"I'm saying that [...] transcendent ground must be metaphysically disordered because otherwise it would be subject to scientific reductions, in which case it would fall in line as just another part of nature rather than the whole or essence of nature."

Once a person gives up on the largest of levels, identifies it as disordered, then that person must look at the levels underneath that largest of levels to see that the ordering does occur at these other levels.

Einstein made the same mistake, but did so from the other direction.

He started out with collecting data about the movement of matter through space to explain the anomalies we see that Newton could not explain.

Einstein ended up with a correct framework, but then he made the mistake to place that framework at the universal level. The ground he was working in was either the Solar System or the Milky Way. He was not working at the universal level, but then he transposed his information to the universal level.

When Gödel presented Einstein an alternative to Spacetime (Gödel Metric), Einstein was flabbergasted because the Gödel Metric was also correct. Both men, however, did not figure out that they were working at the galactic level as largest level, and placed their frameworks at the universal level instead.

I see you do the reverse. You talk about the whole of natural being, but that is not really a word or state. You are using the largest of levels, but you are not careful enough about it. That is the issue, Benjamin. That is what frustrates me in your words.

If we use science, then we can come to wonderful conclusions that fit at the overall level, but then as specific 'galaxies' of information. In other words, we have to declare the context to make the contents find its correct grounds. And we cannot declare the context to be the whole, the universe, or everything, because those are not real contexts.

If we use religion, then we can come to wonderful conclusions, but these conclusions, large as they may seem, will also have their limitations.

The possibility to use the wrong construct is omnipresent. If we use Adam and Eve, for example, then we cannot say one came first and then the other. That is a false construct. Either both were created at the same time, or we have one appear and then the other, but that is then declaring God a Cyclops. Making God be singular in essence is an impossibility. God as a Cyclops means we are not created in God's image.

--

I am a structural philosopher, Benjamin. My focus is on structure.

Your mistakes in structure are tiny, but they are mistakes.

I must reject the "whole" of natural being, because that is declaring something at the universal level, and you can't do that.

You see how complex it is to point this out? You are declaring how science is not capable of doing something and then, structurally, you are doing the same yourself nevertheless, with philosophy in hands.