Ignosticism: What Is God?

[GrowingSmaller]

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

"The supernatural is at least a subset of the non-natural, and maybe all of it. For a definition of "natural" see "A defence of naturlaism" by K Augustine.

Ignostic Neutralist:

Neutral to the concept of a deity, but Ignostic towards the term "deity".

What is that supposed to mean? Neutral towards a concept, but ignostic towards a word??!? I think I am becoming ignostic about ignosticism. Please explain what that all means...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Agreed. But you have just argued that "Multiple gods leaves room for multiple meanings" i.e. "god" can be and is a meaningfiul term. QED.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

So you think that the series of characters in my definiens can at least be understood as part of a well formed English sentence then. Thats all this thread is about, or thereabouts. You wouldn't be answering like that was if I were just typing nonsense (like "God is htyebhsgsydipsk!!!" or " God red shivering utmost equals underneath!!" or some such nonsense). Rather, your response's mood is symptomatic of my speaking good English, not the lack of it. Your remark is obviously part of a rational conversation in which you understand the stuipulated usage of word being debated, but just want to take things further...

You are asking for a clarification of meaning present (on a pretty subtle level too), not complaining that there is actually none there. I expect this happens all the time with creationists on the evolution forum and the term "evolution", but I doubt you would be as systematically critical of a definition of "evolution" as you probably agree with the Darwinian pov.

 

[quatona]

So you think that the series of characters in my definiens can at least be understood as part of a well formed English sentence then.

Not necessarily. At any rate, the point of my post was not to demonstrate that your sentence was not well-formed English.

I do think, though, that a grammatically correct sentence can still be meaningless. Whether or not this is the case is - in my opinion - irrelevant to the topic.

In my understanding ignosticism doesn´t postulate that there can´t be a meaningful definition of the term "god".
It merely postulates two things:
1. that there needs to be a meaningful definition of "god" for a basis of a meaningful discussion.
2. that - even if I were able to prove "god" in the given meaningful definition as non-existent or at least illogical or self-contradictory - I still couldn´t call myself "atheist" because there would still be the next guy waiting with a different (meaningful) definition/concept of "god".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not necessarily. At any rate, the point of my post was not to demonstrate that your sentence was not well-formed English.

I do think, though, that a grammatically correct sentence can still be meaningless. Whether or not this is the case is - in my opinion - irrelevant to the topic.

In my understanding ignosticism doesn´t postulate that there can´t be a meaningful definition of the term "god".
It merely postulates two things:
1. that there needs to be a meaningful definition of "god" for a basis of a meaningful discussion.
2. that - even if I were able to prove "god" in the given meaningful definition as non-existent or at least illogical or self-contradictory - I still couldn´t call myself "atheist" because there would still be the next guy waiting with a different (meaningful) definition/concept of "god".

1 agreed. But the OP explicitly states that the term "God" is meaningless: "In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless." BTW I have yet to recieve an explanation of how God can be 'meaningful as a concept but not as a word', whatever that means.

2 Yes but maybe you could be atheist for that definition, but have to consider others in turn. Or generalise from the few to the many.

 

[quatona]

1 agreed. But the OP explicitly states that the term "God" is meaningless: "In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless." BTW I have yet to recieve an explanation of how God can be 'meaningful as a concept but not as a word', whatever that means.

I can´t speak for the OP, but I can explain my interpretation:
As soon as a term must be expected to mean pretty much anything it becomes meaningless in a discussion in which it is a key-term.
This doesn´t exclude that every individual using this term attaches an individual (and meaningful) concept to it.

2 Yes but maybe you could be atheist for that definition, but have to consider others in turn.

Ok, so you yourself would call yourself an "atheist" just because you refuse certain god concepts? I think this semantics proposal results in more confusion rather than clarity.

Or generalise from the few to the many.

I suspect that that´s exactly what an ignostic doesn´t want to do - because he feels that such a generalization is not valid. Wouldn´t you agree that the rejection of Zeus´ existence doesn´t have any impact on your own god concept?

 

[UnReAL13]

"The supernatural is at least a subset of the non-natural, and maybe all of it. For a definition of "natural" see "A defence of naturlaism" by K Augustine.

The problem here is that the words "super" and "natural" have opposing meanings, making this concept illogical.

What is that supposed to mean? Neutral towards a concept, but ignostic towards a word??!? I think I am becoming ignostic about ignosticism. Please explain what that all means...

It means I hold the default Agnostic Neutralist position concerning the Theist/Atheist and Weak/Strong Agnostic arguments, but I still find the term "deity" to be without a meaning.

Agreed. But you have just argued that "Multiple gods leaves room for multiple meanings" i.e. "god" can be and is a meaningfiul term. QED.

The idea of Ignosticism is to find a solid, consistent definition of "god". Not a definition that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Do you need further clarification?

 

[Blackmarch]

This is the philosophy I subscribe to and it seems to be the most logical & rational stance to take. Here's the wiki definition to better explain:



Many agnostics carry a bit of disdain for this viewpoint as they feel it halts the discussion. I feel that agnostics take too much pleasure from vague & ambiguous arguments which they admit is "unknown" to begin with.

The whole point is to find a coherent and consistent definition for the term "god". What could a deity be manifested as? The earth? The sun? Milky Way galaxy? The universe itself (pantheism)? Is it energy? A fundamental force of some kind? An alien? An inanimate object (animism)?

So many possibilities to choose from. So what do you think a deity actually is?

a being with all knowledge and the capability to use it.

 

[UnReAL13]

a being with all knowledge and the capability to use it.

But what type of being? And I'm assuming by "all knowledge" you're implying a conscious being of some sort?

 

[Blackmarch]

But what type of being? And I'm assuming by "all knowledge" you're implying a conscious being of some sort?

I would assume such a being would be conscious in order to exercise the knowledge they have but that would not be a requirement......... suppposing they ever chose to be in an unconscious state.

All knowledge to me means to know all that is knowable. I should probably add as well as having the knowledge and capability, the will to use it.

personally I believe the type of being to have physical attributes such as a man has only vastly superior.... but for me that is also not a requirement in order to be a God.

 

[UnReAL13]

I would assume such a being would be conscious in order to exercise the knowledge they have but that would not be a requirement......... suppposing they ever chose to be in an unconscious state.

All knowledge to me means to know all that is knowable. I should probably add as well as having the knowledge and capability, the will to use it.

personally I believe the type of being to have physical attributes such as a man has only vastly superior.... but for me that is also not a requirement in order to be a God.

So we're talking about some ultra powerful, man-like being that possesses all possible knowledge? What's to distinguish this concept from simply an ultra powerful alien that possesses all possible knowledge?

 

[sandwiches]

I have to agree with GrowingSmaller that I'm becoming ignostic toward ignosticism. The word and concept itself seems inconsistent. =P

Now, I am still unsure on how we determine whether a question is meaningless. Can you run this by me again, please? I'm slow.

 

[UnReAL13]

I have to agree with GrowingSmaller that I'm becoming ignostic toward ignosticism. The word and concept itself seems inconsistent. =P

Now, I am still unsure on how we determine whether a question is meaningless. Can you run this by me again, please? I'm slow.

Are you only saying this because you find it impossible to define a deity?

 

[sandwiches]

Are you only saying this because you find it impossible to define a deity?

I don't see how this relates to my question. How do you determine that a question is meaningless?

 

[UnReAL13]

I don't see how this relates to my question. How do you determine that a question is meaningless?

Any question in particular, or just questions in general?

 

[sandwiches]

Any question in particular, or just questions in general?

Any question.

 

[UnReAL13]

Any question.

You've lost me. Why am I trying to determine if any question is meaningless?

 

[sandwiches]

You've lost me. Why am I trying to determine if any question is meaningless?

Well, to know if you're an ignostic, you must first figure out if the proposed question is has meaning or not. So, do you determine that, again?

 

[UnReAL13]

Well, to know if you're an ignostic, you must first figure out if the proposed question is has meaning or not. So, do you determine that, again?

By cycling through definitions. Then it becomes an issue an semantics.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I can´t speak for the OP, but I can explain my interpretation:
As soon as a term must be expected to mean pretty much anything it becomes meaningless in a discussion in which it is a key-term.

Agreed, more or less. Thats why we have to define precise meanings of ambiguous terms before we begin debate.

This doesn´t exclude that every individual using this term attaches an individual (and meaningful) concept to it.

Of course. But the fact that one might have to disambiguate or stipulate a meaning does not imply that the debate becomes vacuous.

Ok, so you yourself would call yourself an "atheist" just because you refuse certain god concepts? I think this semantics proposal results in more confusion rather than clarity.

Well I am an atheist regarding certain conceptions of God for instance that of theistic Satanism. I don't see how that is not warranted, so long as the context is mutually understood sowe don't misunderstand my intention.