Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics)

[robvalue]

It may not even be a meaningful definition, because it assumes there actually was a first life form. This assumes either a finite past, or an infinite section of past with no life forms in it. Neither of these have been established.

[brewer]

If god is the first life, what would that make the last life?

[chimp3]

Based on the two competing theistic arguments on this thread we have a choice between joining the Borg collective or tripping out in a Deepak Chopra quantum make believe.

[Whateverist]

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?

Screw 'god', I can't even tell if you exist as a life form or are yourself a troll-bot.

[robvalue]

He seems good at jumping between this completely bland deistic style "God" (well it could just be a piece of sputum under this definition) and the Christian God.

[purplepurpose]

If He exists and doesnt want see us and have any buisness with us, then for us is the same thing if he didn't existed.

The only reason people remember God is business model in which they wish to get heaven from Him. Hell is an excellent add on and a way of motivationg people from independent earthly life towards heavenly invisible goals.

It all comes to this magical buisness program.

[theBorg]

It may not even be a meaningful definition, because it assumes there actually was a first life form. This assumes either a finite past

Quote: "for a physicist infinity is monstrosity! In real world, there is no such thing as infinity." (the famous Dr. Michio Kaku, the Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science. Kaku is a professor of theoretical physics at the City College...). Shall I give you my short (unpublished in the PRE) disproof of the infinite past?

[Whateverist]

He seems good at jumping between this completely bland deistic style "God" (well it could just be a piece of sputum under this definition) and the Christian God.

Still we have to concede that God/gods exist no matter how trivial and inconsequential It/they may be.

[bennyboy]

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?

Okay, by your definition, then I'd say I'm a gnostic atheist, not an ignostic.

You don't get it, do you?  Ignostics are only ignostic until they're faced with a definition.  Then they will (probably) be atheist pretty damn fast. And in the case of bullshit like this, not only will they declare atheist, they will mock you endlessly-- because that's a comically poor attempt at defining God.

[Angrboda]