I. Introduction: Again, Here I Go…

Now, I want to make this clear from the beginning that this is merely an attempt at an overview of the general argument for non-cognitivism or ignosticsm. I haven’t created the formal proof, however I independently formed a much more informal (I would say embarrassing) argument several years ago. A good deal of the proof will be ripped from George Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God and Michael Martin’s The Impossibility of God, so I suggest you check their books out and see their larger arguments. Man, are these guys smart!

There are generally two forms of strong belief I expressed earlier [as opposed to pantheism, etc.]: deism and theism. These beliefs are most commonly encountered by atheists today. Well, as a skeptic, it gets difficult to argue against all the dozens of beliefs out there. This is designed to help those that seek to argue against deism. Now, many atheists see theism as easy to refute, but deism seems like a challenge. You want to know one way to combat deism? It’s actually very easy: Become an ignostic!

“Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” you might say. No. Ignostic. An ignostic (or a noncognitivist, some might call them) finds certain definitions of God to be meaningless. There are two forms of ignosticism: subjective noncognitivism (subjective ignosticsm) and objective noncognitivism (objective ignosticism). The subjective noncognitivist says that certain definitions of God are meaningless to him while the objective noncognitivist says that these definitions are inherently meaningless. I’ll be giving the argument from the objective ignostic’s approach. The obvious way to refute the ignostic is to give a working definition of the God they describe as meaningless that has meaning.

a. A Working Definition of Theism: Why on Earth Can I Currently Dismiss It?

In this article, my working definition of theism will be the belief that the being described in the Torah, New Testament, and Koran exists, and as being so powerful in comparison to humans as to be omniscient, omnipresent, all-benevolent, and omnipotent, and this being takes interest in the world around us, influencing events when it so chooses. It’s most commonly called “God.” To keep the theist and deist gods separate, it will be referred to as God₁.

[I don’t think he exists.]
Now, the argument for God₁ is either true or false. I can only conclude, in the light of the evidence, a God₁ that is a large and powerful entity that resides in the sky does not exist. I see that all the evidence points to its non-existence. Later on, I’ll be covering the reasons why I don’t believe, but until then, I’d like to focus on other claims. This article is not primarily directed at the theist; this is for the deist.
b. A Working Definition of Deism: Lots of Italics and Capital Letters
I will define deism as a belief that a certain being exists, and this being created the universe around us, imbued humanity with souls which live on after we die, did not provide scriptural revelation or act in any perceivable way on the universe besides its creation, yet may guide the universe in a certain direction. It is Perfect, Immutable, Transcendent, Infinite, Limitless, and Immaterial. This being is called by many classical deists as “The Supreme Being.” For the sake of clarifying, this god will be referred to as God₂. [White Painting, Malevich, 1918.]At first glance, the argument for deism is impossible to refute, since God₂ is impossible to detect. Compared to the theist’s god, God₂ is somewhat vague. It’s “All that.” It’s White Painting, but only less so. Unlike in theism, God₂ provides no evidence for its existence, and the deists of history have tried to use reason and logic to prove its existence. In other words, it is logically on par with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, there is a way to analyze and ultimately debunk God₂ without comparison to other gods, and that is by way of the argument from non-cognitivism.
II. The Meaning of Claims: I Say “Tomato,” you say “Grrrkfrumrrrck”
Let’s begin with a simple experiment. I’ll present three statements, and let’s evaluate them together.
1. The fire is warm.
I hope we can agree that there is a “Yes” or “No” answer to the claim. We have all seen and felt the heat of fire. We all have felt warmth. We have all experienced warm fires, never observing a cold fire.
It is always possible that a fire could be cold, since it is an inductive argument. This is of no importance, since the answer could be “No” and still make sense. The claim makes sense to us, since the attributes of fire allow for a secondary characteristic, namely warmth. From this, we can see that primary attributes give rise to secondary attributes.2. The language is warm.This is an impossible statement. Language’s attributes do not place it in the same realm as fire. I might as well tell you that “…Green ideas sleep furiously.” Ideas cannot be green, colorless, sleep, or express any opinion; they are ideas. The sentence cannot happen. From this, we can see that secondary attributes are dependant on the object or idea.

3. The soul is warm.

Does this sentence mean anything to you? If it does, I suggest seeing a doctor, since people of all faiths, cultures and creeds can agree that it is meaningless. But why doesn’t it make sense? Well, this is due to the undefined attributes and qualities of the subject. We know nothing of what the soul is. We only know what the soul is not. The soul is not material [or immaterial]. It is a negative statement. The soul could be warm, blue, smelly, angry, or all sorts of other attributes, but we cannot know.

For example, I could say, “I am not Soulster,” but this says nothing about who or what I am. I could be anyone or anything in the universe. While I am not Soulster, there is no primary positive attribute given to me, so what definition of me is there if my attributes are only negative? If I only have negative attributes, I am anything you want me to be. To you, I may be blue; to your neighbor, I could be warm and angry.

If primary attributes give rise to secondary attributes and the secondary attributes are dependant on the primary attribute, then if the primary attribute is a negative statement, then the secondary attributes can be anything, anyone, or everything the individual wants. In essence, it is undefined.
By analyzing these three sentences, we can form categories: 1. The sentence is coherent: the subject’s attributes follow, and are true or false; 2. The sentence is coherent, but impossible because the subject’s attributes do not follow, so is dismissible; 3. The sentence is not coherent, its attributes are undefined, and it is impossible to answer in the affirmative or negative.

What then is the primary attribute of the soul, or supernatural activities, or miracles, or God₂?

III. The Spirit, Miracles, and the Supernatural

a. The Soul

The definition of the spirit or soul is impossible to say, since its one main definition is that it is immaterial, or is not the body. It is a substance that has no substance. It is a thing that does not operate on the normal plane of existence: invisible, untouchable, and immeasurable. It exists in the body, but is not the body.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. [Matthew 10:28]

Here, the soul means something that is not the body.

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Thessalonians 5:23]

Here, the soul and spirit are separate from each other, but the soul is not the spirit or body, while the spirit is not he soul or body.

So, the soul is something that is not material, not visible, not touchable, and not measurable.

b. The Supernatural

The primary definition for supernatural encounters the problem of no positive definition as well. Really, what people consider the supernatural to be is not natural in some way. It is unlikely to happen, breaking the laws of nature.
Literally, it is Latin for super (exceeding) + nature. What exceeds (is not) nature? The supernatural. But what is the supernatural? That which is not nature.

So, the supernatural is something that is not natural, not likely, and does not follow the laws of nature. We have no positive definition!

c. The Miracle

[A] transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. (Hume, 123n)

[T]hose things are properly called miracles which are done by divine agency beyond the order commonly observed in nature (Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, III).

It is above the natural law, as when one dead is restored to life… independent of the law, as when something that might be done by natural causes… (New Catholic Dictionary)

The miracle happens infrequently and is not possible to explain. So, the miracle is not common, not explainable, and is not bound to the laws of nature. Where is the positive definition?

III. But What About God₂?

God₂ is defined as Perfect, Immutable, Transcendent, Infinite, Limitless, and Immaterial. These are some nifty attributes, but how do they fare if we check to see if all of these are negative?

“Perfect” is to be without flaw,

“Immutable” is to be without corruption,

“Infinite” is to be without a restraint of time,

“Limitless” is to be without boundaries, and

“Immaterial” is to be lacking of a material substance.

All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. (George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3)

If the definitions of God₂ are all negative, then what is the primary attribute of God₂? It may be anything, or everything. It is undefined. It could be Love, or Law, or unicorns, blue, angry, or warm, for all we can know.

There is a set of theology that tries to deal with this: Apophaticism, or Negative Theology, attempts to prove that we may define God₂ as what is not.

…Negative Theology presupposes the validity of affirmative theology; the negative predicates are possible only if it is possible to know their positive counter-parts. If God cannot be known in some positive way, God cannot be known at all… (George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, Chapter 3.)

So, they go about this by showing what God is not. However, the Apophaticist must know what the primary attributes of God are, otherwise he might define God as something he’s not. If this is so, we cannot begin to claim what God₂ is not without understanding what God₂ is. However, we cannot understand God₂ by the Apophaticist’s own admission.

To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way. (George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, Chapter 3.)

IV. The Proof: Make of It What You Will

1. Given that there are primary attributes.

2. Given that all secondary attributes stem from primary attributes.

3. Therefore, if there are no primary attributes, then there cannot be secondary attributes.

4. God₂ does not have a primary attribute.

5. Therefore, God₂ does not have any secondary attributes.

6. A term without attributes is meaningless.

7. Therefore, God₂ is meaningless.

A more appropriate response to the question “Does God₂ exist?” would then be “Mu.” [wiki].