buckeyegrad;796993; said:
But, we still have one ball of clay when we add the two together, so in this instance we can say 1+1= a larger 1. Did I change the parameters? Of course I did. That's why I said "not always".
But this gets exactly to my point, something we consider as definitive as 1+1 might only work within a particular set of parameters. If we change the framework, then it might prove quite false.
That only works, however, in the theoretical. I mean to say, if you're studying what adding 1 apple to another apple produces, you will find it is always two. If you add clay to clay you will find you could have 2 balls of clay, or 1 bigger ball. What can you learn from this? Clay is unlike an apple in some way which allows it to become 1 bigger thing under these circumstances. I guess what I'm saying is, intentionally asking the "wrong" question to illustrate a point doesn't get you anywhere here, I think.
This is my argument with Brewtus. He wants to claim that one framework's definition of rationality can judge the rationality of all frameworks, even when they work with completely different parameters. He places "science" as understood in the context of material naturalism above all other forms of knowledge creation by using its parameters to judge the other frameworks--which is an innocently flawed approach at best and intellectual imperialism at worst.
Well, this may well be true. Personally, being that I like Chaos Theory as a model of reality, I think everything is an iteration of itself, so the concept of applying some parameters of one discipline (if you will) to the facts of another yeilds interesting answers and ideas. That's not to say that each rule from one discipline can apply to another, but it's still fun to play with.
In the bigger question of does God exist, reliance on such a framework is absurd. Sure, the framework can and has given us great knowledge about the material world and how to manipulate it, but it is insufficient to determine God's existence because the parameters lead to asking the wrong questions, which in turn leads to interpreting the evidence incorrectly.
That's pretty pessimistic. It seems to me you don't believe man can ever arrive at any knowledge of God (presumably aside from whatever might be spelled out in the Bible and what "experts" agree on). As a philosophical construct, I suppose I'd agree.. that is, we can't
really know if we have attained any real truth or not. But, philosphy isn't necessarily reality or practical. I don't know if I'm getting out what I mean to say here.....
it's like this... A philosopher can easily establish that there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. There may be evidence supporting a strong liklihood, but its still not proof (in an absolute sense). But, this "philosophical gamesmanship" isn't important in the context of the issue "will the sun rise tomorrow" I'm not sure it's important at all, to be honest. It's just fun with words, but otherwise useless so far as I'm concerned.
Not sure if I'm even now getting at what I mean. I suppose it comes down to an assumption on my part - there is a way things
really are. There is a "real" reality that exists independent of whatever we might know about it. Philosophical game-playing.. well.. to me, it's just not interesting (or persuasive). I suppose I avoid the "importance" of the "lessons" the gamesmenship is useful for by A) not worrying so much about "right" and "wrong".. or "correct..." whatever and B) by trying to maintain an "infinite" view on things - that is to say, I believe in the infinite, which means that any answer is equal parts "right" as it is "wrong" (talking about physical reality)
Metaphysically, maybe I've just avoided the issue.... I mean, I can see where my entire philosophy itself hinges in at least some part on my concept of "truth" and a desire that whatever I believe is "right" But, fact is, I just don't trouble myself with this issue, I guess. I don't know... I mean, I try and understand as much as I can about he universe (Metaphysically and Physically) I try to make the melding of those two "worlds" as seemless or complimentary as possible and in my quest to do so have come up with what I find satsifactory results, and results which, as you know, confirm God's existence. But, even though I am sure of my conclusions, I am - like everyone else and including those who point to the Bible as the source of knowledge - just as likely to be completely wrong.
And.. in the end, it doesn't matter. Reality is exactly how it is.. (To use Bible speak: I am that I am) regardless of what I may know, or think I know, about it.
How can a framework limited to exploring the material world and doubt tell us anything significant about spirituality and faith--two phenomenon outside its parameters.
An infinite God may be examined in infinite ways. I suppose to appreciate that remark we'd have to agree that God is infinite, which necessarily includes that God is everything, including (but not limited to) the material world.
