Ignosticism: What Is God?

[GrowingSmaller]

And again, I could easily ask you in what kind of sense thought, consciousness, emotion, volition are to be understood. We do have entities to which we ascribe all these quite right; namely human beings. Now the normal thing to do would be to simply say that thought, consciousness, emotion, volition in the case of spirits are like thought, consciousness, emotion, volition in the case of humans.

The problem is however ... They are like that, only that they are not like that.

Understood. But you implicitly agree that if there is analogy between us ourselves and God (e.g. we both will things in a similar way), thet you understand the meaning of God terms (like "will"). It is ony if his attributes are totally dissimilar to ones we understand than there is a cognitive problem (for instance I think the Muslims have this issue when they say both "there is nothing in existence like unto Him" [koran] and also call Him a "king", "loving", "compassionate" etc).

Negative definitions aren't bad per se. They are a duds however, if the matching positive isn't realy good either. Immaterial and material for instance. I would not know how ultimately I would successfully identify material substance and tell it apart from immaterial substance.

Ok lets sucstite "material" with "physical" and define physical as that aspect of reality studied by physics, or composed of things studied by physics.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A tangentially related idea is whether anything that is not even potentially verifiable is meaningful.

Even if we agreed on a definition, we can't verify any of it. If god entails omniscience, how would you verify it? How can one tell if 'god' is omnipotent? How can one tell that 'god' is love (a particularly useless definition, IMHO)?

If none of these things that we use to define 'god' (as that which entails attributes x, y, and z) is verifiable, why should anyone bother with god or gods?

I don't know if that makes it philosophically meaningless, but it certainly seems to me pratically useless.

But lack of verifiability does not make something meaningless. For instance, it was soon pointed out to the Logical Posisivists that if they held to that then they would have to concede that all false statements were meaningless.

Maybe the term "God"is practically useless to you, but I can assure you that many a preacher couldn't do without it.

Nowadays I think that the orthoxy is to look for the meaning in the use of the word, and the uses of words are found in dictionaries. Yet, I think that it is sometimes valid to delve deeper, that being the job of the philosopher.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And where is the evidence for this "infinite" god? Perhaps God is unimaginably powerful, but not omnipotent. Perhaps he is unimaginably old, but not eternal. Perhaps he is unimaginably wise but not omniscient.
Or perhaps he doesn't exist at all.
Why in the world (Pun intended!) would anyone claim any certain knowledge at all in the absence of any evidence whatsoever?

We are discussing semantics, not epistemology, ty!


"Ever since Descartes 'turn to the subject' epistemology has often been treated as 'first philosophy', a position that had previously belonged to metaphysics. Within recent analytical philosophy, however, there has been a growing shift to seeing philosophy of language as first philosophy."

Christian Philosophy A - Z. Edinburgh University Press.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Understood. But you implicitly agree that if there is analogy between us ourselves and God [...] , thet you understand the meaning of God terms [...].

No, not quite. I agree that we do draw analogies between us and, say, God. Not that there necessarily is an analogy.

But ... we do also draw analogies between us other stuff. Oftentimes stuff that is generally put into the naturalist category.

And, what if it turns out that say our emotions are in fact reducible to materialsm (whatever that means)? Our emotions were analogous before we figured it out, but are they still afterwards. I suppose not.

Which then brings you back to the question. Thought, emotions etc, in what kind of sense. In a sense that we have thought, emotions etc? Hrmph...

(e.g. we both will things in a similar way), [...] (like "will").

As an aside ... Will? Definitely not. The only kind will/free will that I see as appropriate for human beings is compatibilist free will. And God by its very definition can not have compatibilist free will.

It is ony if his attributes are totally dissimilar to ones we understand than there is a cognitive problem

Arguably they are totally, or at least significantly, dissimilar if you scratch a little below the surface.

We do ascribe for instance the capability of thought to a human with a functioning, intact brain. Now suppose, we have a human with a totally defunct brain. A severe accident, say, and the person is dead. Now we do no longer ascribe the capability of thought to that human. Similar with emotion, or the other things that you enumerate.

(for instance I think the Muslims have this issue when they say both "there is nothing in existence like unto Him" [koran] and also call Him a "king", "loving", "compassionate" etc).


Ok lets sucstite "material" with "physical" and define physical as that aspect of reality studied by physics, or composed of things studied by physics.

Simply swapping out material for physical does not make it any better.

 

[UnReAL13]

MAybe there is some form of mix up. I thought the definition said "the proinciple object of worship in monotheistic religions".

Do you opine that pantheists hold no degree of "faith" or "worship" concerning the workings of the universe and the nature of reality? Again I must ask you, how does your definition of god vary from a pantheistic viewpoint of the universe? Aside from the obvious inclusion of the word "monotheistic".

 

[fated]

And where is the evidence for this "infinite" god? Perhaps God is unimaginably powerful, but not omnipotent. Perhaps he is unimaginably old, but not eternal. Perhaps he is unimaginably wise but not omniscient.
Or perhaps he doesn't exist at all.
Why in the world (Pun intended!) would anyone claim any certain knowledge at all in the absence of any evidence whatsoever?

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ was a historical reality. People down to this very day experience God, and it is no small thing for all of this to be regarded as myth by those who are supposedly enlightened by atheism. To propose that Catholicism in particular is illogical does not make sense. The irony is that the 'enlightened atheists' ignore historical realities and suggest the superiority of their medical insight over those of actual physicians researching miracles.

 

[UnReAL13]

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ was a historical reality. People down to this very day experience God, and it is no small thing for all of this to be regarded as myth by those who are supposedly enlightened by atheism. To propose that Catholicism in particular is illogical does not make sense. The irony is that the 'enlightened atheists' ignore historical realities and suggest the superiority of their medical insight over those of actual physicians researching miracles.

Sure, Jesus existed. It was a popular name at the time, as it is now as well. There was even that Ethiopian emperor named Jesus whom the Ethiopians thought actually was the Biblical Jesus.

The problem is, how can you prove that this person that you worship, Yeshua, truly held any sort of "divinity"?

And what miracles exactly are being researched? I suppose you have some sort of source for this claim.

 

[fated]

Sure, Jesus existed. It was a popular name at the time, as it is now as well. There was even that Ethiopian emperor named Jesus whom the Ethiopians thought actually was the Biblical Jesus.

The problem is, how can prove that this person that you worship, Yeshua, truly held any sort of "divinity"?

And what miracles exactly are being researched? I suppose you have some sort of source for this claim.

I will tell you that it is well known that a Jewish person after receiving communion from Pope John Paul II was found to be free of cancer. I'm not sure if you can get the evidence on line, but you might be able to request it. Normally, though, atheists aren't really friendly to scientific reviews and aren't normally warm accepting an understanding of what happened other than chance, regardless. If you look at various Saint websites on line, it detail the miracles required for the canonization.

And, again, God is an infinite being, being able to fully define Him is physically and theoretically impossible. Further, He is a person, so even if you get something wrong, that doesn't mean you don't know Him. Just as you might know your mom but get things wrong regarding her.

 

[UnReAL13]

I will tell you that it is well known that a Jewish person after receiving communion from Pope John Paul II was found to be free of cancer. I'm not sure if you can get the evidence on line, but you might be able to request it. Normally, though, atheists aren't really friendly to scientific reviews and aren't normally warm accepting an understanding of what happened other than chance, regardless. If you look at various Saint websites on line, it detail the miracles required for the canonization.

And, again, God is an infinite being, being able to fully define Him is physically and theoretically impossible. Further, He is a person, so even if you get something wrong, that doesn't mean you don't know Him. Just as you might know your mom but get things wrong regarding her.

Where's the proof that a deity is a person? And is this being infinite within the confine of this universe, is the universe the same size as this being, is the universe a portion of this being, or is it an infinite existence beyond this one?

And yes, I'd really like to see the proof of this alleged cancer healing.

 

[fated]

Where's the proof that a deity is a person? And is this being infinite within the confine of this universe, is the universe the same size as this being, is the universe a portion of this being, or is it an infinite existence beyond this one?

And yes, I'd really like to see the proof of this alleged cancer healing.

I see the cancer disappearance, 2 actually, stated in various papers, but, I wouldn't know where to go, other than the Vatican to obtain the actual medical records. But, I doubt you could get medical records for people who are yet alive, at very least. Perhaps, you could trust them?

First, you look to find how big God is. The universe is not and does not 'contain' God in the way water would be in a fish tank. God created everything from nothing, it is not composed of God. God, however, is Creator, omniscient, and omnipotent, so, that would indicate a willful desire that things exist to maintain existence, for which we should be grateful.

Suppose I told you that God reveals Himself to me, and that He proves his affection for me through personal revelation when I fail, and when I doubt, and when I feel I need Him to not at all to maintain my faith. If you watch me closely and read closely you might find yourself afraid.

What if others are like this, in fact, and that in reading papal documents fairly you can ascertain their prophetic quality if open yourself to natural law reason, such as in Humanae Vitae.

The problem I have with ignostic as you express it is that it requires a through defining you would not and do not require of other things. For instance, you would not be able to define gravity well enough to accept the term 'gravity', using the same method. And so I see it as a hypocritical method for gauging the usage of a term.

You could say that it unnecessarily complicates the discussion. There is no reason to argue about the legitimacy of a term, defined in many way, but also as beyond human comprehension by its nature (Creator).

However, I will play along if you'd like. Jesus, we have evidence, of course that he existed, and some historical evidence, I'm told, that his adversaries and skeptical historians believed that Jesus Christ, the crucified man existed and was as described, one of them accusing him of being a magician, if I'm not mistaken. But that is probably weak evidence in comparison to the real estate that Christians recognize in Israel for this or that reason. Sadly, for instance, it appears that there is some confusion as to which side of the Jordan John the Baptist Baptized Jesus... He probably preached on both sides... The most common response I've gotten is that we can't know those things anymore because it was too long ago... oh, well, at least I tried.

So, God visited man, because God is Good. He created in man a desire for God a desire to have his surrounding be good and a desire to live in peace and joy forever. Like hunger, this desire has a manner of satisfaction, such as prayer, and ultimately, for the saints, death and eternal life in His presence.

Let me know if I can continue to define this God for you or if you're ready to move on. The term Ignostic, as you have described, seems to be little more than reason to continue to preach to you, until you have had God defined thoroughly enough to understand the discussion.

 

[UnReAL13]

I see the cancer disappearance, 2 actually, stated in various papers, but, I wouldn't know where to go, other than the Vatican to obtain the actual medical records. But, I doubt you could get medical records for people who are yet alive, at very least. Perhaps, you could trust them?

Why should I trust a corrupt church that hides its own pedophile priests?

First, you look to find how big God is. The universe is not and does not 'contain' God in the way water would be in a fish tank. God created everything from nothing, it is not composed of God. God, however, is Creator, omniscient, and omnipotent, so, that would indicate a willful desire that things exist to maintain existence, for which we should be grateful.

So are you asserting that this "god" is separate from the known universe?

Suppose I told you that God reveals Himself to me, and that He proves his affection for me through personal revelation when I fail, and when I doubt, and when I feel I need Him to not at all to maintain my faith. If you watch me closely and read closely you might find yourself afraid.

How are you supposed to prove that you are indeed receiving divine revelation?

What if others are like this, in fact, and that in reading papal documents fairly you can ascertain their prophetic quality if open yourself to natural law reason, such as in Humanae Vitae.

This sounds more like the Deistic viewpoint of "god". A god that doesn't answer prayers, create miracles or perform divine intervention of any kind. One that simply created the universe then left it alone. Is this the type of god you're telling me to believe in?

The problem I have with ignostic as you express it is that it requires a through defining you would not and do not require of other things. For instance, you would not be able to define gravity well enough to accept the term 'gravity', using the same method. And so I see it as a hypocritical method for gauging the usage of a term.

There are many things that I'm rather Ignostic/Agnostic towards. Gravity first and foremost. Electro-magnetism is another fundamental force that isn't clearly portrayed on the quantum level the way we view it from the standard level of observation. Why not be Ignostic towards subjects that are already somewhat vague and lacking in description?

You could say that it unnecessarily complicates the discussion. There is no reason to argue about the legitimacy of a term, defined in many way, but also as beyond human comprehension by its nature (Creator).

The main staple or quality that seems to be consistent among most definitions of god is that "it" is a "creator". So why shouldn't this "creator" be something entirely abstract, such as a computer program, a black hole, a membrane of reality, or even a quantum particle like the elusive Higgs Boson?

However, I will play along if you'd like. Jesus, we have evidence, of course that he existed, and some historical evidence, I'm told, that his adversaries and skeptical historians believed that Jesus Christ, the crucified man existed and was as described, one of them accusing him of being a magician, if I'm not mistaken. But that is probably weak evidence in comparison to the real estate that Christians recognize in Israel for this or that reason. Sadly, for instance, it appears that there is some confusion as to which side of the Jordan John the Baptist Baptized Jesus... He probably preached on both sides... The most common response I've gotten is that we can't know those things anymore because it was too long ago... oh, well, at least I tried.

Don't forget the Apocryphal Gospels and Gnostic texts. There are many different ways to interpret the life of "Jesus", so why is the divine Jesus theory correct?

So, God visited man, because God is Good. He created in man a desire for God a desire to have his surrounding be good and a desire to live in peace and joy forever. Like hunger, this desire has a manner of satisfaction, such as prayer, and ultimately, for the saints, death and eternal life in His presence.

Pure supposition.

Let me know if I can continue to define this God for you or if you're ready to move on. The term Ignostic, as you have described, seems to be little more than reason to continue to preach to you, until you have had God defined thoroughly enough to understand the discussion.

The only aspect of "god" that we've actually clarified in any meaningful way is that it's a creator. There's still plenty of wiggle room to interpret so much more.


LoL In all fairness I knew that Christian Theists would probably despise this philosophy, as it tends to demand descriptions of a deity that most of you admit is either unknown or beyond human comprehension. I just thought some of you might be willing to attempt this challenge.

So does this mean that many of you are more like Agnostic Theists? Let's face it, everyone is born Agnostic, nobody knows anything on the subject until they're taught something about it.


The only real description I've seen of your god from your holy book would be Ezekiel 1:26-28:

Above the surface over their heads was what looked like a throne made of blue sapphire. And high above this throne was a figure whose appearance was like that of a man. From his waist up, he looked like gleaming amber, flickering like a fire. And from his waist down, he looked like a burning flame, shining with splendor. All around him was a glowing halo, like a rainbow shining through the clouds. This was the way the glory of the Lord appeared to me.

This is sounding beyond absurd to say the least. And for some reason "god" decided to reveal itself in all its "glory" to Ezekiel after denying the request to Moses and saying that it would kill any man who sees it. Which BTW parallels the Greek story of Zeus revealing himself in all his glory to a young maiden whom he slept with, which it then killed her.

Not only that but this bizarre description comes after what Ezekiel seems to describe as UFO's and aliens coming out of the "clouds". So once again we're back at the hypothesis that "god is an alien", which is not falsifiable and therefore loses its meaning. Is it supposed to be an eternal flame entity? An immortal man on fire? An alien who appears to be on fire? A being composed of lava? It's just not very clear what's going on there.


Because of these obvious flaws and contradictions in the definition of "god", the Agnostic Neutralist position ultimately triumphs at the end of the day. I just use Ignosticism to reinforce my neutrality on the matter, much like the way an Ignostic Atheist would use the philosophy to justify their reasoning as to why no god exists.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Do you opine that pantheists hold no degree of "faith" or "worship" concerning the workings of the universe and the nature of reality? Again I must ask you, how does your definition of god vary from a pantheistic viewpoint of the universe? Aside from the obvious inclusion of the word "monotheistic".

Insofar as the universe is natural, and God is supernatural, then they differ. So I do not equate God with the Sun, sea and stars etc.

 

[UnReAL13]

Insofar as the universe is natural, and God is supernatural, then they differ. So I do not equate God with the Sun, sea and stars etc.

Can you give a definition of "supernatural" that isn't an oxymoron?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, not quite. I agree that we do draw analogies between us and, say, God. Not that there necessarily is an analogy.

But ... we do also draw analogies between us other stuff. Oftentimes stuff that is generally put into the naturalist category.

But we are simply discussing the idea "God has qualities analogous to ours" and asking "Does that statement make sense?"

And, what if it turns out that say our emotions are in fact reducible to materialsm (whatever that means)? Our emotions were analogous before we figured it out, but are they still afterwards. I suppose not.

If it turns out that emotions are reducible to brain states, then I suppose that the idea that we need a soul to have emotions is questioned. But so what? That questioning does not make the initial idea meaningless.

Which then brings you back to the question. Thought, emotions etc, in what kind of sense. In a sense that we have thought, emotions etc? Hrmph...

There would be a challenge if what we thought was immaterial soul turned out to be brain, yes. Thats because our analogy "God's spirit is like our soul" would be defeated by the idea that the soul concept stands refuted. Sure, but that refutation's an if, not a fact.

As an aside ... Will? Definitely not. The only kind will/free will that I see as appropriate for human beings is compatibilist free will. And God by its very definition can not have compatibilist free will.

It seems like you are throwing the kitchen sink here. Simply put, God can choose to act just as we can choose to act. What's the issue?

We do ascribe for instance the capability of thought to a human with a functioning, intact brain. Now suppose, we have a human with a totally defunct brain. A severe accident, say, and the person is dead. Now we do no longer ascribe the capability of thought to that human. Similar with emotion, or the other things that you enumerate.

If you want to provide a demonstrative proof that the soul had been definitively eliminated by science as a concept, then go ahead. All I can see is the kitchen sink and nit picking for the sake of it. It may not be a scientific concept, sure; but that does not entail that it's absolutely meaningless (if that's a point your atempting to prove).

Simply swapping out material for physical does not make it any better.

So you do not believe that atoms and gravitation, and other objects of physical theory, exist?

 

[quatona]

Insofar as the universe is natural, and God is supernatural, then they differ. So I do not equate God with the Sun, sea and stars etc.

...but then there is this Super-supernatural Entity - The One that created God, and the One that differs from God in the same way that God differs from us, the sun and the stars. The One that God can´t fully comprehend. The One that gave meaning to God´s existence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

...but then there is this Super-supernatural Entity - The One that created God, and the One that differs from God in the same way that God differs from us, the sun and the stars. The One that God can´t fully comprehend. The One that gave meaning to God´s existence.

I suppose an infinite regress of Gods creating Gods is logically possible, given certain definitions. I don't see how that affects the issue of the initial meaning, or lack of meaning of the term "God" though.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I recall reading thast some parapsychologists do not use the terem "God" in their experiments (eg. "prayer to God" becomes something like "directed attention"). IIRC this was not to do with the meaninglessness of the term "God" (but I could be wrong), but rather that the parapsychologists were trying to define their data and results as materialistically as possible.

 

[UnReAL13]

I suppose an infinite regress of Gods creating Gods is logically possible, given certain definitions. I don't see how that affects the issue of the initial meaning, or lack of meaning of the term "God" though.

It matters when you consider polytheism vs. monotheism in the overall concept. Multiple gods leaves room for multiple meanings, so there's a lack of clarification. There are all kinds of different gods and god-like figures throughout various mythologies.

 

[quatona]

I suppose an infinite regress of Gods creating Gods is logically possible, given certain definitions. I don't see how that affects the issue of the initial meaning, or lack of meaning of the term "God" though.

Looking at the definition you offered in the beginning of this thread I think, yes, it would be affected.

 

[quatona]

I recall reading thast some parapsychologists do not use the terem "God" in their experiments (eg. "prayer to God" becomes something like "directed attention"). IIRC this was not to do with the meaninglessness of the term "God" (but I could be wrong), but rather that the parapsychologists were trying to define their data and results as materialistically as possible.

I fail to see how the term "directed attention" has anything materialistic about it.