Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Post by Mosesquine » July 5th, 2018, 3:06 pm

The aim of this post is to challenge to the so-called proofs of God. The core claim of this post shows that all attempts to define what God is cannot prove the existence of God, ironically.

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.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3148
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Post by LuckyR » July 5th, 2018, 6:57 pm

I'll go you one further: namely that if a mortal human mind CAN formulate a proof of an omniscient god, since it is illogical that a mortal mind can encompass an omniscient mind, such a proof, if successful essentially disproves an omniscient god, therefore there would be either no god or if there is a god (according to the said proof) it would not be omniscient.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Post by Felix » July 6th, 2018, 6:07 pm

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.
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 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.
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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
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

Post by Thinking critical » July 7th, 2018, 5:50 am

Felix wrote:
July 6th, 2018, 6:07 pm

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.
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.
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.
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.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Post by Felix » July 7th, 2018, 4:40 pm

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
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.
we cannot conceive of something we've never imagined
That's redundent because the two words are practically synonymous.
we cannot perceive something that we can only imagine
Imagination is a form of perception, and in art it precedes it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
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

Post by Thinking critical » July 8th, 2018, 1:27 am

Felix wrote:
July 7th, 2018, 4:40 pm


You've never heard of extra-sensory perception?

Have you ever heard of pseudoscience before? Yes I have heard of ESP.
- knowledge that is not a product of the senses.
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.
My guess is that you do not believe it exists.
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.
However you will not convince me of that because I have experienced it.
Don't worry I don't know how to teach people to think rationally any way.
Imagination is a form of perception, and in art it precedes 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.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Some Challenges to the Proofs of God

Post by Felix » July 8th, 2018, 2:19 pm

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.
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.
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
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.

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."
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
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

Post by Thinking critical » July 9th, 2018, 5:58 am

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.
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.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Post Reply