Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wade-w · 06-07-2003, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Bonjour CJD.... I have explored a similar notion in a past thread as to the validity of sustaining knowledge as unchangeable based on the reality we can percieve. It is difficult for me to reconciliate the concept of a " closed system" with the infinity of the Universe still unexplored. So many abstract thoughts can fathom some possibilities as to the existence of a natural reality which could contain natural laws yet to be discovered. Until men can experience a phenomenon or reproduce it, knowledge can remain abstract IMO.
So any claim to uphold knowledge as an absolute which cannot vary from what we know as reality can be challenged.

I think you completely misunderstand what is meant by a "closed system". No one is making a claim that we know all there is to know or that knowledge cannot vary from what we know now. That is absurd.

No scientist would ever claim that knowledge is unchangeable. That attitude is anathema to a naturalist, and reeks of dogma, which is more often the purview of theists.

A closed system is one which has no external input; i.e., there is no god sitting outside the universe directing it, or influencing it in any way. This in no way implies that it is static, or that we understand it all.

CJD · 06-09-2003, 03:32 PM

While there is an entirely different thread going on (and it's probably sticking to the OP better than we are), I am going to ignore it, since I don't really care to argue over analogies. But wade-w wrote: "I think you completely misunderstand what is meant by a 'closed system'. No one is making a claim that we know all there is to know or that knowledge cannot vary from what we know now. That is absurd. . . . A closed system is one which has no external input; i.e., there is no god sitting outside the universe directing it, or influencing it in any way. This in no way implies that it is static, or that we understand it all."

While I know you were responding to Sabine's response to what I wrote previously, I still do not see how your definition of a closed system in any way justifies the naturalists' assumption. By declaring that "there is no god, etc.," requires knowledge that you cannot have based on your own definition of a "closed system." In other words, your claim places you outside of the system itself, which has the ironic affect of making you god. There is no doubt I may have misunderstood you. Perhaps you could offer a definition of a "closed system" that says nothing whatsoever about a god, or the metaphysical?

Regards,

CJD

wade-w · 06-09-2003, 04:39 PM

CJD:

That is an worthy question. However, I think it needs its own thread, hence I have split it off into this one. I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves right now, but I will get back to you soon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 03:32 PM	#2
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	While there is an entirely different thread going on (and it's probably sticking to the OP better than we are), I am going to ignore it, since I don't really care to argue over analogies. But wade-w wrote: "I think you completely misunderstand what is meant by a 'closed system'. No one is making a claim that we know all there is to know or that knowledge cannot vary from what we know now. That is absurd. . . . A closed system is one which has no external input; i.e., there is no god sitting outside the universe directing it, or influencing it in any way. This in no way implies that it is static, or that we understand it all." While I know you were responding to Sabine's response to what I wrote previously, I still do not see how your definition of a closed system in any way justifies the naturalists' assumption. By declaring that "there is no god, etc.," requires knowledge that you cannot have based on your own definition of a "closed system." In other words, your claim places you outside of the system itself, which has the ironic affect of making you god. There is no doubt I may have misunderstood you. Perhaps you could offer a definition of a "closed system" that says nothing whatsoever about a god, or the metaphysical? Regards, CJD

06-09-2003, 04:39 PM	#3
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	CJD: That is an worthy question. However, I think it needs its own thread, hence I have split it off into this one. I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves right now, but I will get back to you soon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.