Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[KichigaiNeko]

So if I were to define you as not vegetable or mineral but animal would that not help define you? Apply that successively to what I can know doesn't apply to you, and you can see that I can come up with a pretty good idea of what you are.

This is how God is defined and it clearly is effective in formulating an idea of what God is.

Your reasoning clearly fails on these grounds. The Theological Noncognitivist has reason to cogitate theology and implodes

And so fr0d0 you defeat your own argument?...epic fail

A child learns what to do by trial and error of what it is not to do, is this not so?? So just what is not "God" since it is claimed that "He" is omnipotent, omnipresent, the original all singing all dancing wish granter, enemy hater??

A definition from Wiki...hopefully helpful

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. 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. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
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.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

[fr0d0]

I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

[KichigaiNeko]

I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

That's nice dear...

And you are right in as much as a child will learn by figuring out what will and will not work. Not the fundemental components of what it is and why. You are talking about concepts which is no different than the concept of string theory (IMHO)

I am not god?? (FFS don't tell my kids!) Why should that be an argument??? And further, if that is your definition as per your previous posts, then I can not exist...so why are you arguing??

[theVOID]

The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Lmao, what a load of shit frodo.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Come on then frodo, stop talking and start falsifying! Demonstrate knowledge of God.

[Zen Badger]

I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Since it is clearly falsifiable, please demonstrate how.

[fr0d0]

I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

That's nice dear...

And you are right in as much as a child will learn by figuring out what will and will not work. Not the fundemental components of what it is and why. You are talking about concepts which are no different than the concept of string theory (IMHO)

I am not god?? (FFS don't tell my kids!) Why should that be an argument??? And further, if that is your definition as per your previous posts, then I can not exist...so why are you arguing??

That it's no different to the concept of string theory dismisses it how exactly?

You are not God - we can clearly know that... so that shows already there are some things we know are not God which is what I'm saying. Do that a lot more and you can arrive at what God is.

God is in everything but each individual component alone does not equal God. It's quite simple.

The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Lmao, what a load of shit frodo.

Please substantiate that claim VOID. Or STFU

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Come on then frodo, stop talking and start falsifying! Demonstrate knowledge of God.

I just did. Apparently you missed it.

I think you misunderstood Kich.

A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.

Since it is clearly falsifiable, please demonstrate how.

Same answer to you Zen. Didn't you just see me demonstrate how?

[Zen Badger]

So you are saying that the whole universe is God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0d0,

How can you find out what is NOT God before you first agree on what God IS!

If God =anything other than what you know what is... then God just= the unknown perhaps?

Which is nothing more than metaphorical:?

But anyway, my point is... : How can you find out what God is not before you first define what this "God" IS? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

EvF

[Tiberius]

You are not God - we can clearly know that...

I'm gonna be the uber-agnostic here and challenge that statement. How do we know he isn't God?

[Edwardo Piet]

How, fr0d0, do you know that God is not disguising himself in that form? (After all it is said that God "Works in mysterious ways"). Would God not be capable of doing that?

EvF