Ignosticism: What Is God?

[UnReAL13]

As for the former, I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists, only that a definiton of God canmake sense in the Elglish language. I think we all agree on that except for the OP, UnreAL13, and he seems to be sick of the whole thread.

A definition will make sense if you want it to, but that doesn't mean that it should make sense. Many of these definitions can become extremely subjective, and various people's viewpoints on an interpretation can be radically altered from one another. Many of the descriptors and terms used in most descriptions of a deity are rather vague and open to alternate meanings ("powerful", "supernatural", "spirit", etc.).

I haven't seen a truly logical definition as of yet, so if you feel like committing to that stance this is fine by me, but that means I won't debate the existence of this deity with you. I might care to elaborate on the concept until it seems coherent, but the existence or non-existence of such a poorly defined thing means nothing to me.

And I'm not sick of this thread, I'm just sick of you straw-manning your way into trying to misunderstand this whole philosophy so you can claim it as "illogical". I'd actually like this thread to continue in the proper fashion, and I've seen a lot of others attempt to put forth better descriptions of what they believe a "god" to be. I'm just tired of re-hashing the same points over and over that we've all been trying to convey to you anyway.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I thought I understood you, then came that final sentence.

As for the former, I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists, only that a definiton of God canmake sense in the Elglish language. I think we all agree on that except for the OP, UnreAL13, and he seems to be sick of the whole thread.

Perhaps I miscommunicated that last part. Any primary knowledge about God as opposed to secondary knowledge it seems to me should be considered divine revelation as opposed to reasoned out conclusions.

A definition of something you call God can make sense, but what we disagree on with you is that we cannot objectively call it God. We can subjectively call it as such, yes.

yeah like square triangle might have a meaning, but not cohere as a conecpt.

It's logically and rationally impossible because of the basic essence of what a triangle and square are.

Ok, fine. I am not on a mission to convince you otherwise, yet I suppose you believe I believe that God is actually not an alien.

I don't know what you believe God is, though

Maybe, I have never got that far in a debate. Yet I doubt that I will have to say "either alien or imperfect" if that's your contention.

There is the possibility of God being a sufficiently advanced supercomputer that is able to simulate a universe that appears to be centered around one planet, e.g. Earth.

Thats a point, but I am not trying to produce an objective/testable proof of Gods existence, and never was.

Then I suppose our difficulty is your argument for why God makes sense as a term in relation to the concept you define as such

Actually I get a sense of fulfilment from goint to church (at present anyway). Still thats not a proof that God exists, I know that.

It's a proof perhaps that religious communities give you that sense, that's about it

I am not quite sure what you mean by an "objective definition"....



Objective definition, sorry??? Is that a definition that exists on paper rather than in my mind? Or something, when defined, we can all look at with a telescope?

A definition that would be true regardless of our opinions on it. The sky as an atmosphere of various gases that maintains the weather to some extent as well as other things is objectively so regardless of if we define it as such. Or maybe a cat as distinct from a dog. Cats would be defined as such even if there were no humans around as such.

 

[quatona]

A definition that would be true regardless of our opinions on it. The sky as an atmosphere of various gases that maintains the weather to some extent as well as other things is objectively so regardless of if we define it as such. Or maybe a cat as distinct from a dog. Cats would be defined as such even if there were no humans around as such.

I have problems following you here, THN.

A definition, in my understanding, signifies the relation between a word and an object/concept - a semantic convention, if you will.
Would you agree?
I agree with you, in that an object/concept remains what it is (e.g. doesn´t change its properties) no matter what we call it.
To me, however, that seems to be a fact that points in the opposite direction than what your conclusion suggests. In my understanding, you aren´t talking about "true definition" (i.e. an accurate relation between a word and a thing) but rather about an "accurate concept" (i.e. the relation between a concept and reality).

 

[quatona]

What? Either there is a world outside or not. Even if he's not allowed outside, the question "Is there a world outside?" is still a valid expression in the English language. Please don't try and overelaborate, thats using intelligence to do battle against common sense.

I would tend to agree. We experience systems to be subsystems of "greater" systems, so this concept is well-founded in our experience. So asking myself: "Is this system possibly a subsystem of a greater system?" is a meaningful question.
It´s usually when people start making assumptions about the functioning of this "greater system" that things get inconsistent, self-contradictory, paradox etc.
Typically, the assumption is: The metasystem is not bound by the same rules that our system is (which in itself is a reasonable assumption - else we wouldn´t have to call it metasystem or "supernatural", in the first place).
The problem: This allows us to assume pretty much anything (no matter if it makes sense to us or not) about the functioning of this metasystem.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I have problems following you here, THN.

A definition, in my understanding, signifies the relation between a word and an object/concept - a semantic convention, if you will.
Would you agree?
I agree with you, in that an object/concept remains what it is (e.g. doesn´t change its properties) no matter what we call it.
To me, however, that seems to be a fact that points in the opposite direction than what your conclusion suggests. In my understanding, you aren´t talking about "true definition" (i.e. an accurate relation between a word and a thing) but rather about an "accurate concept" (i.e. the relation between a concept and reality).

I do tend to misuse or confuse nuanced words that have similar but distinct ideas. A definition does, indeed, signify a relation instead of an observation, which is probably what I was concerned with.

Describing God in one sense when God objectively exists in another way is how the objective description becomes difficult. Objective conception instead of true definition does seem like a good nuance of the point I was trying to make. It still seems to be contingent on our trying to relate that conception to the real thing as it supposedly exists instead of just believing in it without trying to demonstrate its objectivity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A definition will make sense if you want it to, but that doesn't mean that it should make sense. Many of these definitions can become extremely subjective, and various people's viewpoints on an interpretation can be radically altered from one another. Many of the descriptors and terms used in most descriptions of a deity are rather vague and open to alternate meanings ("powerful", "supernatural", "spirit", etc.).

True!

I haven't seen a truly logical definition as of yet, so if you feel like committing to that stance this is fine by me, but that means I won't debate the existence of this deity with you. I might care to elaborate on the concept until it seems coherent, but the existence or non-existence of such a poorly defined thing means nothing to me.

All I am asking is what would make a discussion meaningful to you. Otherwise I have to guess, and I have failed so far.

And I'm not sick of this thread, I'm just sick of you straw-manning your way into trying to misunderstand this whole philosophy so you can claim it as "illogical". I'd actually like this thread to continue in the proper fashion, and I've seen a lot of others attempt to put forth better descriptions of what they believe a "god" to be. I'm just tired of re-hashing the same points over and over that we've all been trying to convey to you anyway.

I don't see much point continuing with you until you tell me what you expect of a definition for it to deserve the appelation "meaningful". I don't want to seem impatient or rude, but all I am hearing is "Meaningless, try again."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@ToHoldNothing.

I am not sure whether definitionds are true or false, as they IMHO are not primarily meant to convey information about states of affairs, but rather the uses of words. So, defining "cat" as a form or pink cherryblossom tree would not be so much a falsehood, but simply a bad definition. Traditionally in logic statements or propositions are true or false, are the bearers of truth and falsity, but I am not sure whether a definition is regarded as a statement or prelimanary to the possiblility of statements. Think so though. So the statement "God exists" might be true or false (pace UnreAL13), but the definition "God is....." is merely about usage of terminology and is neither true nor false properly speaking.


Re "objective definitions". I think that if you expect every noun you define to have an objective correlate, then terms like "unicorns", "pixies", and maybe even "God" no longer have validity as expressions. Yet, I don't see a practical reason for outlawing or suspending their usage, as people seem to get along fine with them as things stand. For instance J K Rowling recently made a fortune entertaining people with tales of a fictional character called Harry Potter. With a little help from their critics the Logical Positivists soon realised the by their standards all false statements would have to be considered meaningless, and you might possibly be straying down a similar path.

 

[UnReAL13]

I don't see much point continuing with you until you tell me what you expect of a definition for it to deserve the appelation "meaningful". I don't want to seem impatient or rude, but all I am hearing is "Meaningless, try again."

Well, you now seem to understand that Ignosticism need not be applied to all words contained within the spectrum of language. Now we're making progress.

As far as what I would consider "meaningful"... the dictionary basically defines this as "of significance or value". If a definition seems insignificant or valueless, I would basically consider it "meaningless". In this case, if the definition of "god" has no scientific significance or value, then it's basically useless.

I'm not trying to argue that "science undermines religion" or that "science has all the answers". But scientific research hasn't failed us yet, and the core principle of Agnosticism in general picks up where science leaves off. If there is a scientifically verifiable or falsifiable definition of "god", then I would consider it 'meaningful'.

It's not like defining an ambiguous concept such as "perfection". This is a subjective quality that can be applied to anything. In this case, we are attempting to discover the true nature of a "deity", something that is said to supposedly exist. The goal is to discover what exactly we're looking for.

From the Ignostic perspective, asking "Does god exist?" means nothing if we don't know what exactly we're trying to say "exists". Depending on the axiom provided, this so-called "god" may already exist, all around us, either unimaginably large or unimaginably small. God could be the entire universe, the entirety of reality, or even more. God could be the theoretical Higgs Boson, or even something entirely abstract such as a supercomputer or algorithm. It could even be something completely shapeless and formless, or even an inanimate object without a consciousness.

The whole point of Ignosticism is to clarify what exactly a deity is supposed to be, in rational terms that are logically concise. This philosophy can be very subjective between those having the discourse or debate. Things can be interpreted in various ways, as we've illustrated all throughout this thread. As ToHoldNothing stated, there must be an objective definition to justify the term "god". If "god" is only an expression, then it's all simply a metaphor or idea to begin with, making it non-existent.

I hope this clears it up for you a little more. I would basically require a definition that can be verified or falsified by science. Many believe that such a description is nigh impossible to obtain, but I'm willing to give some people the benefit of the doubt. I haven't shut my mind away from the realm of possibilities yet, and fields of research such as particle physics might be bringing us closer to this "ultimate answer". Or it could be bringing us further away than we ever imagined. It's just too hard to tell what exactly "god" is supposed to be given the current criteria on the subject, which is essentially "nothing" and "everything" at the same time.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@UnreAL13:

Ok so "God" as defined must have verifiable of falsifiable existence, according to scientific standards. Thanks for clearing the up.

Sorry but I can't produce such a definition at the moment. Yet that doesn't mean I find the term "God" meaningless. Nor, I think, does it mean I ought to. Not at present anyway. Why sould I?

Also I don't see why ignosticism ought to only apply to religious terminology, if that's the policy. After all, if you're really onto something logical with the scientific criterion, shouldn't it apply to other terms too? Unicorns, abstract objects, higher dimensions etc....Could you help?

 

[UnReAL13]

Also I don't see why ignosticism ought to only apply to religious terminology, if that's the policy. After all, if you're really onto something logical with the scientific criterion, shouldn't it apply to other terms too? Unicorns, abstract objects, higher dimensions etc....Could you help?

Ignosticism was created specifically with theological non-cognitvism in mind. Otherwise someone would simply be a "non-cognitivist" if they found every subject without a verifiable definition meaningless. Except something like a "unicorn" is somewhat well defined and easy to visualize. A horse with a pointed horn on its skull. This is obviously non-existent on this planet.

Things like abstract objects and higher dimensions aren't verifiable, but the concepts have a little more clarity than the god concept. We at least have a general idea of what we're looking for with these hypotheses.

The god hypothesis on the other hand, could range from anything to everything, including unicorns, abstract objects and higher dimensions. Why shouldn't a deity be any of these things? The only real quality that seems to be necessary here is the ability to create all the matter in the universe. Why shouldn't a deity's so-called "power" be localized to anything specific?

This is why Ignosticism employs "theological" non-cognitivism. If "god" could be anything, then we should be able to cycle through all of the random possibilities that we're able to understand or define thus far.

Sorry but I can't produce such a definition at the moment. Yet that doesn't mean I find the term "God" meaningless. Nor, I think, does it mean I ought to. Not at present anyway. Why sould I?

Whether or not you find this term meaningful is unimportant to me. I'm the Ignostic, I'm the skeptic here, and I find the definitions you've presented thus far to be incoherent. I'm the one who's finding the term meaningless. You can go about carrying on as if the definition you believe in has some value or merit to it, but I personally feel that your axioms are without a proper meaning.

Again, this is another point that is highly subjective between the people using the terms. Just because one person finds a definition of "god" to be meaningless, doesn't mean that they both have to. It just means that if the Theist is arguing to support the definition and attempting to convince the Ignostic of its validity, then they must present a more logical and coherent description. If you carefully read and understand the wiki definition of "Ignosticism" then you'll realize why you're having so many misunderstandings over the core concept of this philosophy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok what about this as a definitoin of God: a sense of a personal presence comminicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm. Thats my secret method . That is testable isn't it? Don't forget you have possibly have to behave prayerfully to get some kind of answer. Both flashes and bangs count as potential expressions of the divine will.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ok what about this as a definitoin of God: a sense of a personal presence comminicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm. Thats my secret method . That is testable isn't it? Don't forget you have possibly have to behave prayerfully to get some kind of answer. Both flashes and bangs count as potential expressions of the divine will.

Hmm, it is not the sense that you have that is God, or is it? So, strictly speaking, shouldn't it be:

a definition of a sense* of God: a sense of a personal presence communicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm​

and

a definition of God: a personal presence communicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm​

* sense of ≈ belief in

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@LE would you rephrase that please, as I don't understand. Are you saying that if I say I sense God in a lightning storm, I am misusing the terms "sense" and "God"? If so could you elaborate, but try and keep it standard English please!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

@LE would you rephrase that please, as I don't understand. Are you saying that if I say I sense God in a lightning storm, I am misusing the terms "sense" and "God"? If so could you elaborate, but try and keep it standard English please!

I am not sure what problem you have with what I wrote.


You said:
God = a sense of a personal presence comminicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm

And I pointed out that that is slightly inaccurate.

Are you saying that if I say I sense God in a lightning storm, I am misusing the terms "sense" and "God"?

No, why? If you sense something somewhere, then you have a sensation. You have yet to use any terms.

 

[UnReAL13]

I agree that a "sense" is a sensation, or to put it more technically a "sensory perception". It is what you "perceived" to be there, not what is actually there. According to the way you worded that description at least.


Just to note, yes I've also had a personal experience with a lightning storm that seemed to occur directly prior to some grave circumstances. At the time I had believed that it was a deity of some sort attempting to communicate with me or even "warn" me. But there's been too many other times when I've sat and watched lightning storms without it becoming a negative experience. I've realized how highly coincidental and random these kinds of situations actually are. Besides, this wouldn't be a good way to "test" a deity's existence, because we'd only be relying on someone's sensory perception of what is simply lightning and thunder to begin with. No real answers there.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure what problem you have with what I wrote.


You said:
God = a sense of a personal presence comminicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm

And I pointed out that that is slightly inaccurate.

Ok if thats what you said, you said it. Now prove it (i.e. that what I said was inaccurate). BTW have you ever had a "God in a storm" type of experience?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I agree that a "sense" is a sensation, or to put it more technically a "sensory perception". It is what you "perceived" to be there, not what is actually there.

How do you know it was not actually there?

According to the way you worded that description at least.

But you seem to know what I am talking about, at least.

Just to note, yes I've also had a personal experience with a lightning storm that seemed to occur directly prior to some grave circumstances.

For real? Thats actually quite interesting.

At the time I had believed that it was a deity of some sort attempting to communicate with me or even "warn" me.

That's the type of experience I mean. I wonder how many people have had the same encounter? Maybe its actually quite common. Have there been any studies or surveys?

But there's been too many other times when I've sat and watched lightning storms without it becoming a negative experience.

I am not sure that that actually invalidates the original experience. I mean obviously not every storm is an "encounter experience", but the fact that people have them (it seems it might be more common than I thought, at least, as now I know I am not alone) needs to be explained.

I've realized how highly coincidental and random these kinds of situations actually are.

I am sure you have the idea that they are coincidental and random, but you don't have empirical data to back it up. I mean a systematic study that proves what you are claiming rather than a hunch or unscientific reflection. Still I am not sure that "randomness" and "coincidence" are adequate for fully explaining that type of thing even if they are in fact quasi-religious encounters (i.e. but not really so). Lets assume for the sake of argument that lightning storms are three times more likely to produce this type of religious experience than simple light showers of rain. Yet if both are equally randonm and coincidental, there are other productive factors at work with the lightning which are absent in the rain, no? I know that assumes quite a bit, which is why the genre needs to be studied more scientifically.

Besides, this wouldn't be a good way to "test" a deity's existence, because we'd only be relying on someone's sensory perception of what is simply lightning and thunder to begin with.

You seem to be assuming what you are trying to prove i.e. that there was not intelligence behind the "excounter experience" except your own.

No real answers there.

I think it's possible, that rather than looking at the situaltion objectively, you have a passion for atheism that more or less decides the end result for you in advance.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Check the video from 5:30 to 7:30

Another possible religious style experience in a storm, this time involving a scientist involved in historic String Theory calculations.

YouTube - Part 03: String Theory

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ok if thats what you said, you said it. Now prove it (i.e. that what I said was inaccurate).

I don't think I really have to prove that. After all you need to believe it. If you insist that God is indeed you having some sense of what-was-it-again ...

BTW have you ever had a "God in a storm" type of experience?

No.

 

[UnReAL13]

The whole "lightning storm feeling" experience was the equivalent of what most people call a "gut feeling". There is no "empirical data" to support any type of conclusion from this. It doesn't prove that anything exists, or doesn't exist. I don't have a "passion" for atheism, in fact I've made it a point to emphasize my "neutrality" or "neutralism" towards the entire atheism/theism debate.

If anything I'm more of an apatheist, an apathetic ignostic at that. I don't think a deity has ever been proven OR dis-proven, and either way it doesn't seem to matter. We still have the same feelings, senses, perceptions and experiences regardless of what might exist in or outside our bubble of reality. Nothing in reality changes whether or not we can ascertain this "ultimate truth".

How do I know something isn't there? I honestly don't know. Which is why I've labeled myself an "apathetic ignostic neutralist". I see the claim "god exists" as being either possibly true OR false, with equal likelihood. Equipossible if you will. All I'm saying is that it seems random and coincidental to rely on these particular occasions as a way to justify a deity's existence. The evidence is still sorely lacking in this scenario.

Now if you can go about proving that lightning storms are the manifestation of a deity, then go right ahead. At least we're dealing with a semi-clear concept at this point. This is probably a huge part of the reason why the Greeks named Zeus as the god of lightning and the sky. They felt that all that crazy flickering of electricity in the sky must've been the work of a deity.

It seems much hasn't changed from even the Greek era, as people continue to rely on assumptions based on little to no observatory evidence. Which is why Ignosticism strikes at the heart of the matter: What IS the deity? Not "what does the deity do?" or "how does the deity make you feel?" This philosophy asks for direct knowledge of this thing, whatever it is, which is seemingly nigh impossible to obtain.