How much, in that scenario where two catholics disagree on purgatorism vs infernalism, do numbers get involved when they're both monotheists and of the same God?

How many apples does it take to intuit sweetness or tartness of the apples in question?

Quantity isn't the metric anyone should be using especially as it necessarily entails a qualia for deciding to use numbers in the first place.

What about Incitatus? — Agent Smith

Ah yes! Him too. And Nero's 'wife' Sporus.

lll employs the same device, more or less that is. — Agent Smith

FWIW, most of my encryptions can be sounded out. I think of it as a kind of pixelation. Joyce messed with spelling and proper nouns in FW, but that makes his stuff hard to pronounce. I try to stick with basic words and snap them chew gather. Cubist/impressionist word paintings. Which sometimes creep into a spiel.

Quantity isn't the metric anyone should be using especially as it necessarily entails a qualia for deciding to use numbers in the first place. — Shwah

Go on...

Polytheism vs. Monotheism vs. Atheism?

Explain why, if quantity is not an issue, religions are classified numerically.

Ah yes! Him too. And Nero's 'wife' Sporus. — lll

:smile:

most of my encryptions can be sounded out. — lll

Private languageish! Wittgenstein would approve/disapprove, can't tell for sure.

@T Clark Well?

If those two people are developing a conception of theism and both are catholics who agree in every other issue except purgatorism, then the fact that they're both monotheists implies the number one isn't at all a factor for them deciding whether they should be infernalists or not.

A person who is attracted to 21 year olds has no perversion for the number 21 and instead appreciates their perceived qualia of a 21 year old.

Failing all that, yes poly- means many, mono- means one and a- means negation (a placeholder for 0 but not actually 0). Those never go into anyone's decision making about accepting a religion or not so your metric you offered doesn't have enough explanatory power.

it seems you are fascinated by Lady Mathematica. Her curvy lines are seductive indeed. Her power to break things up, pull things apart, and divide, is quite frightening though. Be warned, Agent... — EugeneW

Y'all know about the Cauchy sequence construction of the reel numbers? Ignoring needless technicality, every real number is an infinite stream or river of rational numbers that get closer and closer as the stream flows. So 0 = 1/1,1/2,1/3,1/4,... But 0 also = 1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,... This is just like a more complex version of 1/2 = 2/4, there's a way to check for equality.

The charm is the (pretty successful ! ) attempt to capture an intuition of continuous flow within a crystalline system of symbols.

Private languageish! Wittgenstein would approve/disapprove, can't tell for sure. — Agent Smith

Think of 'em as viruses waiting for a host, like 'private language' and 'language on holiday' were once waiting for hosts. Then think of skulls as bags of such viruses and the code part of 'form of life' as a loose collection of the viruses that 'everybody' has, that 'one' has. (Like one is exactly just one around here, friend, before all else, as one should always already know.)

Keepem cooooming, dooz frash wints! — EugeneW

Those fresh winds?

If those two people are developing a conception of theism and both are catholics who agree in every other issue except purgatorism, then the fact that they're both monotheists implies the number one isn't at all a factor for them deciding whether they should be infernalists or not. — Shwah

Agreed, but that's a subtopic.

A person who is attracted to 21 year olds has no perversion for the number 21 and instead appreciates their perceived qualia of a 21 year old — Shwah

What does all this have to do with what I said?

Failing all that, yes poly- means many, mono- means one and a- means negation (a placeholder for 0 but not actually 0). Those never go into anyone's decision making about accepting a religion or not so your metric you offered doesn't have enough explanatory power — Shwah

:ok: However, I'm not saying that numbers (poly, mono, a, theism) matter when it comes to a relationship with religion. All I wanna know is why did some people, whoever they were, find it logical to pare down the pantheon of gods to just one?

Surely, it's not moronic to ask this question. What's your theory?




Enjoy!

Those fresh winds? — lll

Witta luttareign!

:lol:

If you want to know why then you can't use quantity to properly divide them. It's self-defeating. A lot of answers have gone over specifically or hinted at what the real distinction is and it's a more realistic framing of reality. Physics develops off a metric of frameworks with more explanatory power of the objects it is interested in (e.g. why Newton's physics supplanted Galileo's and why gr supplanted cm and qft is attempting to supplant gr and qm).
Religion is, like philosophy, interested in a general explanation of reality and the better ethical/ontological/political etc frameworks come from monotheism vs paganism and paganism has advantages over animism etc.

Edit: In conclusion it has nothing to do with numbers and animism has totem animal worship which is worship of one animal or one natural event and paganism sometimes holds just one god to be supreme so there is no paring down of gods as some atheists may like to frame it/think it is what's happening.

Witta luttareign! — EugeneW

Chase us or bottoms wet !!!!! (My girl soak inky.)

Monotheism then shoots itself in the foot (self-refuting) - it's atheistic as regards Thor, Zeus, Krishna, and the whole pantheon of other polytheistic traditions and, in the same breath, if espouses theism (monotheism). Something doesn't add up, oui? — Agent Smith

From what I've read, it emerged as the idea of the one true or living god in context of a bunch of gods that were declared phony. You make a nice point, that selective atheism is right there in monotheism, waiting to mutate and kill its host.

This exciting but crude story from the bible comes to mind. It's a fucking movie script.

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:

And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.

And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.

And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord that was broken down.

And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:

And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.

And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.

And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.

And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.

Hear me, O Lord, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.

Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God.

like the name of your deity. Hod brass harmonica ! — lll

:lol:

I noticed too! Hodbless.Sounds funny!

Thanx! Ten years, yes! She's a bit worried though. I spend quite some time on the phone (laptop still dead,needs lapup). While I always said: all those people I see, constantly on their phone... Now I do the same. On philosophy and physics sites, but still... it's just the same.

Baal! Wittalottareign!

While I always said: all those people I see, constantly on their phone... Now I do the same. On philosophy and physics sites, but still... it's just the same. — EugeneW

If you're actually talking with people and your feelings are engaged and you are actively using your faculties (which you clearly are), then I think it's a better way to use the phone than most.

I noticed too! Hodbless.Sounds funny! — EugeneW

I thought it was a good one, but the gentleman broke my heart and won't give me back my maidenhead.

Baal! Wittalottareign! — EugeneW

Bell ! What a lotta rain !

He felt to give a meeting to his shines.

"If one could do it..."

Is that a justified premise? There is no empirical evidence. The termites build there fortress, the bees their hive, and the birds their nest. The beaver builds dams, the snails carries his home all along, the lobster uses empty shells. I won't mention homo sapiens, but it seems its modern variant worships technique, for some mystical reason. Modern HS wants to be an OOOO-incarnation of all gods? In that case, an OOOO-god comes in handy!

Bell ! What a lotta rain !

He felt to give a meeting to his shines. — lll

I'm zeroeing in on English, closing on in it. "A meeting to his shines"...? Spraying rain to show his bravura?

Here's a hint:

The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method. — went gone slime

I guess you could say that he felt to give a meeting to his shines is self-referential.

Might as well throw in:

My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

If you say so EugeneW.

And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God.

What a bible passage!

But suppose Baal was asleep? And God took his chance?

Ah! A meeting to his signs! It gets nice and confusing now! The reign as a sign. Or the reign being a sign? Or reign just rain and a sign a sain? Language is magic! Seems words speak to you!

My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on)

How to climb back? Once in mathematical heaven, one should just leap in good faith?

Yes. I mean, where is the empirical evidence for one god, with the name God, only?

But suppose Baal was asleep? And God took his chance? — EugeneW

What says Witty about these words?

Yes. I mean, where is the empirical evidence for one god, with the name God, only? — EugeneW

It's hard to say but Hume did point out that creation could've been a team effort, and if memory serves, he didn't even call the members gods. There's no evidence of omnibenevolence (the problem of evil), there's no evidence of knowledge (error-ridden code so to speak), and zero indication of omnipotence (people need help, where is it?).
w
Good day EugueneW

Goodday Agent Smith!

What a bible passage!

But suppose Baal was asleep? And God took his chance? — EugeneW

Right. And the people are just worshiping power, not virtue, in that piece of the story. They'd worship an air conditioner. If Baal was asleep, I guess it's 'you snooze you lose.'

Ah! A meeting to his signs! It gets nice and confusing now! The reign as a sign. Or the reign being a sign? Or reign just rain and a sign a sain? Language is magic! Seems words speak to you! — EugeneW

The 'spine' of that sleptogram is: He failed to give a meaning to his signs. My cheery theory is that we never know exactly what we are talking about. We say the magic word 'real' and hope it sticks to something. We do the same with 'meaning' and 'god' and 'truth.' Yet clearly the system as a whole is helping swarm the planet, so the semantic resolution is sufficient for practical work. I'm sure math helps, being the great exception (ignoring the umbilical court that runs from mathworld to realword).

It's 'worse worse worse' as the dork prints omelette sad, with a myth flu of missing chief. ('words, words, words' as the dark prince Hamlet said, with...) Or 'threw a gas tar glee.' As far as words speaking to me, I try to listen to them from all directions. I've loved poetry since I was a teenager.

How to climb back? Once in mathematical heaven, one should just leap in good faith? — EugeneW

I don't know. It's a beautiful metaphor, this ladder you just need once. If one were to judge just by this passage, one might imagine a proof of the impossibility of proof, a formalism annihilating the power formalism. With more context, the real target might be the fantasy that we can build a little machine, once and for all, that captures and dominates beauty and truth.

it has nothing to do with numbers — Shwah

You haven't made the case while I've repeatedly pointed out to you the mathematically relevant words "poly", "mono" and "a", all prefixes to "theism"

Too, I did say that the relationship between us and the divine needn't be based on the mathematics of it although now that I think of it, that's false due to the next number in this pattern viz. sifr!