In defence of Weak Ignosticism

[McCulloch]

Since the word God has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that particular concept of God. It is meaningless and pointless to discuss or debate the existence of God without first having an agreed upon, coherent definition of what is meant by the word God.

Question for debate: Can anyone invalidate the Weak Ignostic position by showing that there is some underlying concept of the meaning of the word God common to the writers of the Bible, Augustine, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, Søren Kierkegaard, pantheists, deists, polytheists et al?

[Divine Insight]

Question for debate: Can anyone invalidate the Weak Ignostic position by showing that there is some underlying concept of the meaning of the word God common to the writers of the Bible, Augustine, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, Søren Kierkegaard, pantheists, deists, polytheists et al?

I am in complete agreement with Weak Ignosticism.

Anyone who wants to argue for a concept of God better have a meaningful workable definition.

I personally don't see how any definition can be constructed to simultaneously embrace all of the theologies that you have listed.

The Biblical theology for one demands a conscious sentient jealous God who speaks from burning bushes and clouds, etc. That's certainly not going to be the same concept of God that is held by pantheists, for example.

Having said the above, I think it is possible to argue for a pantheistic God, or at least a panentheistic God who could potentially have a central sentient consciousness. However, it seems to me that this concept is totally lost on the Bible. The Biblical God has simply been described as having done things that simply make make no sense. So I just don't see how it can be salvaged as a meaningful picture of God, especially not as written verbatim.

Allow for extreme abstraction and the rejection of much of the verbatim material of the Bible as being contamination or corruption by men, and perhaps something could be salvage. The only problem is that at that point it's not longer the verbatim Biblical God, right?

What's the point in calling it the "Biblical God" if we have to toss out half of the Bible, and pretend the other half is saying something it's not actually saying, in order to make it work? That would hardly be the "Biblical God".

So I agree, a very clear definition for the term "God" is in order.

[AlanFromMI]

Question for debate: Can anyone invalidate the Weak Ignostic position by showing that there is some underlying concept of the meaning of the word God common to the writers of the Bible, Augustine, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, Søren Kierkegaard, pantheists, deists, polytheists et al?

I am in complete agreement with Weak Ignosticism.

Anyone who wants to argue for a concept of God better have a meaningful workable definition.

I personally don't see how any definition can be constructed to simultaneously embrace all of the theologies that you have listed.

The Biblical theology for one demands a conscious sentient jealous God who speaks from burning bushes and clouds, etc. That's certainly not going to be the same concept of God that is held by pantheists, for example.

Having said the above, I think it is possible to argue for a pantheistic God, or at least a panentheistic God who could potentially have a central sentient consciousness. However, it seems to me that this concept is totally lost on the Bible. The Biblical God has simply been described as having done things that simply make make no sense. So I just don't see how it can be salvaged as a meaningful picture of God, especially not as written verbatim.

Allow for extreme abstraction and the rejection of much of the verbatim material of the Bible as being contamination or corruption by men, and perhaps something could be salvage. The only problem is that at that point it's not longer the verbatim Biblical God, right?

What's the point in calling it the "Biblical God" if we have to toss out half of the Bible, and pretend the other half is saying something it's not actually saying, in order to make it work? That would hardly be the "Biblical God".

So I agree, a very clear definition for the term "God" is in order.

It would seem to me that a god would would be vastly beyond our ability to comprehend. So, whenever I hear someone say, "I believe in god(s)," I say fine. If they say that this god can do this or that, again, I say fine. It'd be extremely powerful so it's not inconsistent to say it has the power to do something. HOWEVER, the more they move towards characteristics in their definition/description the less likely they seem to be. The reason being, it would seem to me, is that they'd need to start accounting for why this god has those characteristics when it's a being beyond our physical realm.

If it's a god it'll have some universally accepted abilities/powers, or at least to some degree. The problem is the more characteristics you begin giving it the more you need to explain and provide a reason why we should believe your god has those characteristics:

Your god can create the Universe? Plausible, if it exists and is a god. Your god is also jealous? .... So, your god can create the Universe, do whatever it wants, has all this power, but becomes jealous? It creates something, creates another thing, creates the ability for that thing to like the other thing, then gets jealous when it does.... you really need to explain that one to me in a way that makes sense or you're just really talking out of your behind.

Perhaps, you'll say it's a necessity for free will. Now, you're only complicating the matter and adding layer upon layer. You have free will, but if you exercise that free will in what this god deems the wrong way then you're subject to his jealousy, and must suffer some consequences.