Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics)

[Ben Davis]

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)

That's a great definition of ignosticism.

"The True God is the designation of the very first life in history."

Oh dear. The problem with this is that it's a highly ambiguous definition. Do you mean 'the first life on Earth'? If so, how do you define 'life'? Is god is a bacterium? A protein? I don't know how you can imbibe that god with any of the generally accepted 'god-type' attributes after that statement. Or do you mean 'the first life anywhere in the universe'? No-one has any idea what that might have been. Or do you mean '...conscious life'? A million and one questions arise from that definition! You see, no matter how you try and phrase it, whenever you invoke the label 'god', ambiguity abounds.

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.

I don't see how an ignostic could possibly accept your definition so your claim to have 'solved the problem of ignosticism' has to be dismissed.

Then consider the following question: "what is Life?" Is the computer a living form?

Arguably. It depends on the level of cognition and self-determination. Are any lifeforms on Earth anything more than biological machines? It appears not however that doesn't stop us from being alive. Do modern AI's have qualia? How could we possibly know? Will technological (rather than biological) life exist in the future? It seems most likely. You're stacking ambiguities on top of ambiguities and suggesting that this is somehow a solution.

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 evidence tells us that 'the person' is an emergent property of 'the mechanism'. Without the mechanism, there is no person. Even the term 'free will' is an ambiguous qualifier.

All this and much more has the True God.

"All this" from a single-celled organism? I think you're pulling my leg.

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!

Why? Your definition is as ambiguous and obviously fallacious as any other theistic proposition, so far.

Follower of S.Hawking: "How could the robot know it was a robot?"

*sigh... Because the term 'robot' has an unambiguous definition based on easliy recognised attributes.

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.

As I suggested earlier, 'being alive' is not necessarily a disqualifier from being a robot.

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

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

Erm... cheers?

Evolution of the thing without the freewill (like the "artificial intellect") is fully determined by the initial conditions and the incoming information.

All evolution is determinate. Why bring free-will in to this at all?

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?

I don't think you do. What makes you think that your neurological processes are any less determinate?