Ignosticism and theological non-cognitivism

[PeteMorris]

You're not kidding, Chumbawamba!

 

I didn't even understand the thread title...I suppose I must be thick!...(no sarky comments please about mods....)...

[Cavegirl]

If you want to debate the existence of God a good place to start might be St. Anselm's Ontological argument, which goes like this:

 

[E]ven the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.

 

Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

 

In simpler form:

 

1. Let us define God as the greatest imaginable being, a being than which no greater can be conceived.

 

2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that does not exist, or one that merely exists as an idea or concept.

 

3. Therefore, God exists in reality.

 

The definition of god is simple really, it's the best being that the believer or non-believer can imagine, it's only the subjective imaginings of multiple humans that makes the concept complex and as most views are equally valid, you'll never be able to specify a definition that suits all.

 

I haven't been following these recent God debates very closely, so my apologies if this argument has already been done to death.

[RootsBooster]

The definition of god is simple really, it's the best being that the believer or non-believer can imagine, it's only the subjective imaginings of multiple humans that makes the concept complex and as most views are equally valid, you'll never be able to specify a definition that suits all.

 

...as long as you're only talking about one god

[Cavegirl]

...as long as you're only talking about one god

 

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but even with a pantheon of gods, each one will be the best at whatever they represent - hunting/ crafting/ protecting the village etc, relative to the subject's imagination.

 

The only deity I'm aware of that doesn't fit this pattern is the Aten (sun disc) of Ancient Egypt, the first monotheistic god. It doesn't fit the definition because only the pharoah Akhenaten had 'spiritual access' to it and therefore only he could define it.

 

As a result, it was a fairly shallow but interesting expression of a god; a mish mash of aspects from a few pre-existing gods mixed with the non-superstitious view that the sun provides energy, that can only really be examined through the art of the period, a few letters and a rather beautiful poem that Akhenaten wrote about it.

[Waldo]

I would say, all philosophical or theological positions, ultimately are like empty boxes. The value isn't what's on the inside. The value is in the process of opening the box (and once opened, not keeping it around).

 

I think there are many things worthy of consideration before getting to the ignostic position, such as...

 

What people refer to as 'god', do we know if this can this be accurately formed in our mental space (i.e. conceptualised or conceived of)? How would we know? Can we even answer that question intellectually?

 

Also, with 'god', do we know this is something that must have a state of either 'exist' or 'not exist'? Further more, what actually does 'exist' mean? Does our mental framework only allow us to conceive of something as existing or not-existing?

 

Also, what is the nature of the universe, of ourselves; is possible to fully comprehend through an intellectual framework?

 

I think, what most people refer to as 'god', is beyond our thinking mind's ability to comprehend. It is the finger that points to the moon, the mind can hold the finger, but not the moon; however, I think we have a tendency to obsess over the finger. In this way, religion is a kind of anti-spirituality, in that it encourages obsession and focus on religious concepts (such as 'god').

 

However, not to bash religion just because it's not my cup of tea, I have to say, I have met some religious people who are very full-moon (strong sense of self awareness and sentient).

 

Ultimately, I would think that god is you. Both, in the sense of a concept (the context for that concept, is YOUR mind), and also, in the sense of that to which the concept points, namely, you are the universe, self-aware, assuming the temporary form of a human being.

 

There! I've said it now. I'm sure many will find fault with what I've said. Stuff ya I say.

[cressida]

I didn't even understand the thread title...I suppose I must be thick!...(no sarky comments please about mods....)...

 

I'm one myself on my forum so I can identify ...ahem:hihi: (I think)

[barleycorn]

(Cut shrt for fear of tedium)

 

How can a definition of God be meaningless if the belief in that God brings meaning to someones life? That in itself negates the argument.

Yet again you appear to be conflating subjective meaning with objective meaning. I take great comfort in the fact I will be reincarnated as a turnip but I don't for one minute expect anyone else to take my beliefs seriously.

Your whole argument relies on the 'form' of God on the intellectual level.

Scholasticism obviously passed you by. Abelard will be turning in his grave. And no it doesn't rely on the form of God on the intellectual level, it takes the very language employed by theists and shows it to be hollow and nothing more than facile posturing.

Almost every Theist claims God cannot be touched on this level but can only be known either via his

 

1, 'handiwork' - we can test this, we can look at the evidence put forward by the religious themselves, for example 'The Quran is the perfect work of God', 'The Bible says the Earth is 'x' number of years old' etc, we can test these propositions scientifically, and thus, we can test the claim for God.

Disproving the bible doesn't disprove God.

2, Presence, this is usually describes as something along the lines of the transformative power recevied when you 'Give yourself to God' - we can look at this scientifically and say many people have transformative experiences, not all of them will be believers in God - those that are will belong to different religions - we can do 'blind' tests on people to try to recreate the euphoric experiences of those who feel 'touched by God'.

Replicating these experiences doesn't disprove god.

But Ignostics don't accept these as valid tests because they don't encompass a 'one size fits all' God that everyone agrees on.

Nope, no one size fits all definition needed.

The main focus of Ignosticism is that 'God can't be defined', well here you go...

snipped for brevity

... Plenty of definitions there for you to go at, many of which can easily be tested.

These were covered in the OP, not that you need non-cognitive arguments to refute them, a basic application of logic suffices.

So are you a Theist or an Atheist?

depends which God you're on about.

I'm sorry for being short but the Ignostic position just comes accross as a bunch of smart bums sat around trying to be different, it simply has no merit - if you don't think God can't be defined simply don't talk about God - it's a philosophical nonsense

Have to disagree, it's a sound philosophical process which I have yet to see refuted.

... which serves no other purpose than to let those who apply the term to themselves sit around and pat themselves on the back for being 'clever'.

Is this not the definition of philosophy?

 

jb

[fairyworld14]

I tried to trawl through the original post & got half way through & lost the plot completely. I just did not understand what they were on about. I then dozed off .

[PaliRichard]

Yet again you appear to be conflating subjective meaning with objective meaning. I take great comfort in the fact I will be reincarnated as a turnip but I don't for one minute expect anyone else to take my beliefs seriously[/Quote]

 

It's irrelevant whether you argue it being subjective or objective. It provides the

the believer with meaning. Many of those believers claim that meaning is evidence for God (I appreciate you don't accept this but that doesn't make it void, if you've never seen a banana and merely pretend the description of one doesn't count as acceptable evidence for one it doesn't negate the argument for 'banana') likewise just because you want to pretend ignosticism is a valid position closing your ears to the evidence that it isn't doesn't make you right.

 

The argument for ignosticism has no relevance to whether someones belief is 'right' or not, so feel free to believe you'll come back as a turnip, we can still use evidence to look at reincarnation.

 

Scholasticism obviously passed you by. Abelard will be turning in his grave. And no it doesn't rely on the form of God on the intellectual level, it takes the very language employed by theists and shows it to be hollow and nothing more than facile posturing[/Quote]

 

Language in all its forms is merely representative. Try to explain blue to someone who has been blind from birth, does this mean blue doesn't exist? Most people understand what the concept of a creator God is, just like a blind man can understand the concept of light being reflected at certain frequencies creates colours - a definitive example is not required to say I believe or I disbelieve in the concept itself. If you applied such strict criteria to every area of your life you would die, you wouldn't eat unless you knew every detail of the process of digestion and so on, you're applying selective logic to back up a proposition. You have to apply selective logic to it because to do otherwise shows it to be the nonsense it is.

 

Disproving the bible doesn't disprove God[/Quote]

 

It does when those who believe claim it is evidence for the existence of God. Many, many scientific discoveries rely on secondry evidence that builds up a picture of the whole. To think otherwise is exceptionally naive. When theists state that x is evidence for God all we need do is disprove that evidence. When we have x number of theists from different religions citing various things as evidence and each one we test is disproven we may assume all such claims for God will fail. We need not test each and every claim of God to say God probably doesn't exist. Until we do find evidence put forward by the theist that stands up to scrutiny it is reasonable to assume all claims being made for God will, as all claims thus far tested have, fail.

 

Again I refer you to uneven application of logic. If you tested a thousand glasses of water from 'safe drinking water' co and they all failed the test for safe drinking water you would assume, quite reasonably, that the thousand and first would also fail.

 

Replicating these experiences doesn't disprove god[/Quote]

 

See above, it does.

 

Nope, no one size fits all definition needed[/Quote]

 

There clearly is because disproving the evidence provided for God clearly isn't enough. You're being so selective to try to justify your position it's bordering on silly. You either want a one size fits all definition or you accept the positions put to you by Theists. You're playing 'Pay Peter...' games to try to justify a non position.

 

These were covered in the OP, not that you need non-cognitive arguments to refute them, a basic application of logic suffices[/Quote]

 

Try applying it then instead of avoiding it. Go on then, I'm waiting, are those definitions valid or not? Or is it yet another case of weakly trying to avoid the fact that the ignostic position falls flat on its bum when looked at with the most basic reasoning.

 

depends which God you're on about[/Quote]

 

Any will do. Belief in any negates your position, as does acceptance of any of the above dictionary definitions whch you conveniently avoided.

 

Have to disagree, it's a sound philosophical process which I have yet to see refuted[/Quote]

 

I've refuted it several times in several ways, just because you refuse to accept that it doesn't make it so.

 

Is this not the definition of philosophy?[/Quote]

 

Not at all.

[jfish1936]

If you want to debate the existence of God a good place to start might be St. Anselm's Ontological argument, which goes like this:

 

 

 

In simpler form:

 

 

 

The definition of god is simple really, it's the best being that the believer or non-believer can imagine, it's only the subjective imaginings of multiple humans that makes the concept complex and as most views are equally valid, you'll never be able to specify a definition that suits all.

 

I haven't been following these recent God debates very closely, so my apologies if this argument has already been done to death.

 

So St.Anselm observes a chain of beings which exist. He ranks them in order of "greatness". One comes top of the list. He calls that "God" and claims this proves "God" exists, having assumed "God's" existence in setting up the problem.

 

 

In 1 King's 18, Elijah disproves the power of Baal by challenging Baal's priests to call Baal to light a fire. Can your "God" pass the Elijah test?

Oh, of course he can, but he doesn't want to!

I can jump from 10 metres up onto concrete, but I'm not going to do it just because you challenge me! Do you believe that?