Nice! — 3017amen

Okay.

We would have to defer to text books or otherwise written communication/information which I'm not sure you're convinced represents any type of authority. — 3017amen

If they have written on the subject somewhere or someone is talking about them with direct quotations then it would definitely be authoritative.

Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

No just an elaboration on how you couldn't really know what the nature (however this is defined) is as we cannot think of our thoughts outside ourselves.

Sure I appeal to science for many things, including empirical data. As such, science has concluded that more or less you don't know the nature of your own existence which is what we're talking about. So until you can prove to me how you exist (the nature of your existence), then we can have a cogent discussion about someone else's existence. Otherwise we're back to learning about people from history books. Make sense? — 3017amen

Somewhat, you got to admit that what ever progress we make pragmatically/scientifically ourselves/in groups lends itself definitely to discover something about reality even though we may not know every key point of it given our limited perspective (it would be highly abstracted). In the end we will still say that whether these experiences have a certain reason for their existence or find themselves solipsistically within you we still would call them or associate with them personhood when see your friend. Somewhat of the same answer to people from history books with a rather complicated connection between our personal introspection or caricatures (imagination) and other past experiences with what we called "real" people versus complete fictions (reading harry potter).

That's an important distinction that goes back to your own illogical existence. For example how does the conscious and subconscious mind work together? The infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and crashing and killing yourself, lends itself to violation of formal rules of logic (LEM) perception of two things at once. And so using our sense of logic, basically means that consciousness is an impossibility. Or said another way, consciousness itself is logically impossible. — 3017amen

I wouldn't say it's impossible because if it was then that would mean (given my understanding of the words used here) it doesn't exist even though something clearly does. The issue here is trying to see the mind or our "body" as entirely point emphasized as you can be day dreaming while having your muscles relaxed so they just allow the car forward before it impacts something. You aren't daydreaming and not daydreaming as that would be contradictory but here you are one, not the other, and this negligence lends itself to having the hunk of metal you're within glide uninhibited towards something.

I go back to you explaining the nature of your own existence. Did it emerge from a warm pool of soup or a piece of wood or some other means or method? Until you can do that, what's the point in trying to understand someone else's existence? It seems to be like blind leading the blind, no? Otherwise you can talk about the creation of physical matter, but how would that explain the nature of your existence? — 3017amen

I get it. . . existentialism. . . your focus is not on really on the nature of what makes us up or perhaps even gives rise to us but more in what we do that is important, not letting vague metaphysical or scientifically sterilized abstractions entirely dictate who we are.

I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery. — 3017amen

Okay. . . didn't expect this when we first met but now i've somewhat turned around.

Ok, maybe we'll do that. Could be a plan. Until then, you might keep in mind that nobody is forcing you to focus on "metaphysical baggage" that you don't find credible. If you think it would be fun to transcend the metaphysical claims, you can start transcending when ever you're ready. — Hippyhead

I wouldn't know where to start as my focus my entire life so far has been spent on discussing those claims, the methods to do so, what other metaphysical claims others have made, etc. I spend my free time constantly thinking about mathematical problems in physics and occasionally the philosophy behind.

My brother, someone who also was turned away from his religion of his parents, has gone in a rather opposite direction not forgetting our scientific advancements (he bases a good chunk of his philosophy somewhat on evolutionary intuitions) but its heavily inspired if not the same as forms of eastern philosophies, i'd always say it looked to be a close cousin to process philosophy.

Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that? — 3017amen

A human being who may have deserved the label of Jesus may have existed. Most of the story regarding said individual is polluted by tall tales so it's hard to tell where the real Jesus may be and where he isn't. . . start with the Jefferson Bible.

Okay.. So, how did they define it? — 3017amen

You'll have to give a link to their definition of god or get them on the forum personally to elaborate on their position.

It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence. — 3017amen

No one can know what these thoughts are or what gives rise to them fully and without the danger of skepticism only through an acceptance that they are just the way they are (and a pragmatic/epistemological methodology) on our relationship to them can we then begin constructing abstract relationships or developing deeper concepts.

I'm not following that at all really. You may want to study William James and Maslow and others from cognitive science. They did some pretty intense studies of patients having such experiences that include ineffable phenomena. There are also studies on NDE's but that's a different subject matter all together. — 3017amen

So wait despite all our talk about not understanding ourselves or reality as we know it you appeal to cognitive science? So you do actually follow scientific practice or do you just throw it out? I thought you were anti-materialism or anti-objectivism now were talking about whether these brains have anything to do with consciousness (as they starkly do) but you haven't exactly made this clear before.

If you are appealing to these studies then please tell me can a consciousness exist without a brain to be located within?

Okay, so I think from what you're saying there you agree that history is pretty accurate and Historians pretty much do a good job no? — 3017amen

Usually, if by "doing a good job" you mean claim with evidence (something you haven't done) that there may have been a person named Jesus that the biblical story was made around then, yes. Did he actually perform miracles or was he made by this god of yours but rather come about by conception as we all know it. . . rather unlikely if not perhaps impossible. Also not warranted by the evidence.

As I said earlier, if you can prove to me the nature of your own existence, then much more of your questions/concerns can be answered. — 3017amen

Will giving an answer to the nature of my existence change anything about what I can do right now? I can't walk through walls, usually abide by most social rules, nor control what exactly the world is doing to me (at best i'm restricted to the narrow hallways of reality and at worst i'm strapped down to view it all go by). I cannot tell you the nature of existence in the same sense that you cannot tell me the nature of yours at best the only philosophy you should hold to here is not a metaphysical but an epistemological pragmatic idealism. We cannot know what the thoughts in themselves (or what give rise to them) are truly only what they can do, what they've done, and our relationship to them (taken all rather vaguely).

Discussion of Christianity on philosophy forums seems hopelessly inept. To read a philosophy forum, one would get the impression that Jesus never mentioned love. All this male ego chest thumping and intricate logic calculation etc, seems pointless. — Hippyhead

If you want to discuss Christianity divorced from 3017amen and the metaphysical baggage that pollutes its message that sounds rather like a nice thread to start tugging at. I've also always seen what was problematic about religion and its claims were that it was to overall focused on these metaphysical issues rather than being something short of guidance for the lost or merely personal life philosophy in many cases. That's why you get atheist christianity and the Jefferson bible. I'll talk to death the occasionally intriguing or rather wrongly put metaphysical claims religions espouse but once that's all done maybe their just keep doing what they were doing without that baggage.

Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical. — Frank Apisa

Obviously I can par your prescription that I sum it up rather than be worrisome about specifics. Strange you gave an example where even intuitively or in relation to known scientific definitions allows me to actually take a position regarding the application of truth/false values to the question we've been discussing as well a have it making sense to do so but merely that were unsure which to give it. If I could play devils advocate it's agnosticism about the god discussion or the god question not an admittance that it will always mean something or that it will never mean something.

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous? — 3017amen

Devoid of context, yes, but when a person talks about George Washington in the U.S. they probably are talking about the person who was the first U.S. president.

God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin: — 3017amen

It is what it is when they have actually defined it and aren't talking about the concept of god but about god itself. . . after having defined it.

Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... . — 3017amen

What?

You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry. — 3017amen

Nice deflection.

And so we may have agreement to where it is tin fact rue that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind? — 3017amen

You are aware of something you call the self. We call this experience awareness. Is it false that I call it awareness, is that subjective?

Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience? — 3017amen

Are ineffable 'religious' experiences consistent with experiences of waking experiences and are not merely our imagined caricatures of existence. Can you support that a person is having said experience and that such an experience is not the same as a mirage of water in the distance but the experience of concretely water in the distance. Can you not assume unexplained is equivalent to "you know the answer" or that we just suppose it exists without reduction/deeper ontological relations to other entities. We've both admitted partially that part of what makes up conscious awareness, experiences, don't come from within us and we have no knowledge of making ourselves so clearly the reality that either makes us up or gives rise to our experiences must allow for said conscious awareness.

Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional? — 3017amen

Yes, a historian would know the difference between the human character of Jesus and the mythological character of Jesus who was created by ____insert well defined answer____. Was this historian ever born. . . then he interacted with people in a way distinct from fictional characters. . . then he wasn't fictional. Or if you are not assuming this but merely questioning my outward speculation as to whether he is or isn't fictional. . . well that is unfalsifiable by definition as he has never interacted with anyone so it's indeterminate whether he ever existed at all, to me or anyone else it would be "I don't know" as the final answer to that.

As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No? — 3017amen

Not without reason to do so.

In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there. — 3017amen

You have to prove that Jesus is part god not repeat what the bible says he was perhaps even as proof (that's circular). Also define god.

Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL — 3017amen

So another person is also distrustful of you argumentation strategies and disingenuous nature. That list just keeps on growing the longer this goes on.

I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.

Interesting.

Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language! — Frank Apisa

I was talking about how I did try to post a meaningful discussion here about one of the common attributes given to monotheistic gods (popular in the christian tradition) but then mentioned how you would't perhaps be respectful in a discussion because you think i'm a fedora hat wearing atheist i'm assuming.

Do you think such a discussion is bullshit when apologists actually do discuss said attributes or have critical evaluations given to point out exactly where they go wrong? Cause you called it "that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit," so do you then think it's just bullshit to point that out in a discussion. . . about defining god. . . especially because it's popular to do so. . . by apologists. . .

I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times. — Frank Apisa

Or that god possesses any coherent meaning to disagree on its existence anyways.

As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that. — Frank Apisa

You really disgustingly abhor atheists so much that you literally have forgotten what i've said numerous times that "if I was given a coherent definition of god then we can discuss its existence." This is a position. . . a meta-position on the god discussion. . . not an overarching moral/aesthetic/metaphysical/epistemological belief system just as if you are an agnostic with respect to the god discussion you could think it's a waste of time, be ambivalent towards it, or be truly open to being mindfully won over.

There is a difference here between, again, saying "I don't know what god means or is?" and "I know what a god means and I express ignorance towards whether such an ontological entity exists?".

I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.

Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum. — Frank Apisa

Gotcha, you will continue to insult me.

No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that. — Frank Apisa

Never said you were an atheist as an atheist is one who claims "god doesn't exist?". NOT "I don't know what a god is?". Do you even understand your or my own terms here?

No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.

You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.

Here they are:

1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?

2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)

What would your answers be? — Frank Apisa

"Ignoticism emphasizes the general rule that any discussion presupposes that the dialogue partners have defined - explicitly or by common use of language - their terms. A sound definition requires that the terms in question are reduced to well-known terms. And that the latter terms are not contradictory.
Without these presupposition any discussion between agnostics, atheists and theists is senseless." As paraphrased from a theological post on philosophy stack exchange which again is what I mean by ignostic as well. You cannot take a truth claim then apply it to a nonsense proposition or admit that one could be given but are ignorant of which one (true or false) as this presupposes it isn't nonsense period. Until you coherently define the terms given then we could start actually discussing whether we're unsure what conclusion to give to said question (true or false) and or declare is purely false/true.

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.

Given all your philosophical questions or issues why hold onto christianity at all and not go towards another religion or not possess any religion at all to be central to your philosophy? Why dogmatically assume christianity to be central around which your philosophy is built?

Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.

Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence. — 3017amen

You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it.

Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.

I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread. — Frank Apisa

Omnipotence. . . I attempted to post a thread discussing how we could define it not that it was impossible therefore god was (not to mention that would only make omnipotent defined gods impossible not every god. . . be more careful with your language). It's an intriguing discussion where we discuss a definition that isn't circular/contradictory but also isn't tautologically true in the sense that any individual would be omnipotent. . . but you don't seem to want to indulge in that discussion now because you think I'm going to bring up the rock paradox immediately. . . that if we fail in our investigation I'll declare "forever and ever no matter what theists do they will never give a coherent definition of god".

Never ever said you were a theist if you even supposed as such. You wouldn't stop talking about how you are an agnostic which is impossible to miss. I merely prefaced don't push your definition on others and you did note that it's yours alone on many occasions.

Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism. — Frank Apisa

A person is only agnostic, atheistic, or theistic once they understand what god(s) are supposed to mean. It's like when people claim that you are an atheist/agnostic when you are born which I think is a misapplication of those positions. You're an agnostic with respect to god when you understand what god means then remain epistemologically ambivalent about its existence. Given agnosticism is no leaning one way or another on the god question not that you don't know nor understand the question/concept being argued for.

I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit. — Frank Apisa

So would you claim then that something a person doesn't know about they actively in a position of ignorance towards it? Or that if they don't even understand what an entity is defined as or that it's supposed to mean anything to anyone that you could be actively epistemologically indifferent to the existence of something that may not be an entity at all? I was trying to emphasize that atheist, theist, and agnostic are internal to the debate while those positions discussing tenative perspective on the debate, ignostics perhaps, are dealing with whether we should even debate or have reason to do so.

If I recall I never insulted you and you continue to do so. . . good philosophical sportsmanship.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

If you wanted to make it more general then you need to add to it "I do not know if gods exist or not or if the concept possesses any coherent meaning to do so". I'm not talking about every meaning of god, as I've pointed put, you cannot be agnostic to some while you have to be atheistic/theistic to others par their definitions. Basically you need to make this a more general I don't know statement. The missing bit is that ignosticism which you could add in.

Also add in that you have to be knowledgable or understand the discussion first hand to then actively take an agnostic position.

Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical. — Frank Apisa

I have now and there's nothing wrong with it within the god discussion but to meta questions regarding the coherency/definition of god you would need to preface that in together with the fact that you would have knowledge as well as an understanding of the debate. Otherwise a baby before they were born is an agnostic which seems strange to me to ascribe a position to a person who doesn't even understand the concept being played with.

In Christianity Jesus existed. — 3017amen

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus.

So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence? — 3017amen

They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god.

Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... . — 3017amen

Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about.

For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.

With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.

In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?

The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply! — 3017amen

Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian?

You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such.

You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend.

A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person.

I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun. — 3017amen

Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post.

Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “The fanatical atheists are like...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres--Albert Einstein — 3017amen

Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god.

Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur? — 3017amen

A particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic.

What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you... — 3017amen

Jesus may have existed and if he did at most we could suppose only what the Jefferson Bible would clue us into what he potentially said or how he potentially acted as. If there was ever a single person deserving of the title of Jesus. You're for some reason either sneaking in every miracle of the new testament into the word historical fact or merely pick pocketing a particular theological interpretation of Jesus (being the son of god perhaps) that needs to be supported externally to the bible itself to have credence. I'm not talking about whether it's a proper interpretation of the bible (mythologically) but if this person (Jesus) was actually the son of god or had some special relation to god. I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it.

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that introduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL — 3017amen

You know he was basically elaborating on the fact that the word god is molested left and right by bystanders as well as philosophers to the point that it doesn't really have a central meaning anymore, perhaps certain popular conceptions but that's where the buck stops. Saying you believe in god, not supposing any popular interpretation or conception of god to probably hold, makes it indeterminate as to what you would mean by such a term without further elaboration. Nor what i'm to be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards.

Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen

Some contain fiction and those can be rather obvious; mythological stories, stories which conflict with an abundant collection of historical fact/knowledge, etc. The main point being that if your story has a person walking on water even though every person (you could perform an experiment here) you could or have interacted with have never been able to walk on water it then seems nomologically not possible to due so without changing our understanding of physics (we are not assuming he looked like he was walking on water when he was walking on wooden rods that were submerged). He walked on water without any fancy physics tricks so he defied our understanding of modern day physics knowledge. So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur?

How am I doing?

As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... . — 3017amen

Depends on how you define causation and what it is which can then determine what things do have causes and what it means for things to not be caused or perhaps even be a-casual.

Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science. — 3017amen

Human beings can use the word wonder to apply to something sort of feeling in relation to stimuli from greater reality, yes.

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES. — Frank Apisa

Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment. — Frank Apisa

Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand.

All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists.

When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.

If you don't know it, then you cannot communicate about it? How 'bout that? — Shawn

Yeah

Linguistically, it's a universal word for every single being/entity, even for computers. — Shawn

Hmmmmm

You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer. — Frank Apisa

That is the point of that question its incoherent to ask without prior context or further if I even substituted a word that the word in question truly mean't anything to anyone or specified a particular entity to be ignorant towards.

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW. — Frank Apisa

Does skdfksj exist? You say "i don't know" here but that assumes it possesses a meaning to someone its just hidden behind the text. You are assuming there is meaning there to then attribute that word to something in the real world to then be ignorant about. When you say "I don't know" there is a difference between "I don't understand what is going on" and "the entity that is being stated here i'm personally unsure if it exists".

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

And I say 'that which' because I don't know if God has a gender or not. The history book known as the Christian Bible is metaphorical, among other things. Beyond this, if you care to, I would not take any exception to someone claiming God is a concept that presumably is super-natural and transcends logic.

...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... . — 3017amen

Could you more specifically define god? What are the properties of it you claim it has? Can you support that said entity gave rise to Jesus?

Yes, through inductive reasoning that appears to be the case. Nonetheless, as Frank alluded to earlier ( with atheist 180), only you yourself know yourself, therefore, who knows the mind of God(?). — 3017amen

You don't seem to know the mind of god because you don't give specifics beyond "it's conscious" but it can also create other conscious beings which I cannot and thusly I don't know if any conscious being could.

Okay, but remember, you changed your position on that. It went from, any discussion about God is incoherent, to okay, let's talk about God. Just sayin. — 3017amen

A discussion about "does ____ exist?" is incoherent and won't go anywhere nor could you take any position much regarding what is supposed to go in the blank but if you could define and specify what does go within the blanks (that is coherent) then we can begin analyzing it or taking bets. Where is your evidence post wise that I went from "god is forever under any discussion completely and utterly incoherent thusly not worthy of discussion" to "it's incoherent to talk about something existing and taking bets on it before understanding what it is as well as whether it even is coherent to discuss its existence". Remember, YOU have to go back into the previous posts with proper context and paste that part of a previous post that says this is what I held or what I defined ignosticism as.

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me. — Frank Apisa

There you go. A distinction between ignorance on the topic of god versus ignorance on the existence of said entity which to me are two different things thus the term i'm using. One is a meta-analysis the other merely a surface level analysis.

Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa

Coherent - Logical and consistent.
Definition - The meaning/representation intended by a word in relation to other concepts/ontological entities. Also can be a prescription regarding what people think the word should be mean't to mean versus description based definitions which describe how people generally have used the word to mean.

You know what i'll ask you question then. So does it exist?

No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus. — 3017amen

So god has the ability to create other conscious beings. . . I don't have that ability so that must be something unique to god. . . almost as if you need to note his properties or specifics.

How is it straw man? — 3017amen

More like a mis-construral of my position. How can anyone read my posts then ask AFTER you have given a coherent definition of god which I accepted to discuss with you and didn't say any definition of god isn't inherently incoherent, "why is my definition then incoherent to you?". Only that it's incoherent until you give a definition.

Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that? — 3017amen

Jesus is human, god is human consciousness, so your saying a human existed that was conscious.

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa

To define a word is to specify what in reality that word represents or the meaning attached to it.

Note a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive about the meaning of a word. There is a difference between what a word is meant to be as represented in a dictionary use wise versus how people use it which can be person specific.

To be coherent is to both be understandable to us but also not be inherently contradictory. A square circle is a popular example or a married bachelor which are contradictory. Also something like the "color of existence" which according to definitions of those terms doesn't really give a coherent understanding as the concept of existence doesn't give off radiation nor interacts with luminal radiation so it cannot be colored.

Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word. — Frank Apisa

So you will assume I'm this (not an agnostic to a particular god concept or theistic to another) before you actively actually indulge in debate with me or others with a particular definition of god? Disingenuous on your part to do so. . . as well as not be able to read my posts so you keep creating false caricatures of them.

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it... — 3017amen

Again, another famous misconstrual of yours but you just gave a coherent definition of god, god=human consciousness, just that it's an equivocation of terms that doesn't really add much.

3017amen - I fixed it.

Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen

Yes, so complete nonsense.

Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question! — 3017amen

So you have been equivocating uselessly this whole time.

Sorry, not following that one. — 3017amen

Sure...

In Christianity, it's Jesus. — 3017amen

Yes so god is only human.

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man. — 3017amen

People have mentioned jesus before in texts, yes.

Oh okay.

God is consciousness. — 3017amen

God is just a word for human consciousness got it.

And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead

Never supposed we did as ignosticism can be taken to be rather tenative dependent on properly defined terms or context. To throw out the discussion would mean holding a position that NO ONE can make sense of god even if you tried. . .which isn't what I've defined ignosticism as here.

I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange. — 3017amen

Never said I was angry more confused then frustrated because as other posters made note of, you seemed to intentionally "obscure the conversation avoiding giving definitions or even seemingly gish galloping".

The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. — Frank Apisa

I'll continue to hold that position until YOU give a coherent definition of god to me. I can't discuss god simpliciter only what one thinks a god should be or defines it as. . . remember there are thousands or religions with varying perspectives on god that may not even overlap. Am I to. . . regardless of context be. . . agnostic to every god ever even though some definitely don't exist while others are defined as such that they do.

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen

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 god?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism.

A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen

What is this god you speak of?

That's correct, and history has recorded same! — 3017amen

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.

"Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless." — Frank Apisa

Never said nor was being an ignostic defined as god is inherently always meaningless and not worthy of discussion. . . wow that strawman was easy to spot. I've said that ignosticism is basically, you don't give a definition (or one that is even the slightest coherent) then it isn't going to make sense to ask what position I take on it regarding said entities existence. Rather, until YOU give a coherent definition of god i don't have much of a reason to say I'm agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards it because. . . what is it I'm sure I know doesn't exist/does exist/or am possessing ignorance towards.

Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here? — Frank Apisa

Because ignosticism or agnosticism (strong) are not equivalent to saying every discussion of god regardless of context is doomed to fail (we can never know a god exists so stop discussing) or is meaningless. Ambivalence or avoidance isn't baked into those definitions of ignosticism or agnosticism something which you and 3017amen really think fit to suppose.

I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing. — Frank Apisa

Every philosophical conversation is worthless UNTIL you define your terms coherently then were on our way. Literally this whole time I've been defending a tenative position here that is equivalent to philosophy 101 in a discussion/debate/argument. . . define your terms and in a manner that both participants understand what they mean then conversation can continue.

I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense. — Frank Apisa

I kept going in earnest it would be fine to leave it generalized but in all honesty I never saw your god definition given to me so we could discuss it then move on.

I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position. — Frank Apisa

Why you just described my side on the issue. . . partially. . . but some still desire labels to associate with or designate themselves while a label is a jumping off point it isn't a specific argument to be presupposed.

I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T. — Frank Apisa

Depends on what your definition of god is?

And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen

I feel like this is similar to a creationist asking an atheist why they debate on religion so much despite the fact that they either know a god doesn't exist or that they do not know exists so they disbelieve. Some atheists may take this direction and leave religion alone but for others such debates hold different values to different people (I know it's hard for you to understand that people feel different things). For some they truthfully want to be convinced a god exists but constantly have their hopes dashed for others it's more a question of convincing others that said entity doesn't exist/doesn't warrant the belief in its existence. For some it's frustrating to see others believe in false things so they seek to convince them of what they see as true while others take it as a moral proclamation if they sadly identify religion to be synonymous with anti-vaxxers, creationists, cults, oppressive regimes, or homophobia. So then convincing people towards agnosticism/atheism suddenly becomes the same as taking down these sorts of issues.

There are further reasons that accompany this but you would have to actually (I know this is a tall order) perhaps ask why people indulge in these discussions.

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? — 3017amen

Is it a particular conception of god with predefined attributes? Then yes i'll take position(s) on it. Is it god without any predefined attributes? Then it sounds rather incoherent to me because what does it mean to say such and such exists if none of us know what it's or understand it.

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? — 3017amen

Even agnostics can indulge in discussions of the properties of deities or whether they are coherent or not. Nothing stops them from doing that even though their real position on the issue is that such an entity is to remain unknowably non-existent/existent to them. For an ignostic then it would be a journey to meet someone through which an actual discussion can be had given a well put collection of definitions for the terms used. Other ignostics could not indulge in any discussion at all being rather militant or avoidant of such debates. . . people are people. . . I have a feeling you understand that.

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? — 3017amen

Again, Evolution doesn't require everything that an organism possesses or does to be 100% beneficial only that it's able to get from birth to reproduction generally without much issue with particular factions doing that better or worse. Neutral mutations or beneficial mutations exist just as much and are consistent with Evolution as detrimental mutations are which is the same with traits or evolved behaviors.

Further, why are you advocating for barring people (ignostics and agnostics) from having these discussions?

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? — 3017amen

Do you have a coherent concept of god that you will give with accompanying properties?

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. — 3017amen

It isn't coherent to ask me "does ___ exists?" and never give me a word to substitute into there with accompanying meaning that you and I understand then such a thing to be or whether if it was inserted in the sentence it even makes coherent sense to ask the question. Undecided would be a weak agnostic position while saying that the question/word for the "entity" is ill-defined/incoherent/indeterminate then, until you give a proper definition of said enity, ignosticism is what i'll hold to which is what i've been saying this whole time. If you could point out where I flip flopped positions then please tell me and i'll change that?

I'm not saying the concept of god is always and forever will be with even a definition entirely incoherent thusly not warranting discussion. That is a cop out position but literally asking you for a coherent definition of terms is the start to every philosophical debate ever had but if the terms are not given then the what was it that was to be debated? Nobody would know and it would drift off into obscurity asking who did better in a debate that couldn't be had or what your own positions was on a debate that no one knew anything about.

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? — 3017amen

What? You give a definition of god (a coherent one) then the sentence (does god(s) exist?) suddenly attains meaning or coherency.

It wasn't incoherence simpliciter 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.

Do you not understand that if you convinced a person that god does exist (given a definition) then if they started out as an agnostic (weak one) then they would honestly truthfully move over to take on the label of theist. The discussion needs grounding (well defined terms) before we can move from the ignostic to any of the other many positions you could take regarding your belief/knowledge level regarding such an entity.

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? — 3017amen

I don't know what this god is that you speak of could you define what that is with clear attributes, no semantics, equivocations, contradictions, assert that you can read the minds of every other believer/religious person knowing then what they exactly mean by god, or supposedly declare your definition the one and only compared to many others. God by some is an equivocation of well known terms, a personal but rather strange conscious individual, or a role model to aspire to. To some he is separate from the universe others identical to the cosmos in some manner while, further, others declare him separate but still intervenes from time to time. Some (process philosophy) put him square in time (so to speak) as he changes along with the rest of us while others declare he is at the utmost core to his extremities forever unchanging. You cannot expect me to understand you fully when you tell me you believe in god without a definition of said concept or whether there is even really a discussion to be had for its existence.

"Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?" I investigated what other philosophers or people had to say about it or what it was defined as then realized that it fully covered (semantically) a state of mind about the discussion when I have no definition of god (none are presented or are coherently established) to be atheistic, agnostic (strong/weak), or theistic towards. Perhaps you and the other individual i've conversed here with do not understand that god means something different to every person whether that difference is largely useless in relation to its greater ontological status or they see it in a completely different ontological category.

How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh? — Hippyhead

So our ability to tell whether something exists or not is if we could put on a human made scale? Tell me, how much does the Earth weigh? It's a trick question because for something to have weight (the normal force of an object must impress up to you against the force of gravity) the Earth would have to be pressed up against something. . . but the Earth is definitely not nothing. . . why?

My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc. — Hippyhead

There are no characteristics of non-existence because for something to be non-existent it has to lack every property/relation. Further, yes, it exists whether its an inseparable cognitive faculty (Kant if I recall), its an emergent property of material systems (relationism), or its a substance in its own right (substantivalism) which perhaps even makes up what physical objects are (super-substantivalism). For something to have mass it must possess a resistance to being accelerated but photons seem to always move at the speed of light so therefore classically do not possess this sort of mass (or rest mass). Shape or form are dependent on our cognitive faculties to assess to a certain extent while color assumes (via known sciences) that the object in question emits a sort of radiation which spacetime does not. Though, there exists gravitational lensing/gravitational redshift which (together with the new found geodesics) give light different paths/wave lengths so it does effect them. Weight is dependent on gravitational interaction and the ability of another object to resist said force with equal but opposite normal force which cannot be replicated with photons but i'm assuming you think such objects clearly exist.

What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe. — Hippyhead

Might not? If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. Rinse and repeat having new models thrown at the wall to the point that they break then construct a new model that doesn't break that soon. At the moment a substantivalist model of spacetime or at least one that uses local energy/momentum distributions to determine the local geometry (thusly our geodesics) rather closely models reality while possessing inconsistencies on other scales or issues inherent in the mathematics that a better model would need to explain/encompass.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers. — Hippyhead

Yes, so if you tell me god exists/doesn't exists and then I ask you to give a definition. . . don't throw a temper tantrum but give me a coherent definition.

If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility. — Hippyhead

It could be or could not be but many people keep talking about god like they absolutely know what it's with various traditional/non-traditional definitions. Is it meaningless? Perhaps near the end of your life after debating this topic or conversing with various people on the existence of said entity you could make that assessment for yourself just as easily as I could when that time comes.

I didn't say god...I said gods.

I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.

Neither do you.

But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.

You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.

There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question. — Frank Apisa

You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. 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?

I've given mine. Here it is again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.

Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing. — Frank Apisa

Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it.

No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is? — Frank Apisa

What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.

You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum.

Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic. — Frank Apisa

If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum?

What are you talking about???

Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is? — Frank Apisa

This is non-cognitivism. At least with respect to religious discussions but because its focus seems to be in terms of language philosophy it could be readily applied to other areas of philosophy. Here is a video also on the concept about some guy discussing said concept in reply to another. Because ignosticism is so closely in line (if not exactly the same) as the previous concept you saying using such a label is devoid of meaning made me think you would readily apply the same sentiment to theological non-cognitivism as well. Was going to give a link but that didn't work on my phone so I apologize for that straw-man.

I'll just add that ignosticism is similar to agnosticism, atheism, or theism in all their varied definitions as these are all usually tentative positions. If I recall, some make the distinction between strong or weak agnostics in which a weak agnostic is one in which they personally have no belief/evidential leaning one way or the other on a particular conception of god. Strong agnostics, however, either on all gods or particular gods would claim it's impossible to ever know a god truly does exist. It's conceivable that a militant strong agnostic (sounds funny) could shut down a discussion before one even begins by saying smugly "you can't know a god does/doesn't exist". Just as easily as you may think an ignostic/non-cognitivist would also attempt to do but note that just as an agnostic is one who holds their position in epistemological virtue of being open minded (openly admitting their ignorance of opinion) about being convinced such a entity exists an ignostic cannot even discuss the issue until (philosophy 101) you have coherently defined the concept in question.

I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. — EricH

Why thank you.

I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect. — Hippyhead

No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing. It contains inherent geometrical properties and perhaps is even affected by the relations of matter or the energy/momentum content within it. Nothingness is the absence of any properties. Either it exists distinctly from matter or it's an emergent property of matter that arises from it. In either case it isn't nothing.

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion. — Frank Apisa

Most philosophers? Either they didn't know of such a position or they actively were involved, or loosely, in the god discussion so then they acknowledged they knew what they were talking about. At that point they were not ignostics anymore but agnostic, atheist, theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theists, defacto atheists, etc. It's all word games until you let the other person talk. But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't?

If god is a meaningless term then so is the question, does god exist? God isn't meaningless? Then we can actually discuss its veracity/probable likelihood to exist, contains a contradiction so therefore cannot, or is deistic so we literally could never know it exists. Or we substituted the word god for other terms (god is all of existence) so we didn't actually disagree at all but had a non-discussion.

We cannot discuss whether something exists or not...if you have no idea about what your saying is that doesn't/does exist. Once you define your terms and it's no longer language games then were both make the transition from ignostic to any of the usual positions taken.

One should first understand what history is, to understand hat history books are, and then one may approach their contents. In any case, the Christian Bible is no history book, nor does any but the fond think it is. — tim wood

Why do you indulge him when he seems to intentionally ignore that an anecdotal (perhaps second to even third hand or more) stories relaying true facts about the world (Jerusalem, pontius pilot, etc) can still obviously have them interspersed with rather elaborate special natural phenomenon (miracles) that have never been suspected to occur nor have ever occurred again. That the dubious metaphysical claims about the real world made in the text is what were confounded by just flies right over his head?

The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe. — Hippyhead

Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. Other spacetime philosophy perspectives such as relationism or super-substantivalism split ways with this but while one is emergent from another spacetime still would exist in some manner. In other words even a modern day physicalist would or could add spacetime to their ontology without issue though its truer ontological virtue is rather unclear.

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.

I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.

And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.

"I do not know" makes lots of sense.

"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.

At least, as I see it. — Frank Apisa

Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".

Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense.

You can't expect definitive answers to your questions. Remember that we are in the philosophical field.

Anyway, my answer:

Two types of materialism are often proposed: metaphysical and epistemological. My option is different --although close to the second-- : I defend a materialism without matter. My definition of materialism is based on Wittgenstein's familiy-resemblance. A semantic perspective, at least.
I suggest abandoning the search for something called "matter" and focusing on this question:
What is called "materialism" in the different branches of knowledge?

This leads to energy and mass in physics; to biochemical processes in biology; to the brain and behavior in psychology; to productive forces in history; to empiricism in epistemology.

All these options are similar in that they are opposed to supernatural: God, the spirit, the ideal. In short, materialism is the thesis of a unique world at hand. — David Mo

Not exactly a definite answer but a collection of answers.

Intriguing perspective. . . I wouldn't have thought to dive right into the semantic end but here we are. I've been more interested as of late into process philosophy which deals with this substance disagreement by dissolving it rather robustly. You on the other hand consider semantic considerations first which is a fairly wonderful take on this.

I don't think we need to break our heads on the definition of "physical". Only recognize that thoughts aren't the same as, say, a pencil or a tree. No matter, how one defines "physical" or its antithesis "immaterial" we won't have a good enough reason to put thoughts in the same category of pencils or trees or brains. That's what I think anyway. What say you? — TheMadFool

So are our experiences of the tree and imagined version of the tree completely different substances? That the difference in experience we possess with them warrants a rather significant distinguishing of their natures?

The way that the traditional philosophers conceived it was that 'the ideal' was not an experience, as such, but what was 'grasped by the intellect' (where 'intellect' is a translation of the Greek 'nous'.) So in the idealist tradition, the form, idea, or essence of a particular was what made something what it is, and the intellect/nous was what enabled the rational mind to understand the forms, and therefore see the essence of things - to see what things truly are. — Wayfarer

I'm not claiming this is what you are claiming but how would they know (those philosophers) when you've found the essence and all of it contained in our experience or mental processes? How did they know that what made these entirely what they are may not have much to do with the outward appearance we pride ourselves on always noticing. We experience something but it would be rather jutting to say i've experienced therefore everything that specifically this is and not merely a part of it.

Oh, and one more point. The meaning of ‘substance’ in philosophy is quite different to its meaning in ordinary language. ‘Substatia’ was the Latin term chosen by translators for Aristotle’s ‘ouisia’, a word which in many respects is much nearer to our ‘being’ than ‘stuff’. A ‘substance’ was ‘that in which attributes inhere’ - a classic example being that Socrates is an instance of the substance Man, whose eyes happen to be blue. So ‘being a man’ is the substance, and blueness of the eyes is an attribute. — Wayfarer

I understand substance as that which adheres properties to it or grounds them basically the "substance versus bundle" issue. Though, the substance of something and all its properties (monadic as well as relational) are hard to experientially distinguish especially when the substance of something is directly to be known. Properties are rather easily made aware among my intellect or daily waking awareness but foundational substances i'm more unsure.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

The first is direct personal admittance of ignorance and the latter comments a form of epistemologically successful deduction on your part. A respectable position to hold and for others rather frustrating as to hold any one position (theist, atheist, ignostic, agnostic) there must be a clear definition of the terms involved including the word god here. If such a concept proved to be incoherent then we would all be atheist, if it merely rebranded meaning wise to another readily existent thing/concept (universe) then perhaps we are all theistic, and if it falls along the line of a deistic/classical conception of god then an agnostic position would be perhaps most favored. In lieu of these situations we are all ignostics.

"1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...
— opt-ae
3. There is no "before the big bang".

This last is the view implicit in the very physical theory that deduced the big bang. — Banno

I'd be rather careful with extrapolating physical theories as such given their parasitic assumptions on certain space-time philosophies. In this case it seems you're using a sort of spacetime realist interpretation of general relativity and also extending a theory perhaps to a point in which it breaks down (singularities appear). This is a particular interpretation of the theory and not exactly the one or only.

F-it. I'm done, this is giving me anxiety with your constant convolution of the discussion or constant re-adjusting of positions/lines of argumentation. I'm going to take the advice I should have from the other few posters I directly asked about this discussion or you and just stop.

I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance. — Frank Apisa

Are you being jokey/sarcastic, pedantic, or really wondering about the grammatical/language/philosophy that goes into a proper definition? Though, if you have been following the frustrating conversation this person seems to want to not either give up understandable definition of what he means by god or propose a definition which we have words that specifically already describe said concept; consciousness, emotions, wonder, existence, reality, universe, etc. You can call these things god but that doesn't change the concepts its being substituted name wise for.

Driving and daydreaming to the point of distraction and accidental death.

Not sure I'm connecting the dots on your logic associated with performing brain surgery. — 3017amen

I can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? I'm assuming you are greatly detached from reality given your posts and your insistance of the failure of "atheism" or aka science to discover/explain anything.

Great, there actually might be agreement there. You passed history 101! — 3017amen

So you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.