from desires like the desire to fly, which does not flow from your nature.

      I don't see how this view of modality prevents us from having modal knowledge. If this is the case, then we also have to reject things like the grim reaper paradox.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In Defense of the Proof of God in De Ente et Essentia: A Response to Existential Inertia

         I wrote this article a couple of years ago in the hopes of having it published in an undergrad journal,  but I was unable to do so. I am now uploading this to the blog because I do not have plans on publishing it, and if I decide to try and publish it again, I will edit and expand the current version since this paper does not engage all of Joe's work on existential inertia, but I think it's a good starting point for my  engagement of his work. I hope whoever  reads this finds it helpful.   Introduction In an early work called De Ente et Essentia , St. Thomas Aquinas makes an argument for the existence of God, whom Aquinas takes to be pure existence itself. Critical to his argument is the notion that substances do not have existence in themselves, but rather are granted existence from another, namely God, who has existence in itself and is, therefore, pure existence itself. Since this is the case, if substances do actually have existe...
Read more

A Brief Explication of the De Ente Proof

St. Thomas Aquinas is probably most well known for his “Five Ways”, Quinquae Viae, found in the Summa Theologiae (ST I, q. 2, a. 3). However, these arguments are frequently misunderstood because they are often presented totally removed from their relation to the rest of Aquinas’s corpus, which makes them appear much weaker than they actually are. For example, Aquinas’s First Way is often displayed as being nothing more than a reiteration of Aristotle's argument for an unmoved mover in Book 8 of the physics, however this fails to capture the novelty of the First Way, and the other Five Ways in general (Physics 251a8-251b10). The actual power of these arguments comes from Aquinas’s metaphysics of esse as presented in the De ente et essentia . This power is mostly clearly observable in chapter 4 of the De ente et essentia because this is where Aquinas provides his argument for God’s existence as first cause while explicitly utilizing his metaphysics of esse . In order to fully ...
Read more

Reflections on Balthasar's "Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?"

The question of how many will be saved is a perennial theological question: “​​ And someone said to him, ‘Lord, will those who are saved be few?’” (Luke 13:23). Evidently, there has been concern over how many will be saved since the very beginning of Christianity and there are conflicting sentiments in the New Testament about what the actual number will look like. Jesus Himself uses language at points that might imply that only a few are saved, such as when He says that Christians should “strive to enter through the narrow door … for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able” (Luke 13:24-25). However, St. Paul uses language, at points, that has a much more hopeful and inclusive outlook. For example, he declares in his first letter to the Corinthians that just “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive,” which could be plainly interpreted as a strong universalist statement if the word ‘all’ is emphasized (1 Corinthians 15:22). Moreover, in his epist...
Read more