What is Ignosticism?

[robvalue]

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.

---

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.