3 ms·

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 lik

by 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?
    - redial 10y ago
      > Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, > you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in definition) to a quasiparticle. As I said, claiming understanding while showing only confusion. I really, really, really hope your so-called explanation makes sense inside your head, otherwise I'll be forced to think you are being dishonest, taking terms that have been used in one way for probably a millennia, if not more, and twisting them to cause controversy where there is none. Either way, there is nothing more I could add without being mean, so I'm gonna stop answering.
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the meanong you're probably familiar with is their co-opting to fiction rather than honest worldview. It would be like if I insisted scientists don't mean anything because scifi abuses the same language terms! I would argue that my definition is perfectly in line with the historic view of those terms and how they're used by people who model their worldview with them. Similarly, what part of my definition do you not feel is fair -- they're not any more real than protons, another ficticious entity, but they're not any less useful as a conceptual entity. Ill note you only claimed I was confused, but didn't actually explain how and have demonstrated zero knowledge of the idea Im trying to convey. Have you considered you're simply confused, not me? Again, you seem genuinely unwilling to consider that maybe people have a more nuanced and sophisticated view than your pop-culture based caricature, and insisting that we can only mean that nonsense by the words, despite the several millennia of them being used the way Im using them.

by redial 10y ago

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?
  - redial 10y ago
    > Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, > you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in definition) to a quasiparticle. As I said, claiming understanding while showing only confusion. I really, really, really hope your so-called explanation makes sense inside your head, otherwise I'll be forced to think you are being dishonest, taking terms that have been used in one way for probably a millennia, if not more, and twisting them to cause controversy where there is none. Either way, there is nothing more I could add without being mean, so I'm gonna stop answering.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the meanong you're probably familiar with is their co-opting to fiction rather than honest worldview. It would be like if I insisted scientists don't mean anything because scifi abuses the same language terms! I would argue that my definition is perfectly in line with the historic view of those terms and how they're used by people who model their worldview with them. Similarly, what part of my definition do you not feel is fair -- they're not any more real than protons, another ficticious entity, but they're not any less useful as a conceptual entity. Ill note you only claimed I was confused, but didn't actually explain how and have demonstrated zero knowledge of the idea Im trying to convey. Have you considered you're simply confused, not me? Again, you seem genuinely unwilling to consider that maybe people have a more nuanced and sophisticated view than your pop-culture based caricature, and insisting that we can only mean that nonsense by the words, despite the several millennia of them being used the way Im using them.