Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Objectivist]

They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense. 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples. 

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of. Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

We can also conceive of things that are probably impossible according to the laws of nature. For example, faster than light travel. I've never gone faster than light, but I can imagine going really fast. It appears that at least two popular movie franchises depend on our ability to conceive of this impossible thing. 

I have a concept of the Christian God in my mind. It has a clear definition: the Ground of Being. The fact that I have this concept in no way proves that it is a real thing. Nonetheless, it is a concept invented by people by combining known things in the imagination, and has a clear definition.

I agree with everything you've said here except that imagining something is fundamentally different from concept formation. When we imagine, we are selectively rearranging things we've previously perceived into a new combination that does not exist in reality.  Even if I were to imagine something that exists, like a Pear, the product of that process is not an abstraction but the mental equivalent of a concrete.  I'm unable to imagine an abstract pear.  I've got to give my imaginary pear specific measurements.  It has a specific size, shape, color.  If there's no measurement ommission, then there's no abstraction.  If there's no abstraction then there's no definition.  Instead there is a description.  My imaginary pear is 6 inches long, has yellowish green skin with a red blush on one side. It tastes sweet and slightly tart and it has a grainy texture.  I am unable to imagine a Pear with no specific color, weight, size, etc.

Here's how you can tell if something is imaginary vs. real.  When you think of an imaginary thing being different, then it's different.  Now it is red or purple because I imagined that it changed color.  But when I think of something real changing to something else, it remains exactly what it is.  

This is exactly what happens with a god.  If I imagine it as an old man then God is an old man.  If I imagine it as a cloud of energy, then it's a cloud of energy.  If I imagine it being omniscient, then it's omniscient. That's because if I want to apprehend God, then I have no alternative but to use my imagination.  One can can ascribe any quality or characteristic to something that is imaginary including the quality that some things about it are unknowable. And this is why there are thousands upon thousands and even millions of "definitions" of God.

---

Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense. 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples. 

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of. Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

We can also conceive of things that are probably impossible according to the laws of nature. For example, faster than light travel. I've never gone faster than light, but I can imagine going really fast. It appears that at least two popular movie franchises depend on our ability to conceive of this impossible thing. 

I have a concept of the Christian God in my mind. It has a clear definition: the Ground of Being. The fact that I have this concept in no way proves that it is a real thing. Nonetheless, it is a concept invented by people by combining known things in the imagination, and has a clear definition.

I agree with everything you've said here except that imagining something is fundamentally different from concept formation. When we imagine, we are selectively rearranging things we've previously perceived into a new combination that does not exist in reality.  Even if I were to imagine something that exists, like a Pear, the product of that process is not an abstraction but the mental equivalent of a concrete.  I'm unable to imagine an abstract pear.  I've got to give my imaginary pear specific measurements.  It has a specific size, shape, color.  If there's no measurement ommission, then there's no abstraction.  If there's no abstraction then there's no definition.  Instead there is a description.  My imaginary pear is 6 inches long, has yellowish green skin with a red blush on one side. It tastes sweet and slightly tart and it has a grainy texture.  I am unable to imagine a Pear with no specific color, weight, size, etc.

Here's how you can tell if something is imaginary vs. real.  When you think of an imaginary thing being different, then it's different.  Now it is red or purple because I imagined that it changed color.  But when I think of something real changing to something else, it remains exactly what it is.  

This is exactly what happens with a god.  If I imagine it as an old man then God is an old man.  If I imagine it as a cloud of energy, then it's a cloud of energy.  If I imagine it being omniscient, then it's omniscient. That's because if I want to apprehend God, then I have no alternative but to use my imagination.  One can can ascribe any quality or characteristic to something that is imaginary including the quality that some things about it are unknowable. And this is why there are thousands upon thousands and even millions of "definitions" of God.