I  define ignosticism as the notion that as His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, He is meaningless, conrary to my friend David Ramsay Steele who finds Him understandable. What I mean is that whilst one can fathom the  definitions of His attributes and Him, their incoherence really means that He means nothing.
 David states that had scientists resorted to verification, they'd have overlooked atoms and now- superstrngs,  but right before that he states in principle. Indeed, those two matters in principle were knowable whilst God defends on theologian's it must be's and guesses [ John Hick really guesses in dealing with the problem of evil1]. 
 I find as arguments for Him beg the question, such notions as First Cause are meaningless such that theistic arguments themselves affirm ignosticism or in this case, kake it igtheism.
 Google the ignostic-Ockham to get others and my take on it and on the Ockham.
  And I  find it underpins all atheism as one of the naturalist arguments.
  Ghraham Robert Oppy,  my friend, [ " Arguing about Gods "] is wrting a book on HIs attributes. I hope he shhows how they are nonsnesical. 
  Google skeptic griggsy to   see my threads and posts world wide. Google also the problem of Heaven to see how it destrooys all theodicies as I see it.Google the presumption   of naturalismm to  see how naturalism notes no god.
  Thanks for this thread!