3 ms·

The difference is this; when you go back to redefine 1, you don't change the nature or meaning of the number 1, it still fits everywhere it did before, in all c

by redial 10y ago

The difference is this; when you go back to redefine 1, you don't change the nature or meaning of the number 1, it still fits everywhere it did before, in all cases operates like it did before, all the changes happened in you, in your understanding of it, 1 changed in absolutely no way, if anything, now it's bigger. The same analysis applied to god had the opposite result. It shrink the idea of god, so much, that now no one defends the notion of god directly causing earthquakes any more, certainly no one on this thread, as you are all too smart to try to back that up. God has been at most, relegated to the position you just voiced. Certainly that is the only position left to retreat, because you have stripped god of so much, it has become so vague, an almost synonym with everything and truth, whatever that means, that you can't really refute an idea that is barely an idea. The two are not really alike.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Please don't put words in my mouth. Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, depending on your preferred terminology. You seem to be assuming that God thinks like us or is interested in us, and I would point out that is the younger, more recent idea, which I regard as nothing but ego and politics masking the original idea for reasons of memetic potency in human thinking. Our understanding of why and our ability to predict them has changed, but what you describe is a confusion rather than a retreat: just because we can give two names to something doesn't mean one stopped applying. That confusion underlies your comment: people still say that God directly causes earthquakes, we just dropped the political nonsense about it being because leader said not to do X and we did it. If anything, that's viewing God as larger, not lesser, and reflects us letting go of our own ego, and returning to the base idea, rather than our own nonsense atop it.
- redial 10y ago
  My preferred terminology is the one that can be defined and backed up by repeatable demonstrations to be correctly defined. Until then, I read your sentence like this, > Earthquakes might be caused by the ultimate god, and might be mediated by various other deities or angels. That might is what has been retreating, time and time again. And I don't know how you can claim both, confusion and a larger understanding of god at the same time. But I guess that is part of the confusion...
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Uh... Wow. Are you trying to be obtuse? The terminology I used can be backed by repeated demonstration and is exactly equivalent to the scientific theory that you likely subscribe to. It's the choice of words that it's expressed in, not the actual structure of what's being said that differs between "scientific" and "religious" explanations. No more use of the word "might" is involve than had I said it was caused by fluid dynamics of the mantel causing collisions between plates of the crust -- you're simply ignorant of the translation between vocabularies. Which brings me to my next point... The confusion I mentioned was in people like you belieiving that because one language articulated an idea first, it's the only or most sensible language to articulate that idea in. That's false, of course. Just because we came to be able to articulate a lot of things in the language of science, that doesnt mean we stopped being able to in the language of theology. The way I can claim a confusion and larger understanding at the same time is because I wasn't applying them to the same people -- you and many others are confused by linguistics and syntax, while the actual theory has grown significantly.
    - redial 10y ago
      Then please, define god, deities and angels in an unambiguous way, using whatever language you desire, and provide a method of demonstration for all three. And since I'm rarely in the presence of someone all-knowledgeable, please provide the link between god, angels and earthquakes that has evaded geologists for decades. If you mind telling us how you came to this knowledge that would be very useful too.
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Again, it very much seems like you're trying to miss the point of what Im saying. Though, for a quick definition, you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in definition) to a quasiparticle. Using this (rough) definition, we can see that I didn't claim to know anything about earthquakes that geologists dont -- merely that I use different terminology (and slightly different strategy) when decomposing the model in to parts. Your reply entirely skipped over the thrust of mine: that you're strawmanning what others are saying by pretending a difference in language is a different claim. You then immediately made up a new strawman about earthquakes rather than address that. Have you considered that you're not actually trying to understand what Im saying, and just making self-assured ignorant comments?

by redial 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Please don't put words in my mouth. Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, depending on your preferred terminology. You seem to be assuming that God thinks like us or is interested in us, and I would point out that is the younger, more recent idea, which I regard as nothing but ego and politics masking the original idea for reasons of memetic potency in human thinking. Our understanding of why and our ability to predict them has changed, but what you describe is a confusion rather than a retreat: just because we can give two names to something doesn't mean one stopped applying. That confusion underlies your comment: people still say that God directly causes earthquakes, we just dropped the political nonsense about it being because leader said not to do X and we did it. If anything, that's viewing God as larger, not lesser, and reflects us letting go of our own ego, and returning to the base idea, rather than our own nonsense atop it.

redial 10y ago
My preferred terminology is the one that can be defined and backed up by repeatable demonstrations to be correctly defined. Until then, I read your sentence like this, > Earthquakes might be caused by the ultimate god, and might be mediated by various other deities or angels. That might is what has been retreating, time and time again. And I don't know how you can claim both, confusion and a larger understanding of god at the same time. But I guess that is part of the confusion...
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Uh... Wow. Are you trying to be obtuse? The terminology I used can be backed by repeated demonstration and is exactly equivalent to the scientific theory that you likely subscribe to. It's the choice of words that it's expressed in, not the actual structure of what's being said that differs between "scientific" and "religious" explanations. No more use of the word "might" is involve than had I said it was caused by fluid dynamics of the mantel causing collisions between plates of the crust -- you're simply ignorant of the translation between vocabularies. Which brings me to my next point... The confusion I mentioned was in people like you belieiving that because one language articulated an idea first, it's the only or most sensible language to articulate that idea in. That's false, of course. Just because we came to be able to articulate a lot of things in the language of science, that doesnt mean we stopped being able to in the language of theology. The way I can claim a confusion and larger understanding at the same time is because I wasn't applying them to the same people -- you and many others are confused by linguistics and syntax, while the actual theory has grown significantly.
  - redial 10y ago
    Then please, define god, deities and angels in an unambiguous way, using whatever language you desire, and provide a method of demonstration for all three. And since I'm rarely in the presence of someone all-knowledgeable, please provide the link between god, angels and earthquakes that has evaded geologists for decades. If you mind telling us how you came to this knowledge that would be very useful too.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      Again, it very much seems like you're trying to miss the point of what Im saying. Though, for a quick definition, you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in definition) to a quasiparticle. Using this (rough) definition, we can see that I didn't claim to know anything about earthquakes that geologists dont -- merely that I use different terminology (and slightly different strategy) when decomposing the model in to parts. Your reply entirely skipped over the thrust of mine: that you're strawmanning what others are saying by pretending a difference in language is a different claim. You then immediately made up a new strawman about earthquakes rather than address that. Have you considered that you're not actually trying to understand what Im saying, and just making self-assured ignorant comments?