It seems to me that there are or process two ways to look at , or, define the understanding of how rationality, or rational use of language relate.
That they do relate inscribe the whole content of the adventure of being able to pose the problem of interaction between assumptions and their verification.
No problem up to here
Here comes.the clincher: why does on over examination any resolution depends on the level of generalization with an aim toward the degree of focus.
GOD as a certainty was based on a reductive logos-logic, where everything was caused by another cause, determining man ,his values and his actions. He was outward looking and assumed a rationality with a creationist foundation
The proof was in the pudding, absolutely, there was no need to look elsewhere, or to propose a belief, that anthropomorphic visuality need or has a potential to any reversal. Man was formed out of the image of God. Reversability never occured, because there never had a reason for it.
The distinction between certain knowledge, and the actions of man messing up the equation never took hold because, man’s soul , verified by the platonic sense , was reified up to the enlightenment. The logos was foolproof.
Then everything did not change overnight, but gradually eroded the basic assumptions. Not that the old assumptions were abandoned, but slowly created parallel patterns.
Even Kant held in to old assumptions and it is argued,.Nietzche as well. His nihilization was a tour the force, for public consumption based on how Nietzche understood how faith was on the wait. Privately, he saw the deeper meaning of proof, perhaps biased by his own father’s religious occupation
Reason failed for.the masses because their belief was based on shallow ground.
That is why inversion of logic called for a different logical system, inductive reason
This was the crisis which still betakes arguments up to now.
Where reason prevails depends on how it’s defined, says the positivist, or, how it interpreted say the reformed neo-Platonist, not realising their reasoning simply lost the absolute parallelism of their previous stance, and they don’t see the divergence or convergence from a removed vanishing point, depending on the hold an imminent or transcendent terrain has blinded their reason.they simply reduce divergence by nullification, denial, or, sustaining the categorical error.
This type of reasoning can be seen today, as extended.to a lesser authority in the present day.epistemic crisis surrounded or surrounding the Trump era.
As an afterthought, I hope I did not commit the very, or similar logical error, of which I was chastised a way back
But a retraction at this point lessens my own interpretation of how this forum is shaping , up to now. Guessing,.just trying to hold my own here.
I’m not building an edifice but inverting the inversion by seeking a new definition of God