Ignostic?

[ThePainefulTruth]

According to the Ignostic page here, an Ignostic is someone whose position is that, "I don't know what you mean when you say, 'God exists' "

God, as a minimum, would have to be the self-aware conscious embodiment of all that exists, including the natural and supernatural, knowledge and imagination. Yes, that would indirectly include evil, but evil only exists in the mind of fully self-aware man, and would have to be consigned to oblivion when he dies.

God could have always been, or come into existence with the advent of the universe, but that's essentially irrelevant for Ignostic purposes, as is the question of evil.

BTW, the Ignostic Creed above is somewhat belligerent in that it not only says that they don't know what "God exists" means, it implies that they don't really care or want to know and aren't asking.

I answered anyway.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 8 by ThePainefulTruth]

... No, materialist has two meanings
1) That all real interactions are material
or 2) Obsession with wealth

I combined the two.

I don't see why being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient would mean embodying anything. I guess I don't understand what you actually mean embodying things.

The universe is God (or part of It). One is equivalent with the other, pandeism if you will.
//

You could say that there are different contexts for existing, and that none of these are non-trivially matched by the non-physical. Similar to a namespace in programming, something may only exist within one scope but not another - for instance, Gandalf exists in fiction, specifically Gandalf exists within Tolkien's lore of Middle-Earth - but he does not exist outside of fiction.

Gandolf may be fictional, but the idea of him is not. Thoughts and emotions from the synapses firing in our brain are simultaneously recorded in the (I'm serious) quantum computer that is the universe.

Qualia themselves (such as thoughts, emotions, illusions; all experiences) only 'exist' subjectively; within the scope of an individual. To bring them out of that scope is not possible - because they would no longer be qualia. I recall saying "everything we know that exists in reality", when I said reality I was not referring to personal experience.
Illusions exist in exactly the same sense that qualia do; e.g. thoughts and emotions. (they are a kind of qualia)

But they have a physical source without which they are not thought, felt or communicated, as you say here:.

That's not to say the concept of a specific quale, or even the concept of qualia (or the concept of the concept... etc) are themselves qualia - they exist in a shared environment, they exist socially (i.e. across the experiences of multiple individuals).

What is an experience? An observation from within a system. Nothing more, nothing less. If that is insufficient and you wish greater explanation, then you might be starved of it forever. There is no need to separate the experience from the system's processing. No more information is expressed. You just make the language more convoluted and the model less parsimonius.

You shine a light on a board, a frog and a man. The board reflects or absorbs it and nothing more. The frog can see it and react. The man can say that's light which is composed of many colors, has a speed and wavelength(s), is a symbol for Truth, and can communicate that information to other humans who can all store that information in their heads. It's more than an experience, its a memory.

"Is there something beyond the planck space-time gaps in the fabric of the Universe?"
I don't see how this is particularly relevant, (and that's not even taking into account that only some models like quantum loop gravity propose discrete spacetime), but if by "beyond" you mean "between" then of course nothing by definition.
Similar to how in the set of natural numbers, nothing exists between 1 and 2.

Bad analogy. You can't say nothing is between them by definition because we don't even know why that limit exists. You could theorize that it's the limit of the natural universe, but what if the natural universe was "extruded" from a supernatural ether which we would have no way of detecting? I think Planck space-time is the most mind boggling idea I've ever come across.

Once again we encroach on the "natural". What is even meant by this? How would thoughts or consciousness be supernatural?

By being able to transcend a barrier between the natural and the hyper-natural (as opposed to the term supernatural with all its baggage).

Ignosticism is certainly seeming to me to be more and more reasonable.

But I don't think ignostics even want to ask the question. They aren't afraid of definitions (otherwise they couldn't talk), but afraid of answers.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 11 by ThePainefulTruth]

I don't recognise the Universe as consistent with the main etymology and usage of the word God.

Depending on your definition of the Universe, God might be a part of it, but I don't see why it would be the other way around.
It certainly wouldn't need to be, to be a God.

The concept of Gandalf is shared, and exists as a shared idea - but this means the same as saying Gandalf exists as an idea.

Memory is just remembered experience. Nothing impressive.
This might get semantic, but both memory and the concept of any experience instanced in reality, physically. (In the same way files on a computer are, but even then you could still say "but that doesn't explain what it's like to be the computer accessing the files")
It's just that adding qualia to the model is unnecessary.

Even if these were considered to exist in the same sense (saying something exists like an illusion or like a fictional character is not a good start), it would not be beneficial to your position. You couldn't think of something that's distinct from both experience (inc. 'shared experience') and reality.

As I said, only some models propose discrete spacetime or the idea that the Universe can literally only be broken up into so many chunks. What that hypothesis would mean is that there isn't anything between them, exactly in the same way that there aren't any natural numbers between 1 and 2. The hypothesis proposes a limit.
Sure, the hypothesis could be wrong. But then there isn't saying there is something "between the planck space time gaps" saying there aren't "planck space time gaps".

"Transcend a barrier between the natural and the hyper-natural"
Once again, turtles upon turtles.
What is natural? What is hyper-natural?

It would be fine if ignostics didn't want to ask the question and were apatheistic, I don't care about discussing whether leprechauns exist. That counts as me not wanting to ask the question. That does not mean that I'm afraid of the answers.

Ignostics explain a very real problem that they're not even sure what theism is. Until you ground theism in known concepts (which, so long as you're going to define some theistic concepts as fundamentally different from literally everything secularism is aware of, is literally impossible) not only do we not know what you're talking about, but we don't know if you actually are talking about anything.

What's the difference between a world in which there's a working camera connected to a computer receiving input, and a world in which there's a working camera connected to the computer which is experiencing sight?
There's no objective difference, and you can never evaluate philosophy with regards to another person's subjectives.

[Divine Insight]

If we didn't have self-awareness, then we wouldn't have will either. We'd only be reacting by instinct and conditioning.

What exactly do you mean by "self-awareness"?

Does a cat or dog have self-awareness?

Does a worm have self-awareness?

Does a plant have self-awareness?

You make all these claims, but I have no clue what you even mean by them because I'm not sure how you are using your terms. What exactly do you feel constitutes self-awareness?

Almost all animals can be said to have some form of consciousness. Some animals have demonstrated primitive self-awareness, mostly dolphins, primates and elephants. I believe humans are the only life on Earth that demonstrates full self-awareness, which beyond primitive self-awareness of say recognizing that that is you in the mirror, to realizing that other people have self-awareness like you do, and finally awareness of the inevitability and permanence of death. Without full self-awareness we are innocent and have no moral free will which we can exercise instead of instinct. Without it, we wouldn't be able to realize what we're about to do to him or her would be like if we were in their shoes. Without it, morality can't exist.

So then you are demanding that a God must have selflessness (as you use this term) as a minimum requirement?

Using the term as you define it here I will then agree with your last statement. "Without out it morality can't exist". But then you have recognized and acknowledge precisely the source and original of the concept of "morality". A source and concept that I do not disagree with at all.

In fact, since self-awareness (as you defined it) is the the very source of morality then morality is solely a subjective concept that arises from self-awareness. In fact, by your own definition above, "Without it, we wouldn't be able to realize what we're about to do to him or her would be like if we were in their shoes", morality is not only a result of self-awareness but it also requires what psychologists call "Theory of Mind". The ability to recognize that other people are also self-aware in the same way we are.

This poses a very serious problem when considering a single monotheistic "God" as the source of morality since a God that is the only thing that exists could not have a "Theory of Mind" until some other self-aware creatures existed. And of course in terms of something like that Biblical God this would totally violate the idea that the Biblical God is moral at all by your definition of morality. Why? Well, because the Biblical God is threatening to condemn other souls into a state of eternal suffering, and that, by your definition of morality, would be the most immoral act possible.

So clearly your concept of a "minimal requirement for God" is not even viable in Biblical terms. Especially if you want to speak of this God as being the source of any form of morality.

So you've just basically demanded that whatever "God" might be, it cannot be the source of morality.

[ThePainefulTruth]

If we didn't have self-awareness, then we wouldn't have will either. We'd only be reacting by instinct and conditioning.

What exactly do you mean by "self-awareness"?

Does a cat or dog have self-awareness?

Does a worm have self-awareness?

Does a plant have self-awareness?

You make all these claims, but I have no clue what you even mean by them because I'm not sure how you are using your terms. What exactly do you feel constitutes self-awareness?

Almost all animals can be said to have some form of consciousness. Some animals have demonstrated primitive self-awareness, mostly dolphins, primates and elephants. I believe humans are the only life on Earth that demonstrates full self-awareness, which beyond primitive self-awareness of say recognizing that that is you in the mirror, to realizing that other people have self-awareness like you do, and finally awareness of the inevitability and permanence of death. Without full self-awareness we are innocent and have no moral free will which we can exercise instead of instinct. Without it, we wouldn't be able to realize what we're about to do to him or her would be like if we were in their shoes. Without it, morality can't exist.

So then you are demanding that a God must have selflessness (as you use this term) as a minimum requirement?

Demanding??? Assuming you mean self-awareness not selflessness, yes--recognizing that s-a is a higher form of consciousness. A God without will wouldn't fit any definition of God which I'm aware of. All It could do would be to watch. Pointless.

Using the term as you define it here I will then agree with your last statement. "Without out it morality can't exist". But then you have recognized and acknowledge precisely the source and original of the concept of "morality". A source and concept that I do not disagree with at all.

In fact, since self-awareness (as you defined it) is the the very source of morality then morality is solely a subjective concept that arises from self-awareness. In fact, by your own definition above, "Without it, we wouldn't be able to realize what we're about to do to him or her would be like if we were in their shoes", morality is not only a result of self-awareness but it also requires what psychologists call "Theory of Mind". The ability to recognize that other people are also self-aware in the same way we are.

But morality is the objective rules for governing the interactions between those self-awarenesses, if you will, by making those rules to protect the rights of all equally. Yes, there will always be those who declare their rights to be superior to another's, even to encoding their "superiority" into law. Any such double standard is indeed subjective and essentially the only source of evil. We all establish our own subjective rules (virtues) for our personal behavior which don't violate the rights of others, though they are still subject to non-violent social pressure.

This poses a very serious problem when considering a single monotheistic "God" as the source of morality since a God that is the only thing that exists could not have a "Theory of Mind" until some other self-aware creatures existed.

God isn't the source of morality. For our purposes, we can't even tell if God exist. Morality is reasonably derived by determining what our rights are and valuing our self-awarenesses equally in the protection of those rights.

And of course in terms of something like that Biblical God this would totally violate the idea that the Biblical God is moral at all by your definition of morality. Why? Well, because the Biblical God is threatening to condemn other souls into a state of eternal suffering, and that, by your definition of morality, would be the most immoral act possible.

One of the many reasons that all revealed gods are bogus.

So clearly your concept of a "minimal requirement for God" is not even viable in Biblical terms. Especially if you want to speak of this God as being the source of any form of morality.

So you've just basically demanded that whatever "God" might be, it cannot be the source of morality.

As you'll notice, I've already agreed with that.

[Mr.Badham]

It's official... I'm Ignostic.

[McCulloch]

There are two variants of ignosticism: weak, "there are so many different concepts about god out there. I don't know which one you mean. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about the existence of god until we agree on one particular definition. I may be agnostic towards a deistic god yet atheistic towards a personal one. "
Strong also known as Theological noncognitivism: "the word God, is not cognitively meaningful. "

[Mr.Badham]

There are two variants of ignosticism: weak, "there are so many different concepts about god out there. I don't know which one you mean. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about the existence of god until we agree on one particular definition. I may be agnostic towards a deistic god yet atheistic towards a personal one. "
Strong also known as Theological noncognitivism: "the word God, is not cognitively meaningful. "

The word god is not cognitively meaningful because there are so many different concepts about god out there.

Go back and read what Divine Insight has to say! I'm assuming it's one person and even that one person can't agree.

Until I experience what I perceive to be a god, I have no reason to assume that anyone else has either. Because of that I don't believe there is a god. That makes me Atheist. Because I am Atheist, I have searched for people who may have had experiences with a god. I have yet to meet any. Because of that I am ignostic.

I have met old people, I have met men and women, and I have met grown ups, but I don't know if I have ever met an adult. I think it's kind of like a Buddha. You hear about them, you want to be one, but it takes a lot of effort so.....