TrueScotsman

The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

Recommended Posts

Long before Nietzsche declared that his generation of men had killed him, god truly died in the discovery of objectivity, of viewing things by empirical methods outside of oneself that are repeatable and testable claims.  This discovery of our own ignorance, relying on Platonic and Aristotelian sciences and Catholic Theology gave way to the birth of the individual in the Enlightenment, who was an independent observer and agent and therefore contract of services, but also capable of scientific inquiry via established methodologies performed in a self-correcting community of scholars.  This self-correcting mechanism of course relied on the simple truth that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves that we inhabit, and that we can no longer trust the mythological superstitions of our past when they simply do not have claims which can be observed in this objective reality that we inhabit.  We rather see, a subjective inner experience created by the neurophysiological structure of your unique brain, and then use that experience as the basis for objective reality, seems to fail the objective reality test.  Embracing science is embracing human ignorance and that all claims should be justified by robust evidence, especially if the claims are foundational and fundamental such as what one finds in Christianity.  

 

How could such a worldview substantiate it's claim to objective reality?

 

This god could show up?

 

Like tomorrow.  Here 2000s years later, the meaning of the word "soon" is getting harder and harder to read in the original Koine Greek.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



What is interesting to note is that throughout history humans have been killing gods.

 

As new ideas came along the old gods died.

 

The Christian God is just one in many thousands to have been created, then destroyed by humans.

 

Once the Abrahamic gods die, and assuming our present course of gaining knowledge, I wonder if religions will die with them? Or will humanity once again find the need to explain whatever is just beyond our knowledge as "God".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is that if Christianity never truly worked, then how do you explain the advancements in society over 2,000 years? I know it hasn't worked in about a decade,  so it's like come on, what happened? I was angry at God for quite some time too. I lost my joy when He left the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JimmyfoJesus said:

What I don't understand is that if Christianity never truly worked, then how do you explain the advancements in society over 2,000 years? I know it hasn't worked in about a decade,  so it's like come on, what happened? I was angry at God for quite some time too. I lost my joy when He left the church.

 

 

The advancement during the last 200 years were due to the scientific revolution.  The advances made during the 1800 years prior were much like the advances made during the 20,000 years prior.  Our technology started off low but we build it up as best we can from one generation to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, I guess it's correlation not causation. I stand corrected.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 11:48 PM, TrueScotsman said:

Long before Nietzsche declared that his generation of men had killed him, god truly died in the discovery of objectivity, of viewing things by empirical methods outside of oneself that are repeatable and testable claims.  This discovery of our own ignorance, relying on Platonic and Aristotelian sciences and Catholic Theology gave way to the birth of the individual in the Enlightenment, who was an independent observer and agent and therefore contract of services, but also capable of scientific inquiry via established methodologies performed in a self-correcting community of scholars.  This self-correcting mechanism of course relied on the simple truth that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves that we inhabit, and that we can no longer trust the mythological superstitions of our past when they simply do not have claims which can be observed in this objective reality that we inhabit.  We rather see, a subjective inner experience created by the neurophysiological structure of your unique brain, and then use that experience as the basis for objective reality, seems to fail the objective reality test.  Embracing science is embracing human ignorance and that all claims should be justified by robust evidence, especially if the claims are foundational and fundamental such as what one finds in Christianity.  

 

How could such a worldview substantiate it's claim to objective reality?

 

This god could show up?

 

Like tomorrow.  Here 2000s years later, the meaning of the word "soon" is getting harder and harder to read in the original Koine Greek.  

 

 

I'm actually considering becoming a Christian again after reading this word salad bullshitical construct of yours, but only long enough to refute it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

but only long enough to refute it. 

 

*Awaits refutation*  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

I'm actually considering becoming a Christian again after reading this word salad bullshitical construct of yours, but only long enough to refute it. 

 

I'm sorry that you don't understand that discovering our ignorance, requiring testable evidence outside of yourself led to the eventual death of god.  Will await your refutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graveyard of the gods refutes Pascal's Wager:

  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

*Awaits refutation*  

 

 

I can't do that until I can make some sense of what TS said. It's not that I don't understand what he saying, I just don't see how it makes sense.

So far all I get is it's one assertion countering another assertion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

I'm sorry that you don't understand that discovering our ignorance, requiring testable evidence outside of yourself led to the eventual death of god.  Will await your refutation.

 

You'll have to show that what you claim here is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, duderonomy said:

I can't do that until I can make some sense of what TS said. It's not that I don't understand what he saying, I just don't see how it makes sense.

So far all I get is it's one assertion countering another assertion. 

 

1 hour ago, duderonomy said:

 

You'll have to show that what you claim here is true.

 

It wasn't word salad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

It wasn't word salad. 

 

Well that clears it all up, thanks.  Got anything on the assertion vs. assertion angle while you are on a roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

I can't do that until I can make some sense of what TS said. It's not that I don't understand what he saying, I just don't see how it makes sense.

So far all I get is it's one assertion countering another assertion. 

Tell me what you think I'm saying.  All you've done is show up, call it word salad (not a refutation) and claim that I haven't proven my point, which up to this point we just have your claim that you understand it.  How about you summarize the OP and why you think it is wrong, and then I can provide further direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I will try to summarize more simply what my point is.  With the discovery that our claims about the world must be supported by evidence outside of our subjective experience, we caused the death of God.  Why?  Because this discovery of our ignorance involved an actual investigation of reality by measurements constrained to the natural world.  And with the birth of science came the inevitable death of god because no such evidence in the objective world has since been provided, claims about special revelation were no longer valid, nor were logical proofs such as the Ontological Argument, nor even subjective testimonies.  With science, which is an objective analysis of reality, there is no where essentially left for faith to hide unless one wants to depart evidence and reason altogether.  

 

The OP as well as this clarification assumes one is familiar with the findings of modern science about the natural world, which demonstrates that the universe functions just fine without the divine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Okay, I will try to summarize more simply what my point is.  With the discovery that our claims about the world must be supported by evidence outside of our subjective experience, we caused the death of God.  Why?  Because this discovery of our ignorance involved an actual investigation of reality by measurements constrained to the natural world.  And with the birth of science came the inevitable death of god because no such evidence in the objective world has since been provided, claims about special revelation were no longer valid, nor were logical proofs such as the Ontological Argument, nor even subjective testimonies.  With science, which is an objective analysis of reality, there is no where essentially left for faith to hide unless one wants to depart evidence and reason altogether.  

 

The OP as well as this clarification assumes one is familiar with the findings of modern science about the natural world, which demonstrates that the universe functions just fine without the divine.

 

Word Salad. This is wrong. I'd refute..... oh shuddup.

 

 

I disagree. I do not think God or the concept of God is going to die anytime soon. Why? Well a primary reason is that humans are largely irrational creatures and like holding on to unsubstantiated fluff.

 

I think it will only every be a minority that truly embrace 'the death of god'. Most others may alter their views somewhat - I give you Dr J Petersen as an example, but there will still be this "underlying metaphorical substrate" to quote him directly.

 

I have discussed science, the lack of evidence for God, and evidence for various theories with many people. Do you think that makes people accept science and realize that their beliefs in God are ill-founded? No. They find some way to keep their deity. Ways to do this range from the sophistry of WLC, to outright conspiracy claims (Evolution was made up to destroy Christianity) 

 

Objective reality is only useful if you accept it. And the vast population of the world doesn't accept objective reality... they accept fantasy reality.

 

#refuted ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Tell me what you think I'm saying.  All you've done is show up, call it word salad (not a refutation) and claim that I haven't proven my point, which up to this point we just have your claim that you understand it.  How about you summarize the OP and why you think it is wrong, and then I can provide further direction.

 

Dude, I'm not getting into your pettifoggery.  You must have an inkling at least that I'm correct here by pointing out what you said is merely an assertion, and as such is no better than the Christian gospel is without any attendant proof.

 

What I think you're saying is "OMG! Duderonomy is correct on this one so I must feign innocent intentions and push out unreasonable and silly sounding pseudo- intellectual hogwash and ask that he write an essay into my innermost thoughts, and ask that he have a report on the OP along with his summation of it on my desk before I can proceed with his further education, and I have to try to pull this off while still coming off as the smarter one."

Is that close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Okay, I will try to summarize more simply what my point is.  With the discovery that our claims about the world must be supported by evidence outside of our subjective experience, we caused the death of God.  Why?  Because this discovery of our ignorance involved an actual investigation of reality by measurements constrained to the natural world.  And with the birth of science came the inevitable death of god because no such evidence in the objective world has since been provided, claims about special revelation were no longer valid, nor were logical proofs such as the Ontological Argument, nor even subjective testimonies.  With science, which is an objective analysis of reality, there is no where essentially left for faith to hide unless one wants to depart evidence and reason altogether.  

 

The OP as well as this clarification assumes one is familiar with the findings of modern science about the natural world, which demonstrates that the universe functions just fine without the divine.

 

Again, nothing.   Show me where science has disproved the existence of any god, or God.

 

Science doesn't yet know how the universe functions, how big it is, if it has an edge, what is outside of the universe, if 'dark matter' exists or not, where the universe came from or if it was always here, if there is only one universe or more than one (and if more than one we might have to redefine the word 'universe'), how life began in the universe, where it is going, or even if we just exist in the imagination of Margee and we'll be gone when she wakes up to go to work tomorrow.

 

Death of God my ass, but if people want to use "Science" as a replacement for God instead of using it as very useful tool, they will have to answer questions like the ones I asked, and a lot more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Food fight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Food fight!

 

Where? *Looks around*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay, I think I can translate.

 

 

 

 

"Long before Nietzsche declared that his generation of men had killed him"  =   Many winters ago.

 

"god truly died in the discovery of objectivity"  =   God not real.

 

"of viewing things by empirical methods outside of oneself that are repeatable and testable claims."  =  Real is real.

 

"This discovery of our own ignorance,"   =  There some stuff men not know.

 

" relying on Platonic and Aristotelian sciences and Catholic Theology gave way to the birth of the individual in the Enlightenment"  =  Science good.  Religion bad.

 

" who was an independent observer and agent and therefore contract of services"  =  Men see stuff.  Men hear stuff.

 

" but also capable of scientific inquiry via established methodologies performed in a self-correcting community of scholars."   =   Science follow many rules.

 

"This self-correcting mechanism of course relied on the simple truth that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves that we inhabit"   =  Real is real.  We live in land that real.

 

" and that we can no longer trust the mythological superstitions of our past"  =   No trust religion.

 

" when they simply do not have claims which can be observed in this objective reality that we inhabit."  =  Religion is trick

 

"We rather see, a subjective inner experience created by the neurophysiological structure of your unique brain"  =  Brain does thinking.

 

"and then use that experience as the basis for objective reality"  =  We see stuff.  We know stuff real.

 

"seems to fail the objective reality test."   =   Sometimes we wrong.

 

"Embracing science is embracing human ignorance"  =  Admit not know stuff.  Do better science.

 

"and that all claims should be justified by robust evidence"  =  Know why things happen.  Say why things happen.

 

"especially if the claims are foundational and fundamental such as what one finds in Christianity."  =  Religion not know stuff.  

 

"How could such a worldview substantiate it's claim to objective reality?"   =  Religion not know stuff.

 

"This god could show up?"    =   Where God now?

 

"Like tomorrow.  Here 2000s years later, the meaning of the word "soon" is getting harder and harder to read in the original Koine Greek."  =  They said God come.  God not come. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Again, nothing.   Show me where science has disproved the existence of any god, or God.

 

Science doesn't yet know how the universe functions, how big it is, if it has an edge, what is outside of the universe, if 'dark matter' exists or not, where the universe came from or if it was always here, if there is only one universe or more than one (and if more than one we might have to redefine the word 'universe'), how life began in the universe, where it is going, or even if we just exist in the imagination of Margee and we'll be gone when she wakes up to go to work tomorrow.

 

Death of God my ass, but if people want to use "Science" as a replacement for God instead of using it as very useful tool, they will have to answer questions like the ones I asked, and a lot more.  

The only way to answer those questions is to observe reality, not say a prayer.  If god is to be revived it must be done in the suppression of objective reality, as science reveals a natural world that functions according to ways we can observe in the real world.  You sound like a theist bringing up all those nonsense gaps, as if god could exist in any one of those.  Poor dude still longs for a sky daddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Dude, I'm not getting into your pettifoggery.  You must have an inkling at least that I'm correct here by pointing out what you said is merely an assertion, and as such is no better than the Christian gospel is without any attendant proof.

 

What I think you're saying is "OMG! Duderonomy is correct on this one so I must feign innocent intentions and push out unreasonable and silly sounding pseudo- intellectual hogwash and ask that he write an essay into my innermost thoughts, and ask that he have a report on the OP along with his summation of it on my desk before I can proceed with his further education, and I have to try to pull this off while still coming off as the smarter one."

Is that close?

You're a lazy poster, you never really present any of your own substance.  You let others do the work and lob fallacies and baseless assertions without demonstrating you even understand what you're criticizing.  Where is god in this objective reality we inhabit, perhaps you can point him out for the rest of us.  If he cannot be observed in any objective way, then there simply is no evidence for such a being existing.  That's how it works now, robust evidence, or be considered in the realm of unicorns and fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 9:25 PM, duderonomy said:

 

 

I'm actually considering becoming a Christian again after reading this word salad bullshitical construct of yours, but only long enough to refute it. 

 

 

I agree with you man. That dude’s entire statement was so much nonsense of him trying to convince himself of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JimmyfoJesus said:

 

I agree with you man. That dude’s entire statement was so much nonsense of him trying to convince himself of something.

 

 

Looks like duderonomy is gaining in popularity.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now