Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics)

[Arkilogue]

There's a much easier way to "solve the ignosticism".  It;s to remind people that god means whatever the individual proponent of the argument says it means.  That we find their description absurd, implausible, or impossible, does not mean that their description does not exist. That the term doesn't have a meaning.  It just has alot of different meanings to different people. 

To make it more amusing, it would be like saying that the term car has no meaning (and the truth of propositions regarding them can therefore not be known) because you can't get people to agree on whether a mustang or a caravan is a real car™.

Then I would say focus on form and function rather than label. What does a "God" need to be able to do/be to be considered a God?

Atheists are found of saying "If it demands worship, it's not a divine being" as a disqualifier, yes?. What are qualifiers if any?


All my encounters with God have been relatively benign, so the whole asshole in the sky demanding worship thing I'm going to have to take as hearsay and or libel.