If you can't see vast differences between the definition of god carl Jung or Einstein might use and the definition an orthodox (not a Kabbalist) rabbi would use, you have some serious "muddying" going on yourself.
Since you apparently didn't read the passage you just quoted, I'll post it again:
me said:
hat isn't to say there aren't different concepts of God, but the term itself at the very least has a general meaning that could be applied to virtually any concept therein, and is virtually always employed in such a way. I mean, what do you think Jan or arfa means by "God?" Sure, they may conceptualize it differently--Jan believes in a version of Yahweh, while arfa might believe as Seattle suggested, in a God-as-consciousness pseudo-pantheistic deity. But in either case, they're talking about the ultimate power, the supreme being, the creator of the universe.
Again, using shorthand definitions is not functional for philosophy.
Then why do you rely on them to confuse the person you are discussing this subject with? Need I remind you of how you began this asinine interruption? "Dreams are real. Not physically real, of course, but real." Not to mention the fact that I wasn't saying dreams aren't a real phenomenon, but that the events therein are not real but imagined, even if they are remembrances of real events, since a dream is just a dream and not an actual event. So you not only attempted to confuse me with your shorthand definitions of "real," but you attempted (and, unfortunately, succeeded) in dragging us completely off-topic.
There is real fear, a real moon, a real dream, and all can be considered real in a different way. If you would like to pretend the word has one meaning, use the dictionary.
I never said the word has just one meaning. That's something else you've invented. I merely said you were misusing the word, which you were. The context of my usage of the word was an event taking place in the world, specifically the difference between those waking events and the imaginings of events while dreaming. You interjected your nonsensical "real is real is real" in the midst of that, so rather than opening a dictionary, I'd suggest you pay attention to the conversation you're interrupting, and maybe even read the post you're responding to before, you know, responding.
Some ideas of god, "god as higher consciousness of man", are actually self-proving via logic, a semantic ideation is hard to disprove
First of all, no ideas of God are self-proving via logic. Secondly, being hard (or even impossible) to disprove is not the same as being proven. "True" is not the default position of an idea.
- perhaps Sisyphus can become real, I.e. Important and accurate, for you, even though Sisyphus is not actually rolling a stone up a hill somewhere (although many people named something else are effectively living the realness of that myth daily).
Is this supposed to be an idea that is self-proving through logic? How do you figure? All you've accomplished is getting people to say "It may become real someday." That's quite a long way from "This God is real."
The fact that I won't say I know exactly what god is, or how accurate each definition of god is on a physical level or a metaphysical level, doesn't preclude my using a working model, the same way sarkus has proposed the empiricist is able to continue an emotional life, for example, in the face of lacking testable data. That a person can have a spiritual life that is also only, "the best they can do at this time", and is lacking in testable data should be acceptable to anyone who does the same for their emotional life.
The problem is that you don't have any working models of God. Of course, no one is saying you can't have experiences and misunderstand them as "spiritual." You can do that all you like. But once you decide you're going to insist upon it in a science forum, with vague and misused terms, you're going to be taken to task for it. If you'd rather not have your experiences questioned, or have no good answer for what those experiences even consist of (you and arfa have both been notably unable to explain what it is, exactly, that makes you believers) then coming to a science forum to defend those beliefs isn't going to bring you any satisfaction. You'll be left looking dishonest and slippery, as you both have here.
because, these days, we have a perfect understanding of consciousness and the universe? No, there are still people looking for "satisfactory explanations".
Straw man. I obviously never said man has all the answers. What I said was that godhood arose from ignorance of the workings of the world. The man who invented gods didn't know what caused thunder or earthquakes, or what the sun or moon was, or that the billions of points of light in the night sky were stars at inconceivable distances from one another. He had no recourse to coincidence or irony; everything was meant to be or divine interjection.
Because he had no knowings of biology or astronomy, he anthropomorphized the sun as a being, and invented supermen with the senses of a cat or the jaws of a hound or the sight and wisdom of a hawk. That's where "god" comes from. This idea that god is everything, or god is consciousness, is an example of that retreat from the immediate personification of God that have been destroyed by science.
Well, if god is physically real,
What reason do you have to believe he is? That's the question you can't seem to answer.
I think it is fair to assume that god created the world in a way that coincides with our understanding of science. Not to say that we are currently in a higher state of information than what should be implied by having a three hundred year old scientific tradition, because we are not. This just means I assume we are meant to trust what we learn and see, otherwise god would be requiring us to do the improbable if not the impossible.
But we haven't always been at this level of understanding, so "trusting what we see" has meant believing in divine causes for tornadoes and droughts at different times in history. This is another point in which your assumptions come up empty.
Refer to dictionary... available online 24/7.
Refer to my previous post. Available online 24/7. But, you know, actually read it this time.
just like an anti-scientist throws out gene therapy with the abortion issue, some people throw out all definitions of god with their limited definition.
This is a terrible analogy, since even evangelist loons agree that gene therapy
works. They simply say the means by achieving it are immoral. Meanwhile, I disregard all definitions of god because none have been proven to be genuine, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that godhood itself is just a myth.
No you are the one who is having a problem defining real
No I'm not. I was very clear as to what I was referring. I drew a clear difference between waking experience and the imagining of a dream. You're the one who said "Not real but real," as if we're supposed to just know what that means. (Not to mention that you misunderstood the point completely)
the "dream about god" is an actual straw man.
I think you need to look up the definition of "straw man." arfa said that he knows god is real because he experienced it. I said that dreams are experiences as well, and using that logic he would have to accept all of his dreams as real experiences rather than
imagined experiences. You're the one who has misunderstood and muddied the discussion. But this is a common tactic of the theist, so I'm not surprised.
The dream about god wouldn't mean god is real, although god may be real and the person has a dream about it. Also, the positive unconscious, would certainly be called real by Freud and Jung, and if you want to ask Jung not to use the word god, you should dig him up.
You should learn how to read.
lol