Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[fr0d0]

Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable.

You still didn't prove it anywhere...seriously.

Then you missed it. Seriously. Tell me how, when you can clearly state what is not God, you can claim this is not logical deduction.

God is not confined into the universe, that's why the whole "define it by what it isn't" doesn't work.

Of course it does.. because what we are defining is what is in the universe. Physycal reality plus our thoughts about how this works.

the possible definitions of God are infinite, therefore God could be "anything"

But that clearly isn't so. You have to have no theory to start with to make that work.

Starting with all the informations you gathered (not X, not Y) about god, we could still define an infinite number of Gods (or ideas of God) with different attributes.

Indeed you could not. You would end up with the same attributes no matter what you called it. And we already called it God.

If we can know what he isn't, then we know he isn't the unknown right? Because nothing at all can be known about the unknown. So God can't be metaphorical.

If nothing at all can be known about the unknown, then you can't say that the unknown is not God...and you can't say it is God either...I guess.

Indeed it's 50/50. You cannot know either way ...which is how we define it. No one is saying here that they have solid proof either way.

Fr0d0 has unknowingly created a God of the gaps argument it would seem, for if to find out what God is you must find out what God is not, and nothing ever discovered by man is God, then God is entirely dependent on what we don't know, and the more we learn isn't God there are less and less attributes than can be God.

Your talking from your anus here VOID. Wrong subject dude... science class in down the hall.

Fr0d0 wrote: If we can know what he isn't, then we know he isn't the unknown right? Because nothing at all can be known about the unknown. So God can't be metaphorical.

This is a logical fallacy.
"God" can exist as an metaphor, and even the basis of "his" existance can't be proved beyond that, in terms of 'being'.

You're being facetious TW. Evie's suggestion is that God is purely metaphorical. Logical proof is available.