I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want? — Frank Apisa

Awesome. And of course, only you know you!!!!

180 must be doing either a spin on that one, or he's drinking his frustrations away LOL

This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

Until a definition is given or context, which if were to have read the rest of his post he does note that, but when a definition (coherent one) and context is given then we can move on from discussing "god" to discussing god. From "what is go?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism. — substantivalism

Sorry, not following that one.

What is this god you speak of? — substantivalism

In Christianity, it's Jesus.

But how do you support that jesus is god. What was you definition of god again? This is literally the easiest then to do so you will definitely do it in your next reply for everyone to then move on. — substantivalism

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man.

You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition. — EricH

Oh okay.

God is consciousness.

seems to me that the more deeply one embraces the experience, the less need there is for explanations. Hmm... Perhaps this merits it's own thread? — Hippyhead

Though I don't know if it's been covered before (you could always do a search) I'd say go for it! I'll certainly support it!

Perhaps the only other question would be what category to put it in. For instance, if you want to relate it to William James, Maslow and others (cognitive science) wherein they wrote books about the religious experience that's one approach. Or in the alternative you could be more secular about it as it were, and approach it more from an epistemological perspective...

Nice! I like that reasoning. Kind of reminds me of the phenomena of love. "I don't really know how to explain it, but I feel so in love".

However, should we share our experiences with other's? Maybe that's the question... . When it all comes down to it, if life is about relationships (platonic, romantic, family, friends, foes, co-workers, etc..) what value is there in sharing experiences with each other(?).

One answer would be for inspirational purposes...

It's called inductive reasoning; not deduction (which is what the OP is primarily based upon).

Billions of people have existed throughout history. — EricH

That's correct, and history has recorded same!

And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"? — EricH

A God who designed consciousness.

Absolutely and right-on brother! For one, that's what Phenomenology entails (i.e.: the ineffable experience)!

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.

Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL

tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist!

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .

Just trying to help Frank

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen
No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent. — EricH

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ??

Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God. — EricH

Nope. One, it's incoherent according to you and two, Jesus was known to be part God.

Not sure what your point is... ?

I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange.

I voted good pick. I think her and Corey Booker are similar, Corey perhaps a bit more articulate. Nevertheless, I like that she's a woman of mixed race who can effectively speak to dumper-trumper's racism, misogyny and other character flaws.

Being a moderate independent, this is the closest we'll get to center (I am partial to folks like John Kaisick and other moderate Republican's). I think it's a winning formula. If nothing else, it's a protest vote just to get the guy out ( much like what some did when voting for dumper-trumper viz Hillary).

Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself. — Frank Apisa

180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction.

No matter... , but for me in this context, my beliefs are many, and they trump all atheist arguments based upon all of the 'philosophical domains'. For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like.

Do you call those definitions nihilism? — jorndoe

Sure. For an atheist it would be (assuming many default to nihilism) because there is a denial of something rather than nothing.

wasn't incoherence that contributed to my TENATIVE position of ignosticism but rather that you or others perhaps fail to give a definition of god or a definition that doesn't remain coherently understandable. — substantivalism

Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said.

Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you?

Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown?

It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they?

Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?

Does that sound right?

Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, — jorndoe

In this context, your epistemic evasion is nihilism, because there is something instead of nothing.

And as such, you have faith and belief in nihilism.

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH

I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.

1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?

2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?

I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No?

But I can't do that here when I'm just trying to sell shoes. My customers do not question the metaphysics of shoe size, and just want to buy some shoes. =) — Philosophim

.... But with all due respect we're not selling shoes. We're discussing philosophy viz the concept of a God.

Logic is just a means to an end.

Feel free to if you like. As I said, this was an argument from several years ago now. I'm long out of the philosophy career. If someone gets an idea from it, I hope they run with it. — Philosophim

Schopenhauer talked about the metaphysical will in nature. What in the human condition comprises the will to live or the will to die? Is it more than just instinct? Do the feelings and perceptions of one's quality of life impact a person's will to live or die? How do animals instinctively survive through naturally emergent properties? Did consciousness emerge from God's will? What is God's Will?

In Christianity, one could make a case for Jesus being an archetype of love. What is love and how does that impact Being? Is love more than instinct and if it is, what purpose does it serve? Is it partly subjective and metaphysical in nature? And if so is that a bad thing? Does love confer any biological survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to procreate?

Those kinds of questions are more meaningful than mathematics and formal logic.

Perhaps as someone who believes a God is possible, you see no value in this argument. But for a person who does not see a God as possible, and believes exploring the idea of a God is a waste of time, this can be used to begin a rational conversation. — Philosophim

Then stay with logical possibility, induction, a posteriori phenomena, metaphysics, existential angst, and other meaningful human condition kinds of concepts and philosophy.

Does this ease your issue now? I think you were having trouble processing the idea of what a "being" entailed as I mentioned it, and you were trying to set it apart from "non being". We could call it "consciousness" if you wish, but it honestly didn't matter. I had defined two different identities, being and non-being, and given a special situation to being that non-being had no reason to be excluded from. I think that's what you were beginning to fish for. I didn't want to muddy the waters at that point anymore, because I think you were getting close. Does the flaw make sense? — Philosophim

Take Ontology out of the equation, that would make it more conducive and appropriate for a traditional cosmological argument from physics/science/mathematics, et.al.

Traditional cosmological arguments involve physics (some metaphysics) and science.

It's either that, or if you're set on continuing to include the concept of Being in your God causation model, somehow combine the anthropic principle into your equations.

To me that would be very intriguing.

I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism

The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .

Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?

We are doing a math problem from within the limitiations we are aware of. Any attempt to argue for or against a specific God would be another argument entirely. — Philosophim

Precisely why an ontological argument lacks meaning. It's based on mathematics which is a priori. Living life (Being) is not exclusively mathematics and a priori. It's many other things including a posteriori phenomena and induction; not math and deduction.

What else am I to think about besides logical necessity? How can we go forward in the world without this reason? But more importantly, how do you draw a state of despair from all of this? — Philosophim

1.Because you're associating a cosmological God with an ontological God.
2. Think more in terms of synthetic propositions and logical possibility.
3. The state of despair concerns the human condition viz an ontological argument based on logical necessity.

As you can see I'm harping on that.

Under the definition of a God, a God is also a first cause. This is important, because we could imagine a God that creates a being that creates a universe, considering we're dealing in all possibilities here. We would not consider the secondary being a God. Only the first cause being would be considered a God under the definition put here. — Philosophim

Of course. I understand the need to posit or approach causation with the obvious super-turtle concept known as God. But once again you're bringing ontology into your cosmological model and I think it's confusing things.

Being=Ontology
Causation=Cosmology

No, you could definitely question if what you are calling a God is a first cause. I didn't mean you couldn't ask the question, but that there is no answer to the question because a first cause has no prior conditions for being. — Philosophim

I hate to keep harping on this but that's precisely logical necessity. The reason for its existence is within itself. That doesn't prove anything. And so if there's no answer to your theory of a causational Being it becomes an ontological existential state of despair.

I would stay away from logical necessity if I were you, and perhaps replace it with synthetic statements about causation. Are you familiar with synthetic a priori knowledge?

The being is not logically necessary. I'm just saying its a logical possibility. This is important, because prior to this argument, the idea of of a God being possible has never been actually proven. If a first cause can be anything, then it is possible that the first cause of our universe is a God. That is all the argument says about this. — Philosophim

Okay now you're changing from a logically necessary, causational Being, to a logically possible Being. Are you going to change your propositional model accordingly? Again I take no exceptions, but I think you need to rewrite your model that discusses that topic.

You cannot ask a question, "Why does it exist" if it is a first cause, and look to something else. "Why does it exist" implies there is prior causality to its existence. A first cause has no prior causality. Why does it exist? It simply is, there is no why to its existence, besides the fact that it exists. Not because its an opinion, but because this is logically the only thing which can be. As for its attributes, who knows? All we know is that it had the power to create our universe. We cannot know from this reasoning, anything more than that. — Philosophim

Are you telling me we cannot question anyone's theory that God is a first cause? That seems contradictory and/or paradoxical because if you didn't have a sense of wonderment, you wouldn't have posited a causational Being to begin with, correct?

Otherwise once again you're arguing logical necessity. You're basically saying: " there exists at least one true proposition". And so where did this proposition come from, and how does it exist? Is it a byproduct of human consciousness and language and if so, where did humans come from, etc. etc.. Logical necessity has no meaning and cannot uncover the true nature of existence.

There is a first cause to our universe.
There is no rule of what a first cause must be
We do not know what that first cause is, so we can imagine all of the possibilities, and see if we can figure anything out.
There is one possibility of our universe's first cause being a non being.
There are infinite possibilities of our universe's first cause being a being which has the power to create our specific universe. — Philosophim

Okay, no exceptions taken. To me, that's in the spirit of logical possibility. But your model needs to provide analogies. What makes it more possible than not? What from physics and metaphysics can provide clues in so-called support of your own model?

never said that this is something that had to be. I'm only talking about what is possible, when anything which does not contradict itself is possible. As long as your definition of such a being is not self-contradictory, it is possible. It does not mean it is necessary or certain, just simply possible. — Philosophim

Sorry for the piecemeal, but that's not true. The conscious and subconscious mind violate rules of Bivalence/LEM. It suggests that you yourself are outside of a logical description from the catagories of human rational thought.. In essence you are illogical. Or, you can make the case whether you or God can transcend logic. Another reason you should explore the Anthropic Principle in your cosmological model.

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there. — Philosophim

Exactly my point. What is: "the rest". ??

My example was to show that the first cause of our universe might have been the big bang, or might have been something else that inevitably lead to the big bang. The "little pop" was just a suggestion to give you a more concrete visual. — Philosophim

No apologies necessary, thank you. We're critiquing here. The universe, before the BB was supposedly in a state of entropy, accelerated expansion, space changes, and so on and so forth. In short, since you are stuck on a causational Being (which is fine by me), I would recommend you consider elements from the Anthropic Principle to incorporate into your theory.

think it carries plenty of meaning. First, it concludes with certainty that our universe has a first cause. It then concludes a basic tenant of what a first cause must entail; that its being is not bound to anything necessary. A first cause can be anything. That is the logically concluded nature of its existence. Its not a "maybe it could be anything," its the fact that a first cause is not bound by any rules in its existence. — Philosophim

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) you are basically saying that a Being known as God is the first cause. That's all you've said to describe that Being known as God, no?

If you understand that a first cause is not bound to necessarily be anything, then none of the above are necessary to address. Well, perhaps we could dive into what the idea of a "being" is, but its still unimportant. — Philosophim

If that were the case, then what reason is there to invoke God in the first place (no pun intended)? Are we not talking about meaning of life concerns here? Or are you simply discussing a priori kinds of thinking/logical necessary truth's? If it's the latter, what's the point of significance?

Again, you mentioned Being (ontology), I didn't.

I'll offer comments to your other replies momentarily...thank you.

It does seem like a cop out. I looked up the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism and basically it follows thus:

Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.

So they both don't know.

Or:

Theist: I believe a God exists (and everything is figured out)
Atheist: I don't believe God exists (and everything is figured out)

Or in another alternative, you can be like me :snicker:

Christian Existentialist: The logic and nature of human existence is not known and quite absurd; the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in favor of Deity/God.

don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility. — Augustusea

You might find Wheeler's PAP interesting then...

3. There is one technical restriction to a first cause however. It cannot contradict itself. I cannot both be, and not be. I think that is a given, but I wanted to make sure that was also understood.

I would say if these are logically necessary, then the argument is sound. If something is not logically necessary, then it is not sound. You seem to state this is a problem but perhaps I'm not fully understanding what the issue is. — Philosophim

The argument is sound but it lacks its existential meaning, like the infamous a priori ontological argument. Basically, you're saying: 'there exists at least one true proposition". While that's logically necessary, I can just as easily describe anything in that manner, but I can't explain the nature of its existence using a priori logic. There may exist at least one true proposition, but where did the proposition come from and how did it come into existence? What is its nature? ( In large part, those are Metaphysical questions.)

And so in your item 3 above, if you were to parse the attributes of a first cause, you would have to address not only cosmological concepts (just to name a few) such as: determinacy/indeterminacy in physics/nature, contingency (what supports/explains the super-turtle) in nature, timelessness and time dependent (temporal time v. eternity and the beginning of time/BB) but also Being and becoming, consciousness, etc..

LEM/bivalence would relate to a Dipolar/Metaphysical feature of existence and consciousness and subconsciousness working together in an illogical manner (driving a car while daydreaming and crashing/killing yourself--was it your consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car kind-of-questions). Which is what relates to a cosmological Dipolar Being/ God... .

Can you point out specifically where I have introduced something that can neither be true or false? — Philosophim

So, how can you explain a causational Being who presumably is logically necessary who has a consciousness? One of many questions would be, what are its attributes and what were the reasons for its existence? What was it doing prior to the BB? Since you introduced Being, who (what/where/how/why) caused and created existence; the burden is within your theory to provide answers to those questions (and more), using logic.

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop. — Philosophim

Not sure I'm following that...seems counterintuitive to your theory?

I am not arguing cosmological existence by necessity. We already know we live in a universe. — Philosophim

I would strongly urge you to google logical necessity. You have accepted your logically necessary universe, just just like have accepted your logically necessary first cause. It's as if you've presented a straw man argument.

Look at your items 4 through 9 again. The terms, among others, you repeatedly use to explain existence are 'just is' and 'it simply exists that way' in those explanations.

Again, unless you can explain otherwise, I'm ok with logical necessity. I'm ok with a Dipolar God who exists outside of time (timeless/eternity--like light energy) and creates temporal time. A God who determines his own existence in both an indeterminant and determinant world. Breaking logical rules of things like LEM is perfectly fine. After all, our conscious existence does the same.

I go back to my gut reaction, you're arguing logical possibility and logical necessity. Otherwise, as you said, if the first cause itself can have any and all possible or conceivable attributes, please share what that means or translates to, in your theory.

don't want to say your wrong, but solution is going to be more than a one line answer. I mention a God is a "Being" which could be conscious or non-conscious of its decisions. — Philosophim

Are you sure? I mean it sounds like you are arguing cosmological existence by way of logical necessity, no?

As long as we insist on identifying understanding with rational explanation familiar to science (mathematics and empiricism) we will inevitably end up with turtle trouble; either an infinite regress, or a mysterious self explaining super turtle, or an unexplained string of turtles.

Could it be that our understanding of existence has no explanation in the usual sense? And only that an understanding of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? Could there be other possible worlds having a different set of rational thought an explanation (multiverse)?

And so your only alternative is something like Spinoza's logical necessity. But that doesn't unpack or solve one of the main concerns of cosmology; time, change, contingency and eternity associated with an unchanging Being. A Being who exists outside of time who creates time itself.

Therefore, based on your formula/suggestions that there is a causational Being who exists out of logical necessity (the explanation for itself is only contained within itself), then I would have to conclude that Being and consciousness is also a logical necessity. And that seems to lead to, or suggest, that some form of a cosmological anthropic theory should be part of your explanation... .

I'm not saying your theory is wrong, it's just that it doesn't really speak to the why's of existence. Unless you're on a fishing expedition, the fact that you recognize your formula is flawed or incomplete speaks for itself. As such, the foregoing is my basic take away from your OP. You seem to be arguing logical necessity.

(It's kind of like saying: " This statement is false" or "there exists at least one true proposition".) I'm okay with logical necessity, it's just that it lacks meaning and ultimate explanation.

Take a look again at the logic where A0 could equal B1 in another possible universe. Now think about what my definition of a God is. Then think about what my definition for a specific universe is. Have I missed something? — Philosophim

Yes, conscious existence.

Lack of perfection and/or finitude is the euphemism for the metaphorical concept known as the devil/evil .

Consider that you may be getting lost in the emotions of religious dogma/extremism.. But if you think it's a real Being, you may want to run and hide before it's too late!!!!

Kidding aside, I would recommend focusing on the OT Wisdom Books, and NT/Jesus' philosophy.