Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics)

[theBorg]

Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism, whereas others have considered it to be distinct. (Wikipedia)

"The True God is the designation of the very first life in history." If ignostic adopts this definition, then the True God is the Life for him, because without the very first life there is no life possible. But you are free to adopt this definition (and, thus, to study the True God) or not.

Suppose, what you adopted the definition of the True God. Then consider the following question: "what is Life?" Is the computer a living form? Not, it is just the mechanism (all its actions are predetermined by the initial conditions - it has no freewill). The life form is not the mechanism. The life is person. The person is not mechanism, because he has the freewill, has the mind.
All this and much more has the True God.

I advise you to rush to adopt the definition of the True God, because the different religions do promise the infinite pain inside the hell. There is the hell-warning everywhere!

Follower of S.Hawking: "How could the robot know it was a robot?" At this point the Bible comes in. Besides, there is the secular reason for being the alive person, not a robot: dead body does not hear, does not see. I do hear, I do see. Thus, I am alive.

Song: "Life is Life!" The satan is Death.

Song: "Black - Wonderful Life - (Live-1987)". The True God is the Wonderful Life.

Evolution of the thing without the freewill (like the "artificial intellect") is fully determined by the initial conditions and the incoming information. For example: if you switch the iPhone off, and then you turn it on, then you see the same images on the screen. So, do you understand the difference in the definitions of 1) non-freewill and 2) freewill?

[Excited Penguin]

Amazing troll.

[theBorg]

Amazing troll.

The anti-theism is the theism, only with hatred instead of Love.

[robvalue]

Even if I adopted that definition, I'd be one of about five people in the world doing so. So it still wouldn't help, unless you convinced everyone else to as well. I'd still have to ask people what the fuck they mean, and I'd still get a nonsense response almost all the time.

I'm also an apatheist though. I don't give a shit about it. It's irrelevant to me. I don't understand the fuss people make. I'm only involved because most people in the world believe in fairy stories and this has many harmful effects.

[LastPoet]

What rob said. From where I am standing, god is like a superego in believers minds. It happens to share a persons ideals but via hindsight and reasoning out, much better and perfect than the believers. There are definitions of god, in the same number as there are believers.

[Jesster]

Amazing troll.

The anti-theism is the theism, only with hatred instead of Love.

[robvalue]

What rob said. From where I am standing, god is like a superego in believers minds. It happens to share a persons ideals but via hindsight and reasoning out, much better and perfect than the believers. There are definitions of god, in the same number as there are believers.

Yup. God agrees with each person who worships it. They disagree with each other.

Case closed. God is at least mostly a projection of the self. If there is/was an external creator, we have no way of knowing anything about it. My guess is it would be far more mundane than any theist likes to think. I would love to see its reaction when it read the stories people have made up about it, how it's really concerned with nobs, and how it pulls people out of this created reality and into its own, somehow. Like me taking computer game characters out of the code and into this world.

[Arkilogue]

What rob said. From where I am standing, god is like a superego in believers minds. It happens to share a persons ideals but via hindsight and reasoning out, much better and perfect than the believers. There are definitions of god, in the same number as there are believers.

Yup. God agrees with each person who worships it. They disagree with each other.

Case closed. God is at least mostly a projection of the self. If there is/was an external creator, we have no way of knowing anything about it. My guess is it would be far more mundane than any theist likes to think. I would love to see its reaction when it read the stories people have made up about it, how it's really concerned with nobs, and how it pulls people out of this created reality and into its own, somehow. Like me taking computer game characters out of the code and into this world.

I wonder how many theists would object to a God that actually, substantially exists with detectable influence on the universe? So many want to project a God as some nebulous omni-mind that is definitely there but completely undetectable.

[robvalue]

In the simplest instance, it's something akin to a computer programmer. It created this reality, and parts of it have become self aware. It may or may not have any idea this has happened.

This being exists in a parent reality. It can't enter this reality, it just influences it directly when it wants to. It could be considered to be omni-whatever regarding our reality. It can fuck with it however it wants. It can "know" any information about it that it wants to get. But in the parent reality, it could be an average schmuck.

People are obsessed with projecting all these superlatives onto it, and there is no justificaiton for it. "But that's not God", people will scream. No of course not, because God is such a loaded term that it's useless.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I rejected the notion that 'True God is the label of the very first life in history' because, if this is the case, that would make God an Australian, a notion that wouldn't allow me to sleep at night.

Boru