Jonti
what the dormouse said
Quite a few theological debates here are accompanied by a querulous chorus of complaint that no-one can assert - or deny - the existence of any deity without first saying what they mean."Tell me what God means to you, before asking me what I think of the idea!"
This point of view tends to be swept aside in the passion of the debate. The god-botherers continue with their fact-free, highly imaginative interpretations of the universe, while the godless do what we do best, which is point and laugh at the deluded.
After all, the person who argues with a fool, can seem just as much of a fool for even bothering. So one cannot really engage and argue with god-intoxication, any more than with any other form of lunacy. It is sometimes better just to point and laugh at such foolishness, rather than to seem to take it seriously.
All good fun perhaps, but it hardly advances the discussion, or promotes mutual understanding.
Enter Ignosticism or igtheism, "the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. It asserts that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed."
Seems fair enough to me. But I doubt any believer can actually say what they mean by "the term they use to name their deity" in any coherent way.
So, can you? 'Fess up, all you soggy god-botherers, and spell it out. Define your deity so we can sensibly assess whether such a thing is even possible, let alone plausible!