Ignosticism: What Is God?

UnReAL13 said:

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

Click to expand...

SUper natural just means "beyond natural". That is not a contraditcion in terms.

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.

Click to expand...

Ok I have tried.

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?

Click to expand...

All I can do is to offer clarifications when you ask for one. What's wrong with that? I might ask for clarifications of the term "evolution" and who knows where we might end up - discussing multiverse theory and the philosophy of QM or something. But that does not imply "evolution" is a meaningless term. Same goes for "God".

I still don't understand what it means for a concept (e.g. "God") to be meaningful whilst the word ("God") is meaningless.

IIRC Wittgenstein argued that "explanations come to an end somewhere". Don't know if the quote is relevant.

Philosphical Investigations said:

...think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked 'five red apples'. He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked 'apples', then he looks up the word 'red' in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers—I assume that he knows them by heart—up to the word 'five' and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer.—It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words—"But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?" Well, I assume that he 'acts' as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.—But what is the meaning of the word 'five'? No such thing was in question here, only how the word 'five' is used.[2]

Click to expand...

GrowingSmaller said:

But we are simply discussing the idea "God has qualities analogous to ours" and asking "Does that statement make sense?"

Click to expand...

And does that make sense?

GrowingSmaller said:

If it turns out that emotions are reducible to brain states, then I suppose that the idea that we need a soul to have emotions is questioned. But so what? That questioning does not make the initial idea meaningless.

Click to expand...

That 'meaninig' is more an illusion than anything else. Keep in mind no real particulars were offered yet as to the working of anything. Not before, not after the stipulated revaltion of the brain's inner working.

"That questioning does not make the initial idea meaningless"

This "initial idea" ... which idea was that? The analogy, or are you bringing up 'the soul'?

GrowingSmaller said:

There would be a challenge if what we thought was immaterial soul turned out to be brain, yes. Thats because our analogy "God's spirit is like our soul" would be defeated by the idea that the soul concept stands refuted. Sure, but that refutation's an if, not a fact.

Click to expand...

Firstly, the soul or God, they stand on a similar footing wrt meaningfulness as far as I am concerned. I.e. not the greatest.

And secondly, you bring all of a sudden something to the table, that has not been there before - the soul.

Now, you are making some sort of assertion, something along the lines that emotions can be transferred from humans to God, if human emotions work in a certain way involving the soul. The assertion goes a little farther even, i.e. that some idea would stand refuted if the soul as an idea would stand refuted.

However ... I cannot follow your reasoning, for all my life.

GrowingSmaller said:

It seems like you are throwing the kitchen sink here. Simply put, God can choose to act just as we can choose to act. What's the issue?

Click to expand...

We do x or y because of this-or-that. No chance for that once you have reached the ground of being.

GrowingSmaller said:

If you want to provide a demonstrative proof that the soul had been definitively eliminated by science as a concept, then go ahead. All I can see is the kitchen sink and nit picking for the sake of it. It may not be a scientific concept, sure; but that does not entail that it's absolutely meaningless (if that's a point your atempting to prove).

Click to expand...

The point is "thought" does not add anything to the description of God. You see, you have picked the ability for thought as something that can be transferred from one thing to the next.

In the case of humans death means a total cessation of thought, no? That is not a scientific point! It is a semantic point. That what we referred to as thought is there no longer.

Now either you can ...

... keep the concept of thought. This is the one that is affected by death and presupposes a brain. Then however you need to also transfer this concept.

... or swap out the concept. Thought in this sense, and thought in that sense. Thought as we know it from human beings, and a different concept of thought. The problem is of course, that you can't just swap out concepts in mid flight so it would be better to go to the third option straight away. And ...

... Qualify what exactly you mean by thought when it comes to "God." Tough call. However all this excercise of pointing to humans and saying "As it is here" then pointing to something else and saying "So it is there" has been utterly in vain.

GrowingSmaller said:

So you do not believe that atoms and gravitation, and other objects of physical theory, exist?

Click to expand...

Oh, they do exist. However what this substrain traces back to was something where I made the following statement:
"I would not know how ultimately I would successfully identify material substance and tell it apart from immaterial substance."

Bringing in atoms and gravitation etc. does not make this one iota better. After all, I can only deal with mental representations of stuff.

Blackmarch said:

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

Click to expand...

To you too. What kind of knowledge? Does for instance a Hard Drive know stuff? Maybe a knowledge that humans have, full along with a suceptibility for forgetfulness and Alzheimer's?

UnReAL13 said:

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

Click to expand...

Cycling through definitions of what? And what becomes semantics?

GrowingSmaller said:

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.

Click to expand...

Precisely. This is why I want to know how your can determine a question is meaningless in order to become an ignostic. If a concept is mutually understood, as you put it, then regardless of the testability of falsifiability, you can at least understand the question. It seems like ignosticism, as presented by Unreal13 is a semantics game.

Quite honestly this ignosticism thing seems like one wishes to be purposefully obstuse in not understanding the question. This is kind of what it seems like to me from this thread:

Person: Do you believe German Shepherds exist?
Ignostic: What's a 'German Shepherd?'
Person: It's a type of dog that...
Ignostic: What's a 'dog?'
Person: It's an animal that...
Ignostic: What's an 'animal?'
Person: It's an living organism that...
Ignostic: What's a 'living organism?'

Et cetera...

UnReAL13 said:

Um, definitions of the word "deity". Whatever someone might interpret that to be. The interpretations are what becomes "semantics".

Click to expand...

Well, I asked you how one determines when a question (ANY and ALL questions) is/are meaningless. So, my question isn't specific to the question of the existence of a deity.

How do you determine when any question is meaningless?

sandwiches said:

Quite honestly this ignosticism thing seems like one wishes to be purposefully obstuse in not understanding the question. This is kind of what it seems like to me from this thread:

Person: Do you believe German Shepherds exist?
Ignostic: What's a 'German Shepherd?'

Click to expand...

Me: Something like this. *Shows picture*

Case closed.

-------------------

Now let us do this, or something similar with God. Please.

Do you believe in God?

(You can of course point to a drawing, if you so desire, but if you do, I am goint to beat you over the head with the totality of THEOLOGY.)

UnReAL13 said:

I'd hate to answer your question with another question, but how is this related to the topic of discussion at hand? Or maybe that's just it. Now your question ceases to have meaning in the relevant discussion. Do I win something now?

Click to expand...

LOL
Well, in order to become an ignostic, one must be able to find a question meaningless. So, I'd like to know how you reach the point where you find that a question is meaningless.

Lord Emsworth said:

Me: Something like this. *Shows picture*

Case closed.

-------------------

Now let us do this, or something similar with God. Please.

Do you believe in God?

(You can of course point to a drawing, if you so desire, but if you do, I am goint to beat you over the head with the totality of THEOLOGY.)

Click to expand...

So, are you showing me a picture of the hair? Is it the collar? What exactly am I looking at? What makes the dog in the picture?

My point is that ignosticism seems unwilling to understand what the meaning of 'god' is when presented int he question 'Does a god exist?' Of course I know what a dog is, but in the same way, I understand what a Christian means when they ask me if I believe in God. I understand what a Muslim means when they ask me if I believe in Allah.

Now, I might not understand someone if they ask me if I believe in their god 'Kaldrasi' but through communication, I can form a belief on whether I reject his claims or not based on what I understand of the concept of his deity.

Also, I'm not talking about the validity of the claims not whether God or a dog truly exists but whether or not you can understand the question, at all.

UnReAL13 said:

What are you talking about? If I found the entire question to be meaningless, we would be sitting here going through the semantics of the word "what". Is this what you feel like doing?

Click to expand...

You're still stuck on the question of deities. So, I guess I'll move and ask something else since I can see that you don't even understand my question.

Now, are you telling me that you don't understand what a Christian means when they ask you if you believe in God?

sandwiches said:

So, are you showing me a picture of the hair?

Click to expand...

No, I have shown you a picture of what we call a shepherd's dog. It would of course be better to see one live, but there you go. You are just giving names to stuff that you can perceive, or better yet, your are naming your perceptions. Here you have a picture of a shepherd's dog. This, or similar.

Of course, this could either be
(1) just naming what you have seen before. "Oh, these are Shepherd's Dogs. Good, now I know."
(2) or showing you something new and supplying the name. "Oh, I have never seen one of those before. They are called Shepherd's? Good now I know."

sandwiches said:

Is it the collar? What exactly am I looking at? What makes the dog in the picture?

Click to expand...

sandwiches said:

My point is that ignosticism seems unwilling to understand what the meaning of 'god' is when presented int he question 'Does a god exist?' Of course I know what a dog is, but in the same way, I understand what a Christian means when they ask me if I believe in God. I understand what a Muslim means when they ask me if I believe in Allah.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. At best, you have an illusion. And I would wager that the question if you believe in God refers to a set of behaviour. Do you go to church? Are you baptized? Do you pray? Do you see a connection between odd occurences? Do you feel certain emotions? Do you accept the Papacy? Is there, like, something, like, more? And so on, and so forth.

All legitimate questions. But all besides the point. Or not?


I mean we could simply go and point to all the beauty, or the order inherent in the world and then say, "Whatever is behind that (beauty, order) that is God." This would be similar with showing a picture of a dog. And hey, why not?

Of course, this would make mince meat of atheism. And besides, this does not really fit the behaviour, now does it?




OTOH, what do they mean when they talk about God? I have heard the assertions that "God" is beyond our understanding. And that we have only metaphors to form a very, very hazy picture. And then there is mysticism.

sandwiches said:

Now, I might not understand someone if they ask me if I believe in their god 'Kaldrasi' but through communication, I can form a belief on whether I reject his claims or not based on what I understand of the concept of his deity.

Also, I'm not talking about the validity of the claims not whether God or a dog truly exists but whether or not you can understand the question, at all.

Click to expand...

UnReAL13 said:

Why should I trust a corrupt church that hides its own pedophile priests?

Click to expand...

We are very sorry. And, while, it does not excuse the problem, it is important to note that the problem existed in other places as well, even if it may have been a bit worse within the Catholic Church, but, we may never know, because many places were it was also strong, are immune from prosecution or lack funds that make law suits worthwhile or compelling to file.

Further, diocese across the US, at least, now require a class, a background check, and fingerprints, in order to carry out an work for the Church with Children.

I am sorry that this itself will likely cause any miraculous assertions to be ineffective in this format. Perhaps seeing very ancient intact bodies or something, such as, you could visit Lourdes?

UnReAL13 said:

So are you asserting that this "god" is separate from the known universe?

Click to expand...

God did not create the universe from Himself, but from nothing.

UnReAL13 said:

How are you supposed to prove that you are indeed receiving divine revelation?

Click to expand...

That is hardly up to me.

UnReAL13 said:

This sounds more like the Deistic viewpoint of "god". A god that doesn't answer prayers, create miracles or perform divine intervention of any kind. One that simply created the universe then left it alone. Is this the type of god you're telling me to believe in?

Click to expand...

Well, within the context of the rest of what I wrote, I don't think I indicated an impersonal God, even the use of the word 'prophetic' seems to indicate a personal God. This is different from the usual tactic of questioning whether the prophetic nature of Humanae Vitae merely derives from correlation, rather than the causation, due to Natural Law, that the document asserts. Sometimes the degradation of society (such as the increase an divorce and STDs) is simply disregarded, but normally, the cause of these changes is just questioned.

UnReAL13 said:

There are many things that I'm rather Ignostic/Agnostic towards. Gravity first and foremost. Electro-magnetism is another fundamental force that isn't clearly portrayed on the quantum level the way we view it from the standard level of observation. Why not be Ignostic towards subjects that are already somewhat vague and lacking in description?

Click to expand...

I don't think that disbelieving gravity in general because someone might define it in some what that is incorrect is a reasonable approach.

UnReAL13 said:

The main staple or quality that seems to be consistent among most definitions of god is that "it" is a "creator". So why shouldn't this "creator" be something entirely abstract, such as a computer program, a black hole, a membrane of reality, or even a quantum particle like the elusive Higgs Boson?

Click to expand...

Because, God, being a personal Being, visited history in a concrete way, to teach mankind about Himself, and also to save them.

UnReAL13 said:

Don't forget the Apocryphal Gospels and Gnostic texts. There are many different ways to interpret the life of "Jesus", so why is the divine Jesus theory correct?

Click to expand...

Are any of these others old enough to even be considered to be alongside the existing books? Not in most cases. The best answer I get here is usually fudging numbers toward each other. Besides, the Traditions of the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox) are passed down by bishops, in an unbroken procession from the time of Christ. These are those with exceptional authority to express the reality of God visiting history.

UnReAL13 said:

Pure supposition.

Click to expand...

I assume this regards the assertion involving an understanding of humanity, rather than a defining of God.

UnReAL13 said:

The only aspect of "god" that we've actually clarified in any meaningful way is that it's a creator. There's still plenty of wiggle room to interpret so much more.

LoL In all fairness I knew that Christian Theists would probably despise this philosophy, as it tends to demand descriptions of a deity that most of you admit is either unknown or beyond human comprehension. I just thought some of you might be willing to attempt this challenge.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, I don't think Ignosticism, as defined is a reasonable way to approach the existence of a Creator.

UnReAL13 said:

So does this mean that many of you are more like Agnostic Theists? Let's face it, everyone is born Agnostic, nobody knows anything on the subject until they're taught something about it.

Click to expand...

Christian believe that knowing God, as a person, is the objective, and not defining Him. This makes more sense, even from a human perspective, as we rarely fully define anything, much less a complex thought or issue, how much less can we reasonably be expected to define God? Christians seek to know God, even if fully defining Him is impossible.

UnReAL13 said:

The only real description I've seen of your god from your holy book would be Ezekiel 1:26-28:

This is sounding beyond absurd to say the least. And for some reason "god" decided to reveal itself in all its "glory" to Ezekiel after denying the request to Moses and saying that it would kill any man who sees it. Which BTW parallels the Greek story of Zeus revealing himself in all his glory to a young maiden whom he slept with, which it then killed her.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure Zeus mythology is old enough to lead Judaism, it seems more likely the Zeus mythology was taken from Judaism or arose independently or perhaps by some strange prophetic means.

To die from seeing God is hardly surprising even if it takes a while to accomplish this, being smitten, or smote, by God.

UnReAL13 said:

Not only that but this bizarre description comes after what Ezekiel seems to describe as UFO's and aliens coming out of the "clouds". So once again we're back at the hypothesis that "god is an alien", which is not falsifiable and therefore loses its meaning. Is it supposed to be an eternal flame entity? An immortal man on fire? An alien who appears to be on fire? A being composed of lava? It's just not very clear what's going on there.

Click to expand...

I think those interpretations of prophecy do not fit in with the rest of the work. And hardly constitute a contradiction.

UnReAL13 said:

Because of these obvious flaws and contradictions in the definition of "god", the Agnostic Neutralist position ultimately triumphs at the end of the day. I just use Ignosticism to reinforce my neutrality on the matter, much like the way an Ignostic Atheist would use the philosophy to justify their reasoning as to why no god exists.

Click to expand...

It seems not so much flaws or contradictions in logic, but a rejection of something much greater than man, that is difficult for man to understand, much less define, that is causing the trouble. Even asserting that God is unable to make contradictions, or that part of Divine Revelation and theology is understanding the exception of the contradiction or perhaps the contradiction can be described in some other way, possibly that agnostics do not see as important.