Ignosticism: What Is God?

[GrowingSmaller]

Perhaps you missed the wiki I provided in the 1st post?

Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.

Not good enough. I want to know what conditions must be met for a term to be regarded as meaningful, not the conditions of meaninglessness, although knowing those obviously helps too.

I am not sure what a "falsifiable definition" is, btw. I thought that is was a theory that is falsifiable, or an assertion or hypothesis within a theory, not a definition of a term. What does it mean for a definition "e.g. "colour x[sup]1[/sup] is the colour of oxygenated blood in the human being" or "God is the sum total of all that exists" to be falsifiable?

Also, can you give an good example of an "unfalsifiable definition", and explain how it fails to meet the conditions of meaningfulness I requested earlier in this post?

Further note to Unereal: I am pretty sure that the idea of "falsifying a definition" is bad philosophy. For example, I cannot find an authoratitive encyclopedia entry on it, never mind Wikipedia or a intelligent looking blog. I would have thought (with a little help from my friends) that statements can be true or false (e.g. "no information can travel faster than lightspeed" or "the Sun rises in the East") whereas definitions are accurate or inaccurate ("by "information" physicists mean..." or "the term "Sun" as used in the English language refers to...."); or perhaps they are useful or useless (maybe: "a "criminal" is a reprehensible person"), or even coherent or incoherent (e.g. ""red" is the swamp that speeds mistakes"), rather than true or false in the cognitive sense per se. In fact, I am even inclined to mention the concept of category mistake.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

ToHoldNothing I agree that a general concept of "God" which encompasses all definitions from Christian to pantheist, is a pretty vague term. It might mean simply "an object revered in a religion", but I suppose we will even find exceptions to that if we study usage closely. Still, I think that if I watch a tv documantary and hear a comment "for the muslims God is" or "the God of the ingulu tribe in very different from the one we are used to" I am not suddenly in semantic turmoul due to a lack of a clear definition, even though as we have discussed the concept of 'God in general' might be a very vague term indeed. It seems like the term may in this case be vague, but still useful. Perhaps it's the fact that is is vague, but still in some way suggestive, that makes in useful, and a more precise term would be no good. I cannot think of an analogous tool in a toolbox, but am convinced that a Wittgensteing might.

Maybe it is not a good term when critically asking "Does God (God in general) exist?" or "Do you believe in the existence of God (God in general)" but remember that metaphysical debates on philosophy boards are not the only context in which the term can be used. As I mentioned, a tv documantary presenter might find the word in all it's vagueness wholly appropriate. And anyway, usually members on boards are pretty quick to ask "Which God do you have in mind?"

Also you say that people want to say that their definition of God is the right definition. I supopose that is the nature of religion for a lot of people, they believe they are in the right and others are in the wrong. How that affects semantics I am not sure.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

ToHoldNothing I agree that a general concept of "God" which encompasses all definitions from Christian to pantheist, is a pretty vague term. It might mean simply "an object revered in a religion", but I suppose we will even find exceptions to that if we study usage closely. Still, I think that if I watch a tv documantary and hear a comment "for the muslims God is" or "the God of the ingulu tribe in very different from the one we are used to" I am not suddenly in semantic turmoul due to a lack of a clear definition, even though as we have discussed the concept of 'God in general' might be a very vague term indeed. It seems like the term may in this case be vague, but still useful. Perhaps it's the fact that is is vague, but still in some way suggestive, that makes in useful, and a more precise term would be no good. I cannot think of an equivalent tool in a toolbox, but am convinced that a Wittgensteing might.

Maybe it is not a good term when critically asking "Does God (God in general) exist?" or "Do you believe in the existence of God (God in general)" but remember that metaphysical debates on philosophy boards are not the only context in which the term can be used. As I mentioned, a tv documantary presenter might find the word in all it's vagueness wholly appropriate. And anyway, usually members on boards are pretty quick to ask "Which God do you have in mind?"

You do realize that you are comparing two different words here?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You do realize that you are comparing two different words here?

What?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This is another good point. People assume that everything exists "naturally", but what if it's all artificial?

Strictly speaking, saying "it's all artificial" does not make sense.

What if intelligent design is correct to some extent and the universe was designed by other humans? Maybe what we perceive is only meant to appear that way to us "naturally", but is in fact an artificial creation.

And where exactly do we draw the line between "natural" and "artificial"? Like the abiogenesis experiments, if we can recreate something "natural" in a lab, is it artificial or natural? Is everything artificial in a "natural" state of existence?

On top of that, how do we draw the line between "natural" and "supernatural"? What qualifies something that's "naturally existing" to be "super" in any way? This is why I feel that the word supernatural has such an empty meaning that's completely open to interpretation.

You should watch out to not conflate different meanings of the same word.

"Natural" as in

natural vs artificial​

is not the same as

natural vs supernatural vs ...​

I would also be careful to conflate

"natural vs supernatural vs ..." in a more mundane, casual everyday context where it means "you know, things like ghosts, angels"​

with

"natural vs supernatural vs ..."in a more serious context.​

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What?

Different words as defined here:

word (plural words)
[...]
3. A distinct unit of language (sounds in speech or written letters) with a particular meaning, composed of one or more morphemes, and also of one or more phonemes that determine its sound pattern. [from 10th c.]
[...]​

ETA: Link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/word

 

[sandwiches]

Different words as defined here:

word (plural words)
[...]
3. A distinct unit of language (sounds in speech or written letters) with a particular meaning, composed of one or more morphemes, and also of one or more phonemes that determine its sound pattern. [from 10th c.]
[...]​

ETA: Link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/word

Does this have anything to do with what you said earlier in the thread where you thought that "God is Miley Cyrus" was merely a "metaphor?"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Does this have anything to do with what you said earlier in the thread where you thought that "God is Miley Cyrus" was merely a "metaphor?"

Yes, sort of.

Saying "Miley Cyrus is God" is either making a metaphor, or playing Humpty Dumpty.

Saying "God is Miley Cyrus" is either making a metaphor, or playing Humpty Dumpty.

Faced with those possiblities to interpret your statement* I decided to not play obtuse, and to charitatively run with the best and most plausible interpretation. So, I went on to picture a situation where somebody says "Miley Cyrus is God" and makes a comparison between the two, saying that in some respects Miley is like God, for instance that Miley like God has plenty of people who worship her.**



But re-reading the post, maybe I was wrong.

Maybe your post should have been read as somebody making the statement "God is Miley Cyrus" intented to mean that God is like Cyrus in certain aspects. Hmmm ... I can only see this as as an attempt to slur God, believers, religion. Sorry.


Or maybe your statement was intented to say that they are actually identical entities. (There is no difference then between "God is Miley" and "Miley is God.") Sorry, Humpty Dumpty describes this perfectly. And I am certain, Growing Smaller would agree.






* This was: "You're having a conversation with me and I define 'God' as Miley Cyrus, the singer."
Ignosticism: What Is God? - Page 15 - Christian Forums

** See response here: Ignosticism: What Is God? - Page 16 - Christian Forums

 

[UnReAL13]

Not good enough. I want to know what conditions must be met for a term to be regarded as meaningful, not the conditions of meaninglessness, although knowing those obviously helps too.

I am not sure what a "falsifiable definition" is, btw. I thought that is was a theory that is falsifiable, or an assertion or hypothesis within a theory, not a definition of a term. What does it mean for a definition "e.g. "colour x[sup]1[/sup] is the colour of oxygenated blood in the human being" or "God is the sum total of all that exists" to be falsifiable?

Also, can you give an good example of an "unfalsifiable definition", and explain how it fails to meet the conditions of meaningfulness I requested earlier in this post?

Further note to Unereal: I am pretty sure that the idea of "falsifying a definition" is bad philosophy. For example, I cannot find an authoratitive encyclopedia entry on it, never mind Wikipedia or a intelligent looking blog. I would have thought (with a little help from my friends) that statements can be true or false (e.g. "no information can travel faster than lightspeed" or "the Sun rises in the East") whereas definitions are accurate or inaccurate ("by "information" physicists mean..." or "the term "Sun" as used in the English language refers to...."); or perhaps they are useful or useless (maybe: "a "criminal" is a reprehensible person"), or even coherent or incoherent (e.g. ""red" is the swamp that speeds mistakes"), rather than true or false in the cognitive sense per se. In fact, I am even inclined to mention the concept of category mistake.

*sigh* If the definition is not falsifiable via the scientific method, we must take the non-cognitivist position as there could be too many loosely interpreted meanings. I think ToHoldNothing already explained this a little more in depth.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, sort of.

Saying "Miley Cyrus is God" is either making a metaphor, or playing Humpty Dumpty.

Saying "God is Miley Cyrus" is either making a metaphor, or playing Humpty Dumpty.

Faced with those possiblities to interpret your statement* I decided to not play obtuse, and to charitatively run with the best and most plausible interpretation. So, I went on to picture a situation where somebody says "Miley Cyrus is God" and makes a comparison between the two, saying that in some respects Miley is like God, for instance that Miley like God has plenty of people who worship her.**

But re-reading the post, maybe I was wrong.

Maybe your post should have been read as somebody making the statement "God is Miley Cyrus" intented to mean that God is like Cyrus in certain aspects. Hmmm ... I can only see this as as an attempt to slur God, believers, religion. Sorry.

Or maybe your statement was intented to say that they are actually identical entities. (There is no difference then between "God is Miley" and "Miley is God.") Sorry, Humpty Dumpty describes this perfectly. And I am certain, Growing Smaller would agree.

* This was: "You're having a conversation with me and I define 'God' as Miley Cyrus, the singer."
Ignosticism: What Is God? - Page 15 - Christian Forums

** See response here: Ignosticism: What Is God? - Page 16 - Christian Forums

You use some phrases I'm unfamiliar with. You previously used "chit chatty," I think, and now "Humpty Dumpty" and I've no idea how you're intending on using either phrase. You could say I'm ignostic or agnostic as to what you're trying to say.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You use some phrases I'm unfamiliar with. You previously used "chit chatty," I think, and now "Humpty Dumpty" and I've no idea how you're intending on using either phrase. You could say I'm ignostic or agnostic as to what you're trying to say.

For Humpty Dumpty:
Humpty Dumpty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771-21/#post56322988

In other words, "I can make words mean whatever I like them to mean." As in "God is Miley", or some such.

---
And don't take "chit chatty" too seriously here. That is just an adjectivized "chit-chat".

 

[ToHoldNothing]

ToHoldNothing I agree that a general concept of "God" which encompasses all definitions from Christian to pantheist, is a pretty vague term. It might mean simply "an object revered in a religion", but I suppose we will even find exceptions to that if we study usage closely. Still, I think that if I watch a tv documantary and hear a comment "for the muslims God is" or "the God of the ingulu tribe in very different from the one we are used to" I am not suddenly in semantic turmoul due to a lack of a clear definition, even though as we have discussed the concept of 'God in general' might be a very vague term indeed. It seems like the term may in this case be vague, but still useful. Perhaps it's the fact that is is vague, but still in some way suggestive, that makes in useful, and a more precise term would be no good. I cannot think of an analogous tool in a toolbox, but am convinced that a Wittgensteing might.

That's because they already stipulated and qualified before the use of the term God. If you missed that, you're just not paying attention to the context of the word. If someone says they are a Muslim and believe in God, that's clearer to me than if you just say you believe in God. And then there's the obvious and clear difficulties of even someone identifying as a Christian saying they believe in God, because Christology has fragmented the whole concept to pieces. God isn't useful, since it doesn't suggest the same thing to everyone. Some people think it's personal, some people think it has no personality whatsoever and everything in between. The object of worship is purposely vague in order to cover everything we might call religious behavior and belief. But it only helps so much before we encounter a similar difficulty in defining what a religion is. As far as I can tell, most people don't think of a term like God in the general sense as useful because they don't think of God in general terms. And even if they do, there are still stipulative and normative standards they apply to it, almost unconsciously, because they can't just have God be something universal and yet detached from human experience.

Maybe it is not a good term when critically asking "Does God (God in general) exist?" or "Do you believe in the existence of God (God in general)" but remember that metaphysical debates on philosophy boards are not the only context in which the term can be used. As I mentioned, a tv documantary presenter might find the word in all it's vagueness wholly appropriate. And anyway, usually members on boards are pretty quick to ask "Which God do you have in mind?"

Which still demonstrates the difficulty. If people assume their definition of God is superior, we already have a difficulty of communication because the person is unwilling or resistant to changing that definition or accepting other definitions as valid or useful.

Also you say that people want to say that their definition of God is the right definition. I supopose that is the nature of religion for a lot of people, they believe they are in the right and others are in the wrong. How that affects semantics I am not sure.

It affects semantics because we have people insisting on special treatment of their individual definitions of God even though they are not rationally defensible in any way like we can prove mathematically that a triangle must have three sides.

 

[quatona]

Not good enough. I want to know what conditions must be met for a term to be regarded as meaningful, not the conditions of meaninglessness, although knowing those obviously helps too.

I am not sure what a "falsifiable definition" is, btw. I thought that is was a theory that is falsifiable, or an assertion or hypothesis within a theory, not a definition of a term. What does it mean for a definition "e.g. "colour x[sup]1[/sup] is the colour of oxygenated blood in the human being" or "God is the sum total of all that exists" to be falsifiable?

Also, can you give an good example of an "unfalsifiable definition", and explain how it fails to meet the conditions of meaningfulness I requested earlier in this post?

Further note to Unereal: I am pretty sure that the idea of "falsifying a definition" is bad philosophy. For example, I cannot find an authoratitive encyclopedia entry on it, never mind Wikipedia or a intelligent looking blog. I would have thought (with a little help from my friends) that statements can be true or false (e.g. "no information can travel faster than lightspeed" or "the Sun rises in the East") whereas definitions are accurate or inaccurate ("by "information" physicists mean..." or "the term "Sun" as used in the English language refers to...."); or perhaps they are useful or useless (maybe: "a "criminal" is a reprehensible person"), or even coherent or incoherent (e.g. ""red" is the swamp that speeds mistakes"), rather than true or false in the cognitive sense per se. In fact, I am even inclined to mention the concept of category mistake.

I´d agree, technically: "falsifiable (unfalsifiable) definition" is nonsense at worst and sloppy language at best.
However, I was naturally assuming that the author meant to say "a definition that renders the claim in which it defines the subject unfalsifiable". But maybe I was too charitable.

 

[sandwiches]

For Humpty Dumpty:
Humpty Dumpty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771-21/#post56322988

In other words, "I can make words mean whatever I like them to mean." As in "God is Miley", or some such.

---
And don't take "chit chatty" too seriously here. That is just an adjectivized "chit-chat".

I'm not using them however I want, unless you're saying my definition of "god" is not correct...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm not using them however I want, unless you're saying my definition of "god" is not correct...

The true magic here, with "Miley is God", is that I personally don't even have to say anything. I don't have to weigh in my opinion at all. I can simply refer you back to rest of the world. If you get a somewhat significant following for the statement "Miley is God" or "Miley might be God" then, I guess, you could pride yourself to have successfully redefined the word(s), or to have successfully supplied new meaning(s).



I am beginning to get the impression that you might be better served with picking something, where the above criterion is already fulfilled. There is always pantheism, or some such. Maybe'll you have more success with that.

 

[JordanDaniel]

Alright guys plain and simple. Stop asking and answering your own questions, read the old testament, decode every verse. Rinse and repeat with the new testament. Which would take a lifetime but that's the only way your gonna get straight up answers for these hilarious debates you have. I ain't trying to degrade anyone or anything,heck keep goin with this kind of stuff ignostics crack me up!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

*sigh* If the definition is not falsifiable via the scientific method, we must take the non-cognitivist position as there could be too many loosely interpreted meanings. I think ToHoldNothing already explained this a little more in depth.

I have absolutely no idea how a definition is falsified by the scientific method, sorry***. Please explain or direct me to a relevant post, or if possible an authoratitive source.

Also, again I ask for criteria that we use to determine if a term is meaningful, not just meaningless. After all aren't you challenging me to produce a meaningful defiunition of the term "God"? If so I ought to be able to have a description of what constitutes or indicates there is meaningfulness, if you won't accept the standard idea that a terms meaning is found in a authoritative dictionary, and is dependent on usage in the fluent community.


***hold on see next post down!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

However, I was naturally assuming that the author meant to say "a definition that renders the claim in which it defines the subject unfalsifiable". But maybe I was too charitable.

So he means first define the term "God". And then ask if the the statement "God exists" falsifiable?

If that's the case then possible all non-nouns are meaningless as we can't ask "Is it possible to falsify the existence of "if" or "and" etc?"

But if the rule only applies to nouns, then I am still not sure. I remember hearing about the medieval myth of dog headed people (dog heads). According to some traditions IIRC they had human bodies and dog's heads and lived in far away lands. There was even a monk who enquired as to whether they had souls. But one important characteristic IIRC (in certain versions of the myth at least) was that they could never be seen, as they were always behind the observer or some such trick. The point is that renders the question of their existence unfalsifiable, as there could never be a exploratory test proving they are not here not there. Yet, I feel that if such unfalsifiability rendered the concept "dog head" meaningless, then the question of how people menaged to debate them, believe in them etc, including the monk who asked whether they had immortal souls?

So it seems that because "dog head" can apparently be understood as part of a sentence, then names for unfalsifiable entities can and do have meaning. Other candidates include "mind independent reality", the "vat" of the brain in the vat scenario, and there are probably many others...

Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The true magic here, with "Miley is God", is that I personally don't even have to say anything. I don't have to weigh in my opinion at all. I can simply refer you back to rest of the world. If you get a somewhat significant following for the statement "Miley is God" or "Miley might be God" then, I guess, you could pride yourself to have successfully redefined the word(s), or to have successfully supplied new meaning(s).



I am beginning to get the impression that you might be better served with picking something, where the above criterion is already fulfilled. There is always pantheism, or some such. Maybe'll you have more success with that.

Miley who?YouTube - Joan Osborne - One Of Us

 

[quatona]

So he means first define the term "God". And then ask if the the statement "God exists" falsifiable?

I think he means: If the definition of the term "X" renders the claim "X exists" unfalsifiable the term in this definition has insufficient meaning as a basis for the question "Does X exist?"

E.g. if "X" is defined as being beyond time, space, physicality, words, beyond logic and beyond our comprehension and beyond pretty much anything we experience it is defined by its very meaninglessness in terms of human cognition (it is not a concept - it is a non-concept).
It is defined as being out of my reach, yet I am asked to approach it as if it were within it.