Ignosticism, Theism, or Gnostic Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

Although they are related questions, knowing that something exists is different from knowing what that something is. IMHO a minimal theory of an intelligible reality includes a phenomenal aspect, a nomenal one, and a relationship between them.

[Disagreeable]

Gnostic atheism, naturally.  I don't see a problem with it, nor would I call it a theory.  There are no gods, full stop.

How would you disprove an undetectable and unfalsifiable deistic god?

---

No it falls on Gnostics because they claim to know

Nobody here, I mean.

---

I'd go with ignosticism - the idea that the question 'Does God exist' is inherently meaningless and can never be made meaningful. It's like asking 'What colour is Tuesday?'

Boru

This person gets it.

If somebody thinks that the onus is on the ignostic then they just don't understand ignosticism.

---

All statements are truth statements about a thing or things' existence or existences.

That needs a whole lot of philosophical justification.

Then what you just said would by the same token. Personally, I disagree. Not all claims are epistemic claims.

[GrandizerII]

If a theist makes truth statements about God that are meaningful and coherent (at first glance at least), then depending on the goals of discussion you're having with the theist, you will have to bother yourself a bit to explain why these truth statements are false or don't make sense.

But if you don't care, then you don't care. And if it makes sense for you adopt the approach you're defending, then by all means, stick to it. I just don't personally find it appealing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gnostic atheism, naturally.  I don't see a problem with it, nor would I call it a theory.  There are no gods, full stop.

How would you disprove an undetectable and unfalsifiable deistic god?

People are complete crap at coming up with unfalsifiable, undetectable things.  Not how our heads work.  Gods aren't unfalsifiable or undetectable things to begin with, though. A deistic god, for example, created the world. That's not undetectable or unfalsifiable. It also didn't happen. Gods are characters in stories.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How would you disprove an undetectable and unfalsifiable deistic god?

People are complete crap at coming up with unfalsifiable, undetectable things.  Not how our heads work.  Gods aren't unfalsifiable or undetectable things to begin with, though.  A deistic god, for example, created the world.  That's not undetectable or unfalsifiable.  It also didn't happen.  Gods are characters in stories.

Fair enough. Every god-claim I’ve ever heard tells me that I can know [insert name of god here] if I would simply believe.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup. Most of the reason that unfalsifiable undetectable gods are a non starter, is that to be such a god, there'd have to be no indication it existed and it could have no possible effect on this world.

Not exactly a great pitch for the god-curious. "Believe in The Great God JoJo for no particular reason and nothing will happen!" - meh, no thanks, ill try the next stall. They've got a biscuit god. Historically speaking, even the ideas that gods are unfalsifiable and undetectable was a fall back line that god believers..who believed neither thing, retreated to when it became clear that their specific gods had been proven false. Testament to the power of religious faith to shape our minds. Even people who don't believe in this stuff still accept the patently ridiculous contention that no one can know or prove that gods don't exist - as a product of social engineering.

In another context, it's a bit more obvious. You can't prove that I didn't do the thing I won't tell you about.

[brewer]

---

That needs a whole lot of philosophical justification.

Then what you just said would by the same token. Personally, I disagree. Not all claims are epistemic claims.

I'm beginning to believe that you're all show and no go.

[vulcanlogician]

Although they are related questions, knowing that something exists is different from knowing what that something is. IMHO a minimal theory of an intelligible reality includes  a phenomenal aspect, a nomenal one, and a relationship between them.

What does "nomenal" mean?

Did you typo there? Did you mean to say "nominal"? 

And if so, what do you mean by "nominal" (or "nomenal" or whatever you meant to type)?

[polymath257]

Although they are related questions, knowing that something exists is different from knowing what that something is. IMHO a minimal theory of an intelligible reality includes  a phenomenal aspect, a nomenal one, and a relationship between them.

Yes, of course. For example, we detected cathode rays before we knew they were electrons.

But, to know something exists, you at least need to know *some* property that distinguishes it. You may not know *every* property it has, or even a representative sample of such properties. But you do need to have at least one that allows some sort of detection.

[The Grand Nudger]

The irony being that you only need to know one property of gods to dismiss the entire set...and literally every story about every god drives that one property home without fail.