M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
I agree. Our models work, but within certain limitations. We don’t always know what those limitations are, though, until we either see something new that we can’t explain, or develop technology to experiment with something new, etc. Or like relativity and the gravity experiment during the solar eclipse. Things just aren’t always as they seem, although for all most people’s purposes, a subset of truth will suffice. Or if not true, at least “close enough.”True, but phony world implies that we **can know nothing; **while our knowing is simply limited by the painfully short lease we have on our heads.
Newtonian mechanics work just fine for heavy, lunky, slow-moving objects like our bodies. It wasn’t until technology got five or ten steps further that something better was needed or suggested. And that point required more than ten generations to get to.
Philosophy can lead to error as much as to truth, because there is no way to “check.” Nietzsche and Plato were both philosophers.
ICXC NIKA.
And the reason I say leave it to philosophers and theologians, is it’s their job IMO to speculate and discuss things that we can’t directly observe. Hebrews 11:1 says faith is the evidence of those things we cannot see. Well with technology we “see” more and more both large and small things.
My personal opinion is that there is always something beyond human measure, so that our knowledge is always going to be incomplete.
Also I’m a subscriber to the idea of the Cloud of the Unknowing. The more I cling to the Cloud of Knowing, the more I prevent God from adding new tools to my old devices.