I was wondering if there's a name for my religious views. I'm pretty sure it would be some form of agnosticism.

I would say:

It would be logical that there exists one or more entities we can categorize as god, but at our current level of consciousnesses, it is probably impossible to comprehend it, or deduce its (in)existence."

  • Could you please elaborate what you mean by an entity being able to "categorize as a god"? If it was currently impossible to neither deduce its (in)existence nor comprehend it, how would you define the term god in the first place? (I am asking this to falisify if you could be a theological noncognitivist / ignostic.)
    – k0pernikus
    May 17, 2015 at 22:14
  • 2
    All religious beliefs are irrational, so that's certainly a possible classification. Other than that it sounds like the classical ontological argument of Descartes and others, It's invalid as logic but presumably very much a comfort to believers. May 17, 2015 at 22:27
  • @k0pernikus A god would be an entity which impacts physical space in a way humans deem impossible, and can not (yet) understand or explain. A 2015 human would classify as a god if brought back to 500bc, together with some modern, battery-run gadgets, firearms, etc.
    – srgb
    May 18, 2015 at 9:08
  • @Netismine So according to your definition a god could be any entity, even a human being, as long as the believer would make an appeal ignorance and assume that entity was a god?
    – k0pernikus
    May 18, 2015 at 9:11
  • I do not relate divine status with dogmatic belief. God is an entity which possesses greater level of consciousnesses, acquired through biological evolution, scientific progress, or maybe existence outside of known physical space. Whether or not humans choose to worship it, is irrelevant.
    – srgb
    May 18, 2015 at 9:20

3 Answers 3


It sounds like Agnostic Theism:

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.


The rather fuzzy god term that you are using is pretty similar to a popular trope in science fiction, namely that of the Sufficiently Advanced Alien as e.g. seen in Star Trek with the Q.

Such being does not necessarily need to transcend the laws of nature and can still be bound by them. It may be that it only has a better understanding of nature. Or it may have "ascenced to a higher plane of existence" (what ever that may mean).

Especially your statement that:

A 2015 human would classify as a god if brought back to 500bc, together with some modern, battery-run gadgets, firearms, etc

is pretty close to Clark's Thrird Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

And Michael Sherner adapted that statement into:

Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God

I am not aware if there exists a label for this kind of theism, yet a few religions and sects and other esoteric world views have include this way of thinking at least to some degree.

A current one would be Mormonism whose believers claim by its doctrine of Exaltation that "human beings can grow and progress spiritually until ... they can inherit and possess all that the Father has—they can become gods".


Could be some sort of Deism

Are you willing to accept some of these ideals?

Features of deism

The concept of deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century describes three features[17] constituting the core of deism:

Rejection of religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.
Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructional elements of deist thought included:

God exists and created the universe.
God gave humans the ability to reason.


  • Thank you for this suggestion. I do not accept the first proposition - I allow the possibility of divine inspiration in writing or preaching the word of a god. Naturally, that word would have been distorted by centuries. Also, God did not necessarily create the universe. God could be nothing else but an advanced alien being that shares the same universe and laws of physics which are known to us. My stand is that suman's ability to reason is not necessarily divine - dogs can reason as well, although on a lower level of consciousnesses.
    – srgb
    May 18, 2015 at 8:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .