Ignosticism: What Is God?

[quatona]

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?"

Yes, they are by their very definition meaningless as the basis for the question "Does "if", "or", "and" exist?". IOW, and presumably a more precise wording: The question is meaningless in view of the given definition of the terms in question.

That´s what I am trying to tell you since my first post: Whether a definition of a term is sufficiently or insufficiently defined (or even renders the discussion of a certain question meaningless/absurd) depends on the purpose of the conversation.

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 how did people menage to debate them, believe in them etc, including the monk who asked whether they had immortal souls?

Well, I guess you would have to ask them.

I´ve even seen people debate the question "What´s seen in a mirror when nobody looks into it?" to great length. Or "Is redness red?"

Presumably because many people naturally work from the misconception that when a sentence/question is grammatically correct and contains possibly meaningful terms it therefore must be meaningful.

The funny thing about the dog head thing is: The very fact that actually would point to their non-existence (i.e. that there can´t be evidence for their existence) can even be taken as a confirmation of their existence: See, I´ve told you they can´t be seen, and - alas - you don´t see them. Qed." As soon as a dog head would show up the existence of dog heads (in the given definition) would be disproven.

Know the story about the guy who´s clapping his hands every some 10 seconds? "Hey, why are you doing that?" - "It drives the elephants away." - "But there are no elephants." - "See!"

 

[quatona]

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.

Whether a definition is sufficient depends entirely on the purpose of the conversation, i.e. the question that´s about to be contemplated.

 

[quatona]

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?"

Let´s say I believe that on every January 2nd from midnight to 1am the word "if" turns into a noun.

My description of my "theory" is (hopefully - I am not a native English speaker, btw.) a grammatically correct sentence, comprised of pretty simple, commonly understood terms for which unambiguous definitions can be found in every dictionary.

Do you think it´s meaningful? Sufficiently meaningful for a meaningful discussion of my "theory"?

Do you feel discussing this "theory" is worthwhile? If not so - what would be your reasons when refusing to discuss it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Miley who?

The girl was given. The girl is sufficient.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Alright guys plain and simple. Stop asking and answering your own questions,

That is the problem. I can't.

read the old testament, decode every verse. Rinse and repeat with the new testament. Which would take a lifetime

Have fun!

but that's the only way your gonna get straight up answers for these hilarious debates you have.

It is sort of hilarious, isn't it?

I ain't trying to degrade anyone or anything,heck keep goin with this kind of stuff ignostics crack me up!

 

[Gracchus]

What is God? God is what is real. (That is "pantheism".) Maybe more (That is "panentheism".)
But if God is not real then there is not much point to the discussion.

If God is omnipotent, (As I have been assured he is!) then all power from physics to intellect must be the power of God. And if God is ubiquitous (As I have been assured he is!) then all that exists must be God.

That means ... even you! (Assuming you are not a figment of my imagination!) And even ... me!

 

[UnReAL13]

What is God? God is what is real. (That is "pantheism".) Maybe more (That is "panentheism".)
But if God is not real then there is not much point to the discussion.

If God is omnipotent, (As I have been assured he is!) then all power from physics to intellect must be the power of God. And if God is ubiquitous (As I have been assured he is!) then all that exists must be God.

That means ... even you! (Assuming you are not a figment of my imagination!) And even ... me!

This is the Buddhist/Monist interpretation of "god". Unfortunately we end up with logically incoherent statements as a result from this, such as "I Am God". When obviously none of us created this universe, or are even being "worshiped" to any extent.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

I'm afraid you're also ignostic to my point, as it obviously keeps eluding you.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm afraid you're also ignostic to my point, as it obviously keeps eluding you.

I am just not sure what you are taking issues with. If it is what you said in the other thread, then I think that there is a serious flaw with that. Let me repost that here:

I gave instances of when the question could be comprehensible but you rejected my definition as incomplete, "not better than the rest," or simply wrong, meaning that you must already feel like you know or have some idea as to what the correct, complete, or best definition is.

Hmmm, looks to me like you are appealing to my ideas. Fine.

Let's just say that I have the idea that "God is inherently incomprehensible." So, if you have something that is comprehensible the only conclusion is that it can't be God.



I think that there is a serious weakness in your train of thought.​

 

[Gracchus]

This is the Buddhist/Monist interpretation of "god". Unfortunately we end up with logically incoherent statements as a result from this, such as "I Am God". When obviously none of us created this universe, or are even being "worshiped" to any extent.

But the universe wasn't manufactured, it was conceived as a singularity and born of a big bang. Babies don't create themselves either.
And why would God wish to be "worshipped"?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But the universe wasn't manufactured, it was conceved as a singularity and born of a big bang. Babies don't create themselves either.
And why would God wish to be "worshipped"?

Beautiful.

 

[UnReAL13]

But the universe wasn't manufactured, it was conceived as a singularity and born of a big bang. Babies don't create themselves either.
And why would God wish to be "worshipped"?

How was it conceived then? Did "God" get attracted to the idea of existence, then one thing led to another... VOILA, universe is born?

And I'm not really sure why a "god" would want anyone to "worship" it. I'm still not really sure what your "god" is supposed to be, or even whether or not you think there's actually "multiple gods".

 

[Gracchus]

How was it (the universe) conceived then? Did "God" get attracted to the idea of existence, then one thing led to another... VOILA, universe is born?

It does start with attraction. Mass is attracted to mass. When enough mass is concentrated in a small enough space, space-time itself collapses into a black hole. From the other side of the event horizon, what is perceived is a big bang, and an expanding universe.

And I'm not really sure why a "god" would want anyone to "worship" it.

That was exactly one of the points I was trying to make.

I'm still not really sure what your "god" is supposed to be, or even whether or not you think there's actually "multiple gods".

God is the totality of reality.

 

[UnReAL13]

God is the totality of reality.

Which certainly isn't testable in any possible way. And really, the entirety of reality? Is that all? Even the parts that nobody is certain about whatsoever? What lead you to this assumption? Plus this isn't consistent with the definition of "supernatural", which implies something that's "beyond natural" as in beyond the natural reality.

This also ties back into the "god is everything" claim, which leads to incoherent statements such as "I am god". Yeah, non-cognitivism is sounding rather nice about now.

 

[Gracchus]

Which certainly isn't testable in any possible way. And really, the entirety of reality? Is that all? Even the parts that nobody is certain about whatsoever? What lead you to this assumption?

It is not an assumption, it is a tentative definition.

Plus this isn't consistent with the definition of "supernatural", which implies something that's "beyond natural" as in beyond the natural reality.

If it isn't real, then it is not real. I don't believe in the "supernatural". Something is either real, i.e. natural, or it is unreal.

This also ties back into the "god is everything" claim, which leads to incoherent statements such as "I am god".

If you say, "I am (insert your name here).", is it your tongue and vocal chords claiming your identity? The universe is conscious of itself. I know this because I am an instrument of that consciousness.

Yeah, non-cognitivism is sounding rather nice about now.

You are not alone. Lots of people find ignorance comfortable.

 

[UnReAL13]

It is not an assumption, it is a tentative definition.

If it isn't real, then it is not real. I don't believe in the "supernatural". Something is either real, i.e. natural, or it is unreal.

Agreed on both of these points, but your definition of "god" greatly contrasts with the standard theistic viewpoint.

If you say, "I am (insert your name here).", is it your tongue and vocal chords claiming your identity? The universe is conscious of itself. I know this because I am an instrument of that consciousness.

What "consciousness"? When has this ever been proven?

You are not alone. Lots of people find ignorance comfortable.

Is it "ignorant" to have a failure of understanding towards a logically contradictory and incomprehensible subject? A subject that even most Theists admit is impossible to truly understand? What exactly am I being "ignorant" towards?

 

[Gracchus]

Agreed on both of these points, but your definition of "god" greatly contrasts with the standard theistic viewpoint.

I think we can agree that the "standard theistic" viewpoint is based entirely on imagination and wishful thinking.

What "consciousness"? When has this ever been proven?

Well, you may not accept the idea that I am conscious, but I am fairly certain you accept that you are. Thus, the fact that the universe is conscious, and self-conscious should be evident.
Of course some parts of the universe may not be self-conscious, but then neither are your hair and fingernails.

Is it "ignorant" to have a failure of understanding towards a logically contradictory and incomprehensible subject?

What you are ignoring is that using my definition, there is no contradiction, and so the subject is comprehensible.

A subject that even most Theists admit is impossible to truly understand?

Of course any viewpoint that incorporates as givens contradictions, falsehoods and utter nonsense is impossible to understand! Since we see why it is impossible to understand we are reasonably justified in abandoning such a viewpoint.

What exactly am I being "ignorant" towards?

You are ignoring that those who embrace paradox and contradictory premises are obviously in error. I may be wrong, but I am prepared to abandon my position if that can be demonstrated.

 

[UnReAL13]

I think we can agree that the "standard theistic" viewpoint is based entirely on imagination and wishful thinking.

Yes, this is agreeable.

Well, you may not accept the idea that I am conscious, but I am fairly certain you accept that you are. Thus, the fact that the universe is conscious, and self-conscious should be evident.
Of course some parts of the universe may not be self-conscious, but then neither are your hair and fingernails.

LoL Okay. We're both self-conscious entities communicating via information packets sent across broadband radio-waves and so on. Does this really mean that the universe is actually trying to talk to itself?

And doesn't this take away the notion of free will? If the universe speaks through everyone, is it not controlling everyone to some extent?

What you are ignoring is that using my definition, there is no contradiction, and so the subject is comprehensible.

I'll admit that your "definition" is far more manageable than most that I've seen. It's simple and straightforward, while not adding anything "unnatural" to the equation. The problem is that it's not falsifiable, and probably not even testable.

So is this a form of pantheism we're dealing with here? Or perhaps panentheism? We could even go as far to say that this bridges onto egotheism as well, as this implies that every living person is a "small piece" of the "whole". So what ballpark are we hitting towards exactly?

Of course any viewpoint that incorporates as givens contradictions, falsehoods and utter nonsense is impossible to understand! Since we see why it is impossible to understand we are reasonably justified in abandoning such a viewpoint.

You might say "abandon", I would say "question". Any perspective is worth putting under scrutiny, but how long cognitivism will last depends on said viewpoint.

You are ignoring that those who embrace paradox and contradictory premises are obviously in error. I may be wrong, but I am prepared to abandon my position if that can be demonstrated.

If what can be demonstrated? A paradox?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok I will tentatively go along with ignoisticism in its various forms, for the sake of having an education.

@ unreal: WHat other terms am I to be ignoistic about. I cannot falsify "I exist" personally, so should I be ignostic towards it. What about superstring theory - is that semantically void?

@ ToHoldNothing: Ok I abandon using the term "God" because it is so vague and ambiguous. Can I choose an alternative term which is more precise for expressing religious beliefs and sentiments?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What about superstring theory - is that semantically void?

May I answer? With a counter question?

What do you know about superstring theory? Probably about as little as I do.