Ignosticism: What Is God?

[UnReAL13]

"Entity" = existent thing. Sort of existent thing = spirit. But this could go on for ever. For instance I could ask you to define "dealing with" and just keep on and on and on and on requesting further definitions of the definiens...

A "spirit" is an immaterial intelligence capable of thought, consciousness, emotion and volition. Immaterial means not material, which is a bad form of definition I know (cf "negative definition"), but if you are going to conclude "therefore the term "God" is meaningless like 'hwuwe87J^u4uq6!8)' is meaningless, because it involves a negative definition", I expect you're engaging a non sequitir.

Anyway, would you always use that standard? For example, we use the term "nonexistent", and atheists might say "both God and pixies are nonexistent" or scientists might say "phlogiston is nonexistent" even though it too has a negative definition. Does that mean atheits and scientists both are vulnerable to speaking meaningless nonsense?

Why does whatever created the universe require a "consciousness" in order to create the universe?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why does whatever created the universe require a "consciousness" in order to create the universe?

That is not what this thread is about. It's whether the idea is in itself, uttlerly nonsensical, meaningless, gibberish etc. Obviously you don't seem to think that it is, because you are not asking confusedly "What language is that?"

 

[UnReAL13]

That is not what this thread is about. It's whether the idea is in itself, uttlerly nonsensical, meaningless, gibberish etc. Obviously you don't seem to think that it is, because you are not asking confusedly "What language is that?"

This is a misconception. It's not that any definition becomes "gibberish" or "jargon", it's just that it's without meaning or lacking in meaning. Or the definition could be interpreted in vastly different ways. The meaning could be stretched to fit a variety of things, so this line of questioning is to establish clarification.

Sith Doughnut also made a good point earlier. Why shouldn't a polytheistic viewpoint fall under that definition as well?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This is a misconception. It's not that any definition becomes "gibberish" or "jargon", it's just that it's without meaning or lacking in meaning. Or the definition could be interpreted in vastly different ways. The meaning could be stretched to fit a variety of things, so this line of questioning is to establish clarification.

But in the wiki cited in the OP it specifically says "the term "god" is considered meaningless." And also "The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'god'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does god exist?" as meaningless." So there is the assertion that the rerm "God" is meaningless. I was sure I wasn't wasting my time in defining it. And jibberish, nonsense, meaningless all mean the same thing*. Hence my defence that "God" has a meaning and is not jibberish is not an example of arguing against a strawman AFACT.

Sith Doughnut also made a good point earlier. Why shouldn't a polytheistic viewpoint fall under that definition as well?

Well I suppose it could, if all Gods considered therein had the same qualities as the God defined in freedictionary.com.

* and I never used the term "jargon".

 

[UnReAL13]

But in the wiki cited in the OP it specifically says "the term "god" is considered meaningless." And also "The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'god'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does god exist?" as meaningless." So there is the assertion that the rerm "God" is meaningless. I was sure I wasn't wasting my time in defining it. And jibberish, nonsense, meaningless all mean the same thing*. Hence my defence that "God" has a meaning and is not jibberish is not an example of arguing against a strawman AFACT.

Well I suppose it could, if all Gods considered therein had the same qualities as the God defined in freedictionary.com.

* and I never used the term "jargon".

New Webster's College Edition defines jargon as:

The terminology or phraseology used by a particular class, trade, or profession; as, legal jargon
a barbarous or rude language or dialect, esp. one resulting from a mixture of languages, as pidgin English;
a kind of speech abounding in unfamiliar or pretentious words;
unintelligible speech or writing;
gibberish

So now that we've established that the words "jargon" and "gibberish" are synonymous, we could say within perfect context that most definitions of a deity are viewed as "jargon" from the Ignostic perspective.


This philosophy is an attempt to discover the true nature of a deity, if such a "being" actually exists. When a definition becomes incoherent, it loses its core "meaning" and essentially becomes 'gibberish'.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I supopose that the definition given emanates from the Judaistic tradition, and fits that better than others, but that does not make it meaningless (which you might not be arguing, but that is that motive of the thread ).

It makes it a definition of a specific type of god, not gods in general. So still no definition there then.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Entity" = existent thing. Sort of existent thing = spirit. But this could go on for ever. For instance I could ask you to define "dealing with" and just keep on and on and on and on requesting further definitions of the definiens...

A "spirit" is an immaterial intelligence capable of thought, consciousness, emotion and volition. Immaterial means not material, which is a bad form of definition I know (cf "negative definition"), but if you are going to conclude "therefore the term "God" is meaningless like 'hwuwe87J^u4uq6!8)' is meaningless, because it involves a negative definition", I expect you're engaging a non sequitir.

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.

Anyway, would you always use that standard? For example, we use the term "nonexistent", and atheists might say "both God and pixies are nonexistent" or scientists might say "phlogiston is nonexistent" even though it too has a negative definition. Does that mean atheits and scientists both are vulnerable to speaking meaningless nonsense? And what about the term "meaningless", isn't that negatively defined? Therefore, noncognitivism (there we go again).... well you can guess for yourself.

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.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

For the record, to explain the definition (or my interpretation of it)...



being = existent thing

An atheist's conception of the universe fits this.

conceived = thought of

An atheist's conception of the universe does not necessarily fit this.

perfect = morally perfect. Ultimately can do no wrong, every action positive, although there may be apparent or superficial appearance of negative qualities.

An atheist's conception of the universe fits this.

omnipotent = can do all things, within the constraints of logic and morality (cannot do logically impossible or morally deficient).

Morality is superfluous baggage here.

An atheist's conception of the universe fits this. (And, so does everything 'else'.)

omniscient = knows all affairs including inner thoughts of man.

An atheist's conception of the universe fits this.

originator = one who brought into being, efficient cause

An atheist's conception of the universe does not fit this. Although, the universe can easily be thought of as not contigent, i.e. necessary being.

ruler = one with ultimate power

An atheist's conception of the universe fits this.

althought He may allow humans to act freely in contradiction to His desires.

You are straying form the dict. 'He' is not in there. Neither are desires.

universe = the totality of natural being, sun, moon, earth, people, plants etc.
principal = primary, foremost.
object = thing, entity.
worship = religious reverence, prayer, devotion.
monotheistic religion = religion accepting the existence of only one God.

An atheist's conception of the universe does not fit this.

Now that sems to be plain English, although admittedly there may be a further request for a definition of moral good and evil. But prevalently it seems like a meaningful set of ideas, certainly not cognitively equivalent to the nonsense term "hwuwe87J^u4uq6!8)" which it is the OPs thesis, or thereabouts, isn't it?

Aside from that the universe is not thought of as, and is not worshipped as, and is stipulated to be God the two seem to be indistinguishable.

 

[sandwiches]

Coherent and consistent to those who engage in the discussion. It would usually be an Ignostic and a Theist. Once a definition is agreed upon, then the debate can commence. Of course it's subjective. Everybody has their own interpretation of "what god is".



Exactly. If god could be anything, then why not a pop singer? As ridiculous as the option may seem, people do tend to "worship" people like Miley Cyrus. It could be called Hannah-Montana-Theism. Easily falsifiable, but a clear definition nonetheless.



How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nobody ever proved that Pastafarianism is incorrect.

And obviously this blue dog god that you speak of is non-existent, as you've clarified that it resides on the Golden Gate bridge. So then the next logical step in the process would be for the Theist to present their next definition, if they even wish to continue.

LoL but what if it's like what Lords Emsworth is suggesting, a spiritual blue dog that only appears to those driving down the bridge, if it chooses to? It depends on what you mean by "everyone", as it's impossible for certain people in the world to ever see the Golden Gate bridge.



The whole point is to clarify the debate or discussion. Who or what are we debating the existence of exactly? The Ignostic may take the non-cognitivist approach if they personally feel a definition is incoherent.

Although the fact is, no current definition makes sense or is entirely clear and rational. Without absolute knowledge it's rather impossible to clearly define a deity. The Ignostic doesn't necessarily have to "reject" every description, as anything could be discussed. It just so happens that most of the time the Theist will be attempting to support an axiom that is logically inconsistent.

This is one of those situations where the Theist must provide empirical evidence supporting their interpretation of a deity. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. It's not that Ignosticism can only be supported by rejecting all axioms, I've even created my own: Nezzi-Theism - the belief that god is a network or the internet. Nobody has been able to challenge me on this definition yet. There are certainly descriptions of a deity that I could accept, i.e. god is an alien. This isn't falsifiable, so the concept can be elaborated upon. As well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think I may understand your point a bit better but what I don't understand is how this really differs from agnosticism. You're saying that if we don't agree on a meaningful definition of the word 'god' the question 'does god exist?' is a meaningless question. But why do you reject the definitions of 'god' provided to you, such as the one provided by GrowingSmaller?

 

[UnReAL13]

I think I may understand your point a bit better but what I don't understand is how this really differs from agnosticism. You're saying that if we don't agree on a meaningful definition of the word 'god' the question 'does god exist?' is a meaningless question. But why do you reject the definitions of 'god' provided to you, such as the one provided by GrowingSmaller?

That definition labeled god as "the principal object in the universe". What's to distinguish this idea from the universe itself? I'd say it's more of a Pantheist hypothesis.

The way Ignosticism differs is that we ask the question "What is god?" before succeeding it with "Does god exist?"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think I may understand your point a bit better but what I don't understand is how this really differs from agnosticism.

Agnosticism starts off with an assertion. We can't know if God exists, or does not. Or something along those lines.

With an ignostic proxy, however, you can very often state that God definitely does exits or that God definitely does not exist, depending on what we mean by the term. Or even opt for mysticism's evil twin, theological noncognitivism.

It is an important step, although it is often overlooked and people simply talk past each other. We can't tell that what precisely does not exist, I would ask the agnostic camp.

You're saying that if we don't agree on a meaningful definition of the word 'god' the question 'does god exist?' is a meaningless question. But why do you reject the definitions of 'god' provided to you, such as the one provided by GrowingSmaller?

Why should you accept it? The next person might easily tell you that this omni-blah is totally overrated, and to hell with the religions anyway. But God, yeah. And then it would all of a sudden be you, or me, who would have to defend that dictionary definition. As if!

And besides, the definition offered is not very meaningful. There is lots, and lots of wiggling room for what precisely for instance omniscience means. And exploiting the imprecision of language is always very, very popular (IMO) when it comes to religious talk.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

 

[UnReAL13]

Agnosticism starts off with an assertion. We can't know if God exists, or does not. Or something along those lines.

With an ignostic proxy, however, you can very often state that God definitely does exits or that God definitely does not exist, depending on what we mean by the term. Or even opt for mysticism's evil twin, theological noncognitivism.

It is an important step, although it is often overlooked and people simply talk past each other. We can't tell that what precisely does not exist, I would ask the agnostic camp.

Yes exactly. This is a very good explanation of the core difference between the 2 philosophies. The ultra-pure agnostic might contemplate and dance around the concept of god, but wouldn't attempt to give the term any true specific meaning. They prefer to leave the veil of mystery over the entire subject and use deductive reasoning to determine if the knowledge is even obtainable in some way, shape or form.

The ignostic on the other hand will use inductive reasoning and attempt to reveal the true nature of a deity, as a means of discovering if one even exists at all. The ultra-pure ignostic would remain rather neutral to the overall concept of "god", but would subjectively deny, accept or become non-cognitivist towards the term depending on the given description.

 

[fated]

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?

This is not a logical position. If used as a bar for any other piece of reality, it would result in disbelief of anything you didn't have comprehensive knowledge of.

Besides that it simply rejects the most common position that God is infinite and that this makes His facets mysterious even if they are described, because one cannot explain all of an infinite nature in a way that man could ever comprehend.

 

[quatona]

This is not a logical position. If used as a bar for any other piece of reality, it would result in disbelief of anything you didn't have comprehensive knowledge of.

Besides that it simply rejects the most common position that God is infinite and that this makes His facets mysterious even if they are described, because one cannot explain all of an infinite nature in a way that man could ever comprehend.

It´s a tad ironic to expect a logical position in regards to a subject that´s defined as mysterious and incomprehensible. That appears to be the very starting point of ignosticism.

 

[Gracchus]

Besides that it simply rejects the most common position that God is infinite and that this makes His facets mysterious even if they are described, because one cannot explain all of an infinite nature in a way that man could ever comprehend.

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?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Besides that it simply rejects the most common position that God is infinite and that this makes His facets mysterious

How do you tell God from ~God? How do you tell theo-speak 'infinity' from ~(theo-speak 'infinity')?

How would you tell if some self-described atheist or so, does in fact not believe in God or whether, despite the mistaken self-description, she really does believe in God?

I couldn't.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It makes it a definition of a specific type of god, not gods in general. So still no definition there then.

What? Why should there have to be a definition of "gods in general" if I am to counter ignosticism? I thought the position was "take a definition of "God"...it is nonsense."

 

[SithDoughnut]

What? Why should there have to be a definition of "gods in general" if I am to counter ignosticism?

I never said you had to. I didn't mean for it to sound like a counter-argument.

I will ask, though, if your definition is a definition of 'monotheistic god' or if you are using it as a definition of 'god'.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That definition labeled god as "the principal object in the universe". What's to distinguish this idea from the universe itself? I'd say it's more of a Pantheist hypothesis.

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

The way Ignosticism differs is that we ask the question "What is god?" before succeeding it with "Does god exist?"

Thats a valid analytic attitude.