Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Applying frameworks built on embodied, situated knowers to a necessarily non-situated divine being commits a category error identified by thinkers like Herbert McCabe and Brian Davies.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All human theological language is necessarily embodied; rejecting embodied frameworks doesn't solve the problem, just hides it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Category errors require clear criteria for what counts as a 'category'; McCabe/Davies never formalize this, making the charge unfalsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Embodied frameworks can describe human *understanding of* God without claiming God literally has a body—no category error occurs at this level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Embodied cognition theories assume spatiotemporal location; God's non-spatiality makes these frameworks literally inapplicable, not just approximate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Medieval theologians like Aquinas distinguished divine transcendence from creature categories; modern embodiment theories ignore this foundational distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying situated-knower frameworks to God risks anthropomorphizing divine knowledge, conflating epistemic access with embodied constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.