Regarding Ignosticism

[EloquentBohemian]

As prelude, I am Ignostic, which basically asserts that there is no comprehensive definition of God and therefore, there can be no discussion of whether God exists or not, nor can there be any discussion of the validity of any sacred texts grounded in monotheism, until a coherent, comprehensive and universally agreed-upon definition of God is arrived at. So...

What is your definition of God?

What do you define as the purpose of God?

 

[Wyote]

So you're a theistic ignostic? I'm of a similiar mindframe, though I do lean heavily towards theism. Kind of depends on my mood hah.

God is that which creates cause and affect. God is an all encompassing force of light. God transcends time and space.

The purpose of God is to bind existence together into infinitum, propelling purpose, cause and affect into itself forever.

 

[Tarakini]

As prelude, I am Ignostic, which basically asserts that there is no comprehensive definition of God and therefore, there can be no discussion of whether God exists or not, nor can there be any discussion of the validity of any sacred texts grounded in monotheism, until a coherent, comprehensive and universally agreed-upon definition of God is arrived at. So...

What is your definition of God?

What do you define as the purpose of God?

WIll this work? The definition of God can be construed by all as a self-generating force, and a perpetually self re-generating force that is inherent in all things. I actually think that could be accepted by most. Of course for you T types, there would be implications...

Drools a bit and licks lips, thinking this could be a most interesting conversation...

 

[EloquentBohemian]

So you're a theistic ignostic? I'm of a similiar mindframe, though I do lean heavily towards theism. Kind of depends on my mood hah.

God is that which creates cause and affect. God is an all encompassing force of light. God transcends time and space.

The purpose of God is to bind existence together into infinitum, propelling purpose, cause and affect into itself forever.

Actually, without trying to look like splitting hairs, I make no qualifications to the term ignostic such as theistic or atheistc.

To clarify: if there is no definition of the 'thing' which can be referred to as 'God', there can be no discussion of the existence of God.

This position is neither theistic nor atheistic (or agnostic). This position does not approach the question of existence/non-existence, it merely inquires as to what qualities/attributes are to be mutually defined and agreed upon first, before discussing the question of the existence of this 'thing' humans term God.

In other words [...and I don't want to start an existentialist discussion here], define the abstract, the essence, of this 'object' God, prior to debating the probability of the existence of God.

As example, in order to discuss the existence of a circle, that which is a circle must be defined.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

WIll this work? The definition of God can be construed by all as a self-generating force, and a perpetually self re-generating force that is inherent in all things. I actually think that could be accepted by most. Of course for you T types, there would be implications...

Drools a bit and licks lips, thinking this could be a most interesting conversation...

Yes it could, though part of what I am trying to accomplish is to arrive at a comprehensive definition of God which is acceptable to both T and F because, in every discussion/debate/argument I have witnessed, each side has a different image/concept/definition of what is being discussed.

Of course, total nuclear disarmament and world peace may be easier to achieve.

 

[Tarakini]

Yes it could, though part of what I am trying to accomplish is to arrive at a comprehensive definition of God which is acceptable to both T and F because, in every discussion/debate/argument I have witnessed, each side has a different image/concept/definition of what is being discussed.

Of course, total nuclear disarmament and world peace may be easier to achieve.

I was just trying to establish an agreeable definition of "God" to be discussed.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

WIll this work? The definition of God can be construed by all as a self-generating force, and a perpetually self re-generating force that is inherent in all things. I actually think that could be accepted by most. Of course for you T types, there would be implications...

Drools a bit and licks lips, thinking this could be a most interesting conversation...

I was just trying to establish an agreeable definition of "God" to be discussed.

Sorry, got caught on the 'T' thing and neglected to comment on the definition you put forth.:doh::redface:

If God is "a self-generating force, and a perpetually self re-generating force that is inherent in all things", is creating, such as in the creation of Existence, part of this definition?
If so why and how?

What would be this God's purpose?

Are there any recognisable attributes - such as good/evil, creative/destructive, omnipotent/limited - inherent in this definition of God?

 

[just me]

I feel the word "love" a necessary part of any definition of God. Any one, thing, being, or whatever else you may want to use to describe this entity would have understanding and wisdom. Praying to or worshipping and praising an entity would require those attributes should I pray to or worship said entity. Using such words as a description of an entity almost undescribable
to me does not serve this entity justice. I watched the NY Yankees as a kid in their glory days and could not find the right words to do them justice. I have a feeling of being connected with God. Feelings of love, understanding, and wisdom would most likely denote a spirit being or entity. I do not see God as being temporal, which makes it easier for me to understand the Alpha and Omega part. "Truth, way, and light" we have already hashed out with much disagreement, so give it an honorable mention from me anyway. "I AM" denotes a state of being most should have little problem with. There are many Christian names being left out to include Christ, Jehovah, Holy Spirit, and the likes, but that may not denote essence. I can harness my emotion and say I have said more than enough for now. I feel God's purpose to be something best determined after we know God. I stand aside for others' views and additions. I ask forgiveness should any of this rub anyone wrongly.
Love, wisdom, understanding, eternal, spirit, and maybe add forgiving?

 

[Tarakini]

Sorry, got caught on the 'T' thing and neglected to comment on the definition you put forth.:doh::redface:

If God is "a self-generating force, and a perpetually self re-generating force that is inherent in all things", is creating, such as in the creation of Existence, part of this definition?
If so why and how?

What would be this God's purpose?

Are there any recognisable attributes - such as good/evil, creative/destructive, omnipotent/limited - inherent in this definition of God?

I really don't sense any other purpose than just to be and create and generate and regenerate. I do think there are these recognizable attributes then. This is what I was getting at in the T functions. That God by this definition is BOTH good and Evil, and the Devil or such is not alienated anymore than the shadow is not accepted as a part of the light.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

"God" to me cannot be defined, because God is essentially a personalized entity.

In other words, we all perceive the world differently and uniquely; although there are many similarities, no one sees exactly as their peers. Because of this, I think God exists in a similar way; it is something that can be similar or extremely different from person to person, but is somehow still there.

God to me is something that is essentially undefinable. My religion tends to revolve around the idea that salvation is connected with personal enlightenment and personal relationships with what you yourself come to understand to be God. If someone doesn't choose to come to an understanding, a real spiritual quest for understanding, then God is not "there," or He is not perceived and seems to be nonexistent.

But I also believe that God cannot be fully understood by any one person or groups of people. God is like a collection of all perceptions, and He has a sort of knowledge and completeness that completely transcends all sorts of human knowledge. We cannot understand Him, his motives, his state, his intentions, and to try would be unfruitful. To understand God would be to understand that you cannot understand him, and to become content with the knowledge that you cannot understand.

 

[Shai Gar]

I feel the word "love" a necessary part of any definition of God.

Love can't be a part of any definition of my God. Rational Objectivity is.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

So, if God cannot be defined because each has their own conception, and therefore no common ground from which to work from, can the existence of God be adequately discussed?

 

[just me]

So, if God cannot be defined because each has their own conception, and therefore no common ground from which to work from, can the existence of God be adequately discussed?

Personal experience with God can be adequately "discussed", though "shared" may serve the sentence better. Thoughts, feelings, and beliefs can be adequately shared and possibly discussed. I do agree that God cannot be put in a box.
Questioning and sharing sometimes helps along the road to understanding or enlightenment. I think there are those that wish to discuss or share "God", and there are those that do not wish to discuss or share "God" as a term with definition.
I think it may be easier for those likeminded in the same religion or faith to discuss God and thus have common ground for discussion. I know I could better discuss God with those in my same belief. It is difficult discussing God to those that do not agree or do not want to discuss God.
I also think it would take very special people to discuss God that have different belief structure.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

People can discuss their own perceptions; people can discuss events, even though they might have experienced something different. But if they don't understand that it was possible to experience something different -- some people believe that there's a way someone should feel or that they would have felt the same if they experienced the "same" thing, but that's not the truth.

In other words, God can be discussed if people understand that personal perception of God is not necessarily constant. Actually, I think greater understanding comes from this sort of interaction

 

[Puck]

I believe in God. In a general, universalist sense. Details aren't a great concern. All ideas of God point to the same thing, and where they differ, I am not concerned, but focus on what is the same. God is unifying, and the human need for God is something that links people from all backgrounds, religions, ages and periods of history. That is something very special.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

So, if there can be no concrete acceptable definition of God, then is any discussion of existence of God, or any supranatural entity, doomed to failure?

How does one approach an understanding between various schools of religous/spiritual thought that "personal perception of God is not necessarily constant"?

I began to think about this in terms of Type, though my understanding of this is rudimentary, so I could be in error.
I will use 'God' to indicate any supranatural entity, whether existent and/or perceived/conceived, in the following questions.

If belief in God is a personal perception, and God is 'felt' and/or 'known', is this distinctly a F function, an N function, or a combination of both?

Would belief in God need a predisposition to using Fe and/or Fi as Dominant or Auxillary function?

Would belief in God need a predisposition to using Ne and/or Ni as Dominant or Auxillary function?

Or would belief in God need a predisposition to using both N and F, whether E or I, as Dominant and Auxillary functions?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, aside from God alone, there is a societal push towards belief in a deity in almost all cultures, which would also provoke responses in S types. For each type, there is some sort of reason to be involved in some sort of spiritual or religious pursuit, although that's not true for individuals. In other words, there's some aspect of it that is appealing to different types in different ways.

And discussion is never doomed to failure Proof might be -- it'd be hard to prove God, just like it's hard to prove the spirit. But that doesn't mean it'd be impossible to discuss it. Indeed, like I said, if someone doesn't allow the perception of another -- in other words, if someone who doesn't believe approaches a discussion with the idea that it is then not possible for anyone -- then discussion becomes much more difficult.

But this is why I don't really like talking religion; most religions believe that there is a single God in a single way and that it is different than the God of another. And yet, one can argue that all those Gods of different religions may actually be one and the same, only symbolized or perceived in different forms. Even though God might be "different" to each religion, He is still universally there -- just in different forms. So in other words, even though everyone perceives something different, there is a much bigger picture that brings all that together to a single entity.

Or, that is what I believe. This is not a generally accepted thing or anything -- it's what I've come to theorize through personal meditation, research, and thought on the subject.

 

[Tarakini]

Well, aside from God alone, there is a societal push towards belief in a deity in almost all cultures, which would also provoke responses in S types. For each type, there is some sort of reason to be involved in some sort of spiritual or religious pursuit, although that's not true for individuals. In other words, there's some aspect of it that is appealing to different types in different ways.

And discussion is never doomed to failure Proof might be -- it'd be hard to prove God, just like it's hard to prove the spirit. But that doesn't mean it'd be impossible to discuss it. Indeed, like I said, if someone doesn't allow the perception of another -- in other words, if someone who doesn't believe approaches a discussion with the idea that it is then not possible for anyone -- then discussion becomes much more difficult.

But this is why I don't really like talking religion; most religions believe that there is a single God in a single way and that it is different than the God of another. And yet, one can argue that all those Gods of different religions may actually be one and the same, only symbolized or perceived in different forms. Even though God might be "different" to each religion, He is still universally there -- just in different forms. So in other words, even though everyone perceives something different, there is a much bigger picture that brings all that together to a single entity.

Or, that is what I believe. This is not a generally accepted thing or anything -- it's what I've come to theorize through personal meditation, research, and thought on the subject.

I disagree. Many religions do not adhere to just one single entity as god. Buddhism doesn't. Hinduism doesn't. Jainism doesn't. Taoism doesn't. Secular humanism doesn't. The various believers in witchcraft and Shamanism don't seem to either.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

That's true, but that's one of the things that I think is a matter of perception. I understand that those religions worship more than one God, but how I define God is not as being a single or multiple entity.

Whether or not "God" is a single deity or a group of deity makes no difference in how I define God....it's hard to explain, but I think that God is more than something that can be physically defined as "one" or "many," but rather that He (I say he as a singular mostly for lack of a better pronoun) is something a bit more all-encompassing and a bit less solid. In a way, I believe the different types of Gods are all avatars for a single, universal entity, but that we all perceive that entity in different ways and in ways through which we can be personally fulfilled, since it's difficult to perceive his as all....

Sorry, this is where my beliefs get complicated :/ I always have trouble explaining it, since it's not a belief that really can be physically explained...

 

[Wyote]

I believe the different types of Gods are all avatars for a single, universal entity, but that we all perceive that entity in different ways and in ways through which we can be personally fulfilled, since it's difficult to perceive his as all....

+1