(October 8, 2018 at 12:49 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 12:30 am)haig Wrote: God by any definition is firstly a supernatural entity, and that is not unambiguous, and supersedes any unambiguous definition whereby the question of existence becomes meaningless.

Well, we believe in a Big Bang.  What caused it?

Do you include extra-universal forces or entities as supernatural?

Just because you don't understand something does not imply a god or a supernatural event. Knowledge about the big bang grows every year. It will some day be explained as a natural physical event. Even if it is an extraordinary event does not mean it is supernatural, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest a purpose or intent in the event.

What extra-universal forces or entities are you referring to? I don't believe in anything that is not natural. Things we do not understand are not "supernatural", they are simply things we do not understand.

Ignosticism = ignorance of gnosticism.

The supernatural is incredibly ambiguous.  It's a catch-all assertion for things that are purportedly beyond/outside nature, but yet conveniently interact with nature.  Since every definition of god invariably starts there, then, yeah, it's a problem.

It's a cipher posing as a legitimate idea.  It's quite literally anything anyone wants it to be at any given time.

(October 7, 2018 at 11:46 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(October 6, 2018 at 7:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I have come up with a formula which does, I think, cover every god idea I’ve yet heard. Each definition can be split into one or more of the following groups:

1) A creative force that made our reality

2) Various special abilities and accolades for the creative force

3) Relabelling things that are already known to exist, or abstract notions that already have a well-used meaning

4) World salad nonsense

I’ll be happy to take the god challenge, and apply this to any definition that can be found. I’ll be interested to see if it holds up. Personally, I’d prefer everyone agreed on definition 1 only, as I find the rest of them to be pointless. Sadly this will probably only be the case for deists.

My responses to each section are generally:

1) I have no opinion about that

2) This makes such a thing extremely unlikely

3) We already have words for that / you're equivocating

4) I don’t understand what this even means

Re # 1 "A creative force that made our reality" ....

I disagree. 
It has to be (for a god to be worth it's salt) ... 
"A creative force that made/formed (all) "reality", (not just ours). 
....which is why Ignosticism makes sense.
A god that "exists" finds that it *must* participate in a portion of Reality,  not all of it, and Reality is and always was a larger "set" 
than that which the god participates in. Where did this Reality (in which the gods *must participate*) come from ? 
The gods don't answer the important  question.

Agnosticism gives the "god" concept far more value than it deserves.
Is it necessary to take a position towards every incoherent idea ? .... No
Do I have to be agnostic towards Pink Sparkly Unicorns ?

I would handle this by saying it meets definition 1, and I put the fact that it must have also created everything in definition 2. Definition 1 is supposed to represent the minimum "creator" requirement, but like you say, very few theists are happy to stop there. I don’t know what the obsession is with this. From our point of view, something that created our reality and can influence it as they wish would seem just as powerful as one that also created the rest of reality. It’s just dick waving, really.

Like you say, this insistence that gods must do all these weird things that don’t quite make sense bolsters the idea that it doesn’t have a coherent definition. I assume they don’t really mean it created all of reality, because that would include itself. So it just kind of non-exists in its own non-reality before that, I guess.

---

(October 8, 2018 at 1:34 am)KevinM1 Wrote: The supernatural is incredibly ambiguous.  It's a catch-all assertion for things that are purportedly beyond/outside nature, but yet conveniently interact with nature.  Since every definition of god invariably starts there, then, yeah, it's a problem.

It's a cipher posing as a legitimate idea.  It's quite literally anything anyone wants it to be at any given time.

I agree. I try and avoid using the word supernatural in any serious discussion. It’s a fantasy term.

(October 8, 2018 at 12:30 am)haig Wrote: Wiki : "Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

Ignosticism is really a silly concept. It is a philosophical  position challenging the definition of god or stretching that definition to some irrelevant philosophical ambiguity. When someone challenges the existence of god, it is in the context of a conversation. The god in question, of that conversation is not unambiguous between the parties involved. We all know who the god is, who's existence is being challenged. To suggest otherwise is philosophical mumbo jumbo.

God by any definition is firstly a supernatural entity, and that is not unambiguous, and supersedes any unambiguous definition whereby the question of existence becomes meaningless.

Nope. You don't get to make up your own personal definition of a god.
There is no definition ("any definition") in which an entity can "exist" (by ANY definition or understanding of "existence") without also invoking the concept of time.
Where did *that* come from ? The reality in which any and all gods "exist" remains unexplained, ... therefore the concept is useless and meaningless, (incoherent).
If their concept is relegated to some sort of "supernatural" but "intermediate" being who did not create Reality ... it is still dismissed.
If it is meaningful, that entity MUST have created Reality ... and there can be no requirement for it to participate in the Reality it created. A god that "exists" *is* required to do so, (as Reality includes non-existence).

---

(October 7, 2018 at 11:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The majority of gods are not creator gods.  They may not be "worth their salt", but that doesn't make them "not gods".

Great. Then define one, coherently.
What exactly *does* make them gods ?

You did a poll of the gods ? Let's see your data.

(October 8, 2018 at 11:12 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 12:30 am)haig Wrote: Wiki : "Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

Ignosticism is really a silly concept. It is a philosophical  position challenging the definition of god or stretching that definition to some irrelevant philosophical ambiguity. When someone challenges the existence of god, it is in the context of a conversation. The god in question, of that conversation is not unambiguous between the parties involved. We all know who the god is, who's existence is being challenged. To suggest otherwise is philosophical mumbo jumbo.

God by any definition is firstly a supernatural entity, and that is not unambiguous, and supersedes any unambiguous definition whereby the question of existence becomes meaningless.

Nope. You don't get to make up your own personal definition of a god.
There is no definition ("any definition") in which an entity can "exist" (by ANY definition or understanding of "existence") without also invoking the concept of time.
Where did *that* come from ? The reality in which any and all gods "exist" remains unexplained, ... therefore the concept is useless and meaningless, (incoherent).
If their concept is relegated to some sort of "supernatural" but "intermediate" being who did not create Reality ... it is still dismissed.
If it is meaningful, that entity MUST have created Reality ... and there can be no requirement for it to participate in the Reality it created. A god that "exists" *is* required to do so, (as Reality includes non-existence).

---

The concept/reality of god is far from meaningless or useless.....just ask the billions of religious folk. It may be meaningless to you and that's OK.

Everyone has their own idea what god is or does.....I see from your comments that you have some ideas as well on what god needs to be and do. That is a form of definition by the way.

My point above is that even though folks have a different idea about what god is or means or does, in the views of most folks a common trait would be supernatural. God can be rejected on that simple basis alone.

Dismissing the existence of god because you can't define god is a philosophical concept. To walk around saying your "definition of god is meaningless therefor god does not exist" is not what I would call a convincing argument. People who believe in a god have their own definition of what that means, and will vary from person to person, religion to religion. That is human nature. Even within specific religions, god will mean different things to different people.

Ignosticism is a pompus dismissal of god and religion. It's like saying "I'm not even going to challenge why you believe in god because you can't even define god, so there!" 

(October 8, 2018 at 11:50 am)haig Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 11:12 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Nope. You don't get to make up your own personal definition of a god.
There is no definition ("any definition") in which an entity can "exist" (by ANY definition or understanding of "existence") without also invoking the concept of time.
Where did *that* come from ? The reality in which any and all gods "exist" remains unexplained, ... therefore the concept is useless and meaningless, (incoherent).
If their concept is relegated to some sort of "supernatural" but "intermediate" being who did not create Reality ... it is still dismissed.
If it is meaningful, that entity MUST have created Reality ... and there can be no requirement for it to participate in the Reality it created. A god that "exists" *is* required to do so, (as Reality includes non-existence).

---

The concept/reality of god is far from meaningless or useless.....just ask the billions of religious folk. It may be meaningless to you and that's OK.

Everyone has their own idea what god is or does.....I see from your comments that you have some ideas as well on what god needs to be and do. That is a form of definition by the way.

My point above is that even though folks have a different idea about what god is or means or does, in the views of most folks a common trait would be supernatural. God can be rejected on that simple basis alone.

Dismissing the existence of god because you can't define god is a philosophical concept. To walk around saying your "definition of god is meaningless therefor god does not exist" is not what I would call a convincing argument. People who believe in a god have their own definition of what that means, and will vary from person to person, religion to religion. That is human nature. Even within specific religions, god will mean different things to different people.

Ignosticism is a pompus dismissal of god and religion. It's like saying "I'm not even going to challenge why you believe in god because you can't even define god, so there!" 

You just contradicted yourself.
First you say "THE concept/reality is far from meaningless or useless" .... then you say "Everyone has their own idea of what god is or does"
If everyone has their own idea, there is no "the" anything. Thanks for making my point.

The POINT of Ignosticism is there is no coherent definition of a god.
The fact that there are billions of incoherent different ideas is totally irrelevant.

You can call it whatever you like, and say Ignosticism is "pompous", but I see YOU did not offer a coherent definition of a god.
I don't *bother* to challenge anyone's beliefs ... who determined THAT was a standard ? Are you in 2nd Grade ?
I will dismiss as nonsense whatever I find to be nonsense, with or without anyone's approval. If you find it pompous, too bad.

Ignosticism stands. No one here can come up with a definition of a god that cannot be shot down in 5 seconds.

(October 8, 2018 at 11:12 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Great. Then define one, coherently.
What exactly *does* make them gods ?

You did a poll of the gods ? Let's see your data.

Any member of a set of supernatural anthropomorphized entities alleged to have authority over some function of this world (real or imagined).  I defined it this way in the thread that lead to this one, lol.

We could go with a literary def too. The focal point of divinity narratives.

We could go with a specific description of an individual god.

\Heres what the internet has to say

Quote:(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

The thing that makes them gods is recognizability in the set, recognizability with respect to each other. We can even classify them into subsets. Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...sification

All of that, is why ignosticism can't stand. It's only a sensible position the very -first- time you hear the term "gods". After that, you have an idea what folks are talking about..and if you want specifics you need only ask.

My two cents:

Definitions are not just ambiguous for God-concepts. Other words are ambiguous too. In fact, the ambiguity of words is a part of their functionality, so they can be applied to a range of things with a family resemblance.

So while I respect the ignostic position, I disagree with it. If you want to get picky, you can discuss the theistic, deistic, pantheistic, and other God-concepts separately, since their definitions vary with the concepts.

From my point of view, since all God-concepts have critical failings, all can be dismissed as highly improbable but for different reasons.

My bottom line is that all God-concepts require consciousness and willfulness, and usually some supernatural or super-powerful attributes.

(October 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 11:12 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Great. Then define one, coherently.
What exactly *does* make them gods ?

You did a poll of the gods ? Let's see your data.

Any member of a set of supernatural anthropomorphized entities alleged to have authority over some function of this world (real or imagined).  I defined it this way in the thread that lead to this one, lol.

We could go with a literary def too.  The focal point of divinity narratives.

We could go with a specific description of an individual god.

\Heres what the internet has to say

Quote:(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

The thing that makes them gods is recognizability in the set, recognizability with respect to each other.  We can even classify them into subsets.  Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...sification

All of that, is why ignosticism can't stand.  It's only a sensible position the very -first- time you hear the term "gods".  After that, you have an idea what folks are talking about..and if you want specifics you need only ask.

The fact that you can happen to find or make up definitions is totally irrelevant.
Beings are not defined into reality. Your definitions do not make beings a reality and are incoherent.
There are no "supernal" (anthropomorphized) anything. It's a mythological category, and there is no definition of that specifically involved here.
I could care less what Christianity (or any other religion) claims. Every single attribute they claim is easily refuted. Every one. It's why I have an advanced degree in the subject.
Knowing what people are talking about does not make anything a reality.
If people are talking about "Babe Ruth being a baseball immortal" .... does that in fact make him immortal ?
You can't possibly be serious.
You're also equivocating here, to the max.
The notion that when someone "talks about or references a god" is the SAME thing as actually trying to "define and claim a "real god" for themselves
are totally different concepts.