Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics)

[Mister Agenda]

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?

It's not the ignostics that you need to get to adopt your definition to resolve the problem of ignosticism, it's everyone else. Frankly, adding yet another definition just compounds the problem.

Plus, I can't make heads or tails of what your definition is actually supposed to be, are you running it through a translator?