The argument is as follows:
1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us an innate desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures that can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."1
They explain as follows:
The first premise implies a distinction of desires into two kinds: innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial. We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship, and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness. We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Red Sox world championship.
Now there are differences between these two kinds of desires. For example, we do not, for the most part, recognize corresponding states of deprivation for the second, the artificial, desires as we do for the first. There is no word like Ozlessness parallel to sleeplessness. But more important, the natural desires come from within, from our nature, while the artificial ones come from without, from society, advertising or fiction. This second difference is the reason for a third difference: the natural desires are found in all of us, but the artificial ones vary from person to person.
The existence of the artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired objects exist. Some do; some don't. Sports cards do; Oz does not. But the existence of natural desires does, in every discoverable case, mean that the objects desired exist. No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object.
The second premise requires only honest introspection. If someone denies it and says, "I am perfectly happy playing with mud pies, or sports cars, or money, or sex, of power," we can only ask, "Are you, really?" But we can only appeal, we cannot compel. And we can refer such a person to the nearly universal testimony of human history in all its great literature. Even the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that "there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, 'is that all there is?'"
C.S. Lewis, who uses this argument in a number of places, summarizes it succinctly:
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling want sot swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity, bk. 3, chap. 10)2
You can learn more about this argument in Dr. Kreeft's online resource, Twenty Arguments God's Existence.
What do you think of the argument? Please share in the comments!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p. 26.
2. Ibid., p. 26-27
Related Posts
20 Arguments for God's Existence : Argument #1 - The Argument from Change
"The Pillars of Unbelief" Series by Peter Kreeft
20 Arguments for God's Existence: Argument #15 - The Argument from Conscience
Comments
I believe this is one of those arguments with the moral argument that do resonate with people even if it's not so popular. Still there seems to be little use of this argument while doing apologetics in general. Why do you think is that?
Thank you for taking the time to comment!
While I can only guess at your question, I believe it is most likely because the arguments that are most prized these days are ones that offer scientific evidence to support their premises. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Fine-tuning Argument. However, I think we are living in a time when apologists should consider offering moral arguments and arguments like the one featured in this post because it seems that people, perhaps more than ever, are trying to make sense of meaning, morality and value. And as you rightly point out, I think arguments like this are more personal and therefore resonate with people.
Thank you for reading!
Godspeed