Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
The first challenge is that we can't prove any spaceless, timeless being. Some many theists, like William Lane Craig, define God as "spaceless, timeless being". All spaceless-timeless beings can't be perceived. We can perceive only space-time-located beings. This follows that we cannot perceive God. Perhaps, you are not perceiving some stuffs in my room currently. However, you are able to perceive some stuffs in my room. It's because they are located in space-time points. If you visited my room, then you would be enough able to perceive them. However, God is by definition not located in space-time points. The very definition that God is a spaceless-timeless being makes us disprove the existence of God.
The second challenge is that we can't even imagine God. The first challenge above shows that we cannot perceive God. Unfortunately, only perceived things are what we can imagine. So, all Greeks pictured their gods as human shaped beings. It's because all Greeks can only imagine what they had already been acquainted with, namely, human beings like themselves. So, all theistic doctrines made by human theologians are merely imaginations based on perceptions obtained from human beings by other human beings. So, no proof of God is successful.
There can be some other challenges to the proofs of God. No theist might refute these successfully.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
Transcending time and space means does not mean existing outside of time and space but rather encompassing it. And spaceless-timeless beings can be perceived, e.g., Santa Claus. Whether they can be perceived and whether they exist are separate questions.The first challenge is that we can't prove any spaceless, timeless being. Some many theists, like William Lane Craig, define God as "spaceless, timeless being". All spaceless-timeless beings can't be perceived.
As I just suggested, it is possible to imagine things we have never perceived, and vice versa, perceive things we have never imagined - within the limits of our human conceptual abilities of course.
The second challenge is that we can't even imagine God. The first challenge above shows that we cannot perceive God. Unfortunately, only perceived things are what we can imagine.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
I disagree, we cannot percieve things that do not exist within a physical reality. We can imagine or concieve of such things but perceptions are contingent on our senses. Transcending Spacetime means beyond the the scope of spacetime by definition, to insist it means encompassing is an etymological fallacy.
We can imagine things we've never percieved, we can percieve things we've never imagined but we cannot concieve of something we've never imagined and we cannot percieve something that we can only imagine.As I just suggested, it is possible to imagine things we have never perceived, and vice versa, perceive things we have never imagined - within the limits of our human conceptual abilities of course.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
You've never heard of extra-sensory perception? - knowledge that is not a product of the senses. My guess is that you do not believe it exists. However you will not convince me of that because I have experienced it.Thinking critical: I disagree, we cannot percieve things that do not exist within a physical reality. We can imagine or concieve of such things but perceptions are contingent on our senses
That's redundent because the two words are practically synonymous.we cannot conceive of something we've never imagined
Imagination is a form of perception, and in art it precedes it.we cannot perceive something that we can only imagine
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
Have you ever heard of pseudoscience before? Yes I have heard of ESP.
ESP is the so called ability to percieve information without the use of our senses via telepathy an other such nonsense means. Information not knowledge.- knowledge that is not a product of the senses.
Correct, as with all parapsychology claims they are in the domain of pseudoscience for a damn good reason, they are built from unfalsifiable premises an lack any explanation to describe the mechanism by which the so called ability operates......in other words it's a supernatural claim.My guess is that you do not believe it exists.
Don't worry I don't know how to teach people to think rationally any way.However you will not convince me of that because I have experienced it.
You are confusing percieve with concieve, the imagination allows an artist to conceptualise their work, once the art is created it is perceived by the viewer.Imagination is a form of perception, and in art it precedes it.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
The term is extrasensory and not nonsensory, i.e., some sort of sensory facility, though inscrutable, may still be involved. For example, empathy could be considered to be extrasensory. And I'll gladly take any "nonsense" that can enable me to sense that an unpleasant event is about to occur before it does so that I may avoid it.Thinking critical: ESP is the so called ability to perceive information without the use of our senses via telepathy an other such nonsense means. Information not knowledge.
Conceptualize suggests an intellectual rigor, and artistic inspiration is not like that. I should have said that imagination and perception are concomitant, not that imagination precedes perception.You are confusing percieve with concieve, the imagination allows an artist to conceptualise their work, once the art is created it is perceived by the viewer
P.S. - You keep misspelling perceive and conceive, guess you didn't pick up the mnemonic in English class, "I before E, except after C."
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God
To me the sixth sense is like a sort of subconscious accumulation of information derived from our perception from the other five sensors. Intuition is probably the best example of the sixth sense I'm referring to, it may make an interesting topic for a seperate thread.Felix wrote: ↑July 8th, 2018, 2:19 pm The term is extrasensory and not nonsensory, i.e., some sort of sensory facility, though inscrutable, may still be involved. For example, empathy could be considered to be extrasensory. And I'll gladly take any "nonsense" that can enable me to sense that an unpleasant event is about to occur before it does so that I may avoid it.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023