Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What Atheists Never Get Right
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 мар 2024
- Dr. Peterson explains how recent insights show that there's actually a structured, non-arbitrary way we interpret stories and concepts, especially regarding the concept of God.
Watch the full video - • Eternal Truth and the ...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjo...
Website: jordanbpeterso...
Events: jordanbpeterso...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanP...
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jor...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
"So imagine this 🎻🎻🎻🎻"
🎼🎶🎵🎵🎶🎶
Ah yes another one who doesnt have the mental capacity to think beyond himself
@@AestheticsOfTheMind ah yes another one who doesnt have the mental capacity to understand my comment is a silly joke
I'm hearing Beethoven's 6th.
@@AestheticsOfTheMindWhat the actual fuck are you talking about lol
Consider:
Take a piece of paper and a quill pen, and ink. Take the quill pen, place it in the ink, and then write a letter on the paper.
Now have someone take a microscope and look at the paper look at the deep fiber. Now look to the area where the ink blotches start to appear and have them consider how the ink blotches converge and then from the convergence of the ink blotches emerges a letter and from a letter emerges a word and from a word a Message.
Consider life . The canvas. The ink.
Cells. DNA. The story of life. Your life.
Seen through a microscope of materialism no better explanation than converging ink blotches.
Do not let people use words like converge or emerge and let them think these words are explanatory.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Evidence of God and His goodness is all around. 🙌
Which God?
@@jackass1346 Ours.
@@jackass1346Jesus ❤
Amen
This is not a proof of a god. It’s an explanation of why people believe in a god.
This one true God is pure Love, and only by coming out of this Love is it possible the most complete wisdom, and by this wisdom he is almighty. This God is at once supreme Order, Truth, and Justice. And He Himself is all the Light and all Life.
❤
I believe in god, and a,ways have. I don’t feel the need to follow any religion .
His name is Jesus. Yeshua. Isa.
That makes me MAD. God is not LOVE. God is not a being that demands your Love, or is a representation of Love. God is a being that demands your power and strength. God cares about your Power and Strength. He does not care about Love. God is not a feminine creature. God is Masculine. Love always comes after Power and Strength. The only Love that exists is to nurture Power and Strength. As Power and Strength nurtures Love. Most people have this backwards; God is not Love, God is Power, if he was about 'Love' it would be a Deception to Control. As Love and Power have a Reciprocal relationship. God is not Love, as a being whom claims to love you, does not love you, but wish to control you, God is power/strength, as a being whom loves you does not care to say that they love you, but wishes you well so long as you meet the requirements. This is why people worship the devil sometimes, When god represents Love/Control, Satan represents Freedom from Oppression. These are symbols. I'd say God is Freedom, like waiting for a bluesky on a rainy week, but if we paint God as Love, Lucifer becomes Freedom.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Animals definitely talk
I've been saying something similar for years. How can the concept of truth exist if no one person is in a position to ever verify is as such?
More than that is the concept of beauty. If I watch a rain squall drift across a lake and into the mountains beyond, drawing behind it rising mist from the trees as if consuming the mountain's soul, I think we can agree that it's an objectively beautiful scene. However if no one is there to observe it, can those photons, scent molecules and sound waves that comprise the scene themselves be classified as beautiful? I don't think so.
The scene isn't beautiful until observed, like the wave function of a sub atomic particle. If the scene is only beautiful when observed, where does the concept of beauty itself reside, in the scene, the observer, or the interaction between them?
It can't be just the scene. I think this implies a sense of beautiful divinity associated with the observer, intrinsic to his very being. Where does that originate, why does it exist if our existence is random chance and mutation?
@ about 2:52 . . . absolutely Dr. Peterson. I've been saying and thinking along similar lines without using the particular language model you illustrated. In fact most nominal believers in Christianity perhaps without realizing it explicitly would at least say *ALL OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE* . . . without knowing or being able to articulate the specific reasons you mentioned. They simply say *IT'S THE WORD OF GOD. ERGO IT MUST BE TRUE.* Seems you have brought reason to a level equal to or better than simple belief. Bravo.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
@@Fuji_62 thanks for taking your time to comment. There is some truth in what you texted. But i wouldn't call him a buffoon. On the other hand it may be true. Peterson himself states the fool (buffoon) is the precursor to the " savior." In other words we don't arrive at truth without first going through error. BTW have you seen some of the suits he wears ??? Clearly the colors and patterns resemble those of the classic " FOOL." It takes courage if nothing else.
It’s still subjective because the LLM is just referencing concepts that humans subjectively associate with other concepts. Sure, it’s an objective fact that those ideas are commonly associated, but it’s an evaluation of a sum of subjectivity. It’s objectively true that people are subjective.
..by the age of 5, having read the bible from cover to cover, i formed the opinion that God was All things to All beings...having arrived at that concept because because God was not to me what the bible presented God as. Nor have i ever had a moment where i had to 'find' God. God is Always There. Everywhere.
As far as being just Good?....no. God is dark & light, a Balance. This is the essence of Existence.
Thanks Jordan Everyone comes to God the Best way they can. Sure there is a order.
No, I don't come to this not existing god.
I agree I thought in Jordan conversation he believes God exist.@@edgar9651
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
@@Fuji_62Jordan is very smart and he has a lot of knowledge. IMHO he should concentrate on science and not tooth fairies and such things.
@@edgar9651 psychology isn't hard science, tooth fairy stuff is his bag.
God is God, that’s why he said, “I Am Who I Am” and that’s the true, the beautiful and the good that Jordan is referring to!
Dr Peterson,
I would like to speak with you or your student Victor Swift about the topic you discussed with your guest in the video "Stop trying to put God in a Category"
I'm an Architect (now retired). 40 years ago I began wrestling with a similar idea after reading Mortimer Adler's book "6 Great Ideas". I was immediately struck by the nature of the ideas as being structural to our existence.
In the interim I've developed multiple 'clouds' of meaning as you refer to them and believe I have something of interest to share about this matter.
Please have someone contact me to discuss further.
Sincerely, Michael Atkinson all lowercase middle initial b at Gmail
Haven't watched the full video yet, but the obfuscation of the antediluvian account suggests it's extant form is the result of negotiation between the Lord and the angel, such that only one approach yields solution. This approach is suggested by the philosophical solution to the mystery of the Light. And this is very significant, as the mystery of the Light is the First Mystery.
(That this was the level which the Lord and Moses communicated is suggested when the Lord declares His Name categorically.)
qed
sel
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
wut
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Psychobabble. The lot of it. Not a single thing said in this clip made sense
I think Jordan's biggest gripe with his anti-theist detractors is their insistence on defining "God" as merely the existence of a transcendent deity. It sounds like Jordan's conceptualization of God aligns closer to what cultural Christians/Christian atheists believe.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Kind of bracketing the is-ought gap there, Dr. Peterson.
A language model tells you how people empirically use language, not how we *should* think about a given topic. If you train a neural net on medieval texts it will tell you that fire is connected to phlogiston - but a human interpreting a text can move beyond the 'statistically most probable responses' in the given text cluser and give an interpretation that is both unlikely *and* true.
The is-ought gap isn't a problem since "should" is a feeling. We don't think "good" should be associated with "beauty". We feel it. And that feeling has a Darwinian origin. Which makes objective morality the average of what we feel is "God" or "meta-good". So, we don't have to prove why causing others unnecessary suffering is wrong, we just have to agree on it and then derive conclusions using rationality from there. And this is exactly how we organize our societies. Anyone who disagrees with it is punished, directly or indirectly.
@@L.I.T.H.I.U.M You should go visit some primitive tribes. See what they think of love beauty and truth.
These concepts are the product of millenia of thought and spiritual growth. Christianity literally invented love. That doesn't make love not real, but it does make it normative rather than merely natural.
Even if it were natural, the moment people can control their own genes, we'd be faced with the normative dilemma again - should we want those genes.
@@Y0UT0PIA Darwinian in a way that pushes for survival in a particular environment. Psychopathy might also be advantageous in some society.
yes, but Peterson does not understand computers and the people for whom he works are all highly religious. He is human after all, I just wish he would leave behind all this abstract nonsense that he gotten himself into since he made all his money and would go back to practical advice for people.
Christianity did not invent love
I think people are confusing this with objective evidence of god, it’s not. This particular example is through religious context, if you substitute the biblical context with a “scientific context”, you’ll get a different result. This is a different version or concept of a concentric model where the main point is smaller in comparison to its surrounding attributes. The god example would be a very difficult model to create, the perimeters would be very obscure depending on the interpretation of a particular text. You would have to give a generic and literal definition of each religion and its foundational beliefs, if you don’t, again the perimeters would be so obscure the model would be almost impossible or infinite.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Sounds very much like circular reasoning. And I'm not opposed to the God concept. But if God is goodness and goodness represents God, well, you've just closed the loop in your circle
The loop is closed in the same way it's closed for "why does 1+1=2?"
Lol what? Hardly. It's a defined character trait. He is good. What is good you ask? The best example would be His character.
Simple.
That would be the case if god wasn’t the spirt that animates everything
No God is everything not just good. Evil is a tool that was created for the universe to exist, it was created by God, so that you could know who you are, by contrast. You're not supoosed to do evil, which is why your conscience never supports it when you do, which is just another word for God in you.
So it's a paradox, are you the thing you create? Technically, yes. But what if you created what you aren't? Are you still that? No, not really. And thus the drama.
"Stop trying to put God in a category" is as much a request towards atheists as it is a request towards theists.
Atheism doesn’t concern itself with “concepts” of God, nor does atheism concern itself with the utility of archetypes, fiction, & symbolism. Atheism is a position held by those who are unconvinced by the non-conceptual, literal claims of Gods existence, as proposed by those who assert ‘a literal god exists’.
Jordan is strawmanning Sam’s argument, & Jordan is committing an equivocation fallacy in reference to the word ‘theism’ & ‘atheism’.
Jordan is defining God with the associations, connotations, & denotations that some people hold, rather than the theistic definition of the word.
The incoherent non-point Jordan articulates above is analogous to arguing the following - ‘geologists who are unconvinced of Narnia's existence are wrong, because Narnia is associated with talking animals, & it’s a fact that Birds are able to communicate with one another. Therefor Narnia exists, & geologists who are unconvinced by those who claim Narnia literally exists are wrong’.
Narnia is supposedly a material place. God is non-material. Thanks for taking so many words just to strawman. Stop trying to copy Jordan's style of speech. He comes off as smart because he is, not because of his style of communication.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp Narnia is a fantasy material world, it isn't claimed to be a literal material world.
God is proposed to be literally true. Not a metaphor produced by human minds, not a dramatised fictional story, not a man-made narrative nor a man-made jungian archetype as Jordan asserts. My analogy isn't a strawman for this reason. My analogy hinges on defining X by its associations, rather than it's definition. Material or non-material is a distinction that is irrelevant to the claim that God is literal (something can be claimed as literally true independent of it being material or not), a literal being, or at minimum a literal thing that is independent of human minds, rather than a metaphorical or archetypical product of human minds.
Jordan recently claimed that "women who display themselves online are not human. If you think they're human you're a fool. They are succubi (a supernatural demon). A woman can not appear in a million places (multiple monitors) at the same time", which is an insane thing to say regardless of his "style of communication".
I never claimed that Jordan wasn't smart. He's highly intelligent. I would bet he has an IQ over 120. I'm pointing to the fact that his style of communication is flawed, likewise his arguments are riddled with fallacies. Someone can be highly intelligent & also very confused, or misguided.
@@BarrySometimes
Do ideas literally exist?
Let's start from here, because it is clear you are in a very dark pit that you've dug for yourself and are in need of a much appreciated simplification of the situation.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp Cool. Yes, ideas literally exist. Where would you now like to go from this point of agreement?
@@BarrySometimes
Are ideas immaterial?
Can someone enlighten me about what is the video about
currently what I got from the video
god as a concept branches to good
god is not a being but being itself (what does that mean)
god existed before the concept of god can be thinked
That the best definition of God is the average of good. How do you find the average of "good" & how does one decide what "good" is in the first place? Using statistics. The same way LLMs (AI) work. One way it knows how words are similar, is by finding the relationship between words. So, "speed" will have a better relationship with "pace" than with "chocolate". Similarly, using probability, we can understand what people mean by "good", and the average of those words will be God. Like the average of beauty, truth, just etc. Average of words instead of numbers.
[TL;DR the best label for God is no label since, well... God created all. As such, try as we might with human reason... It gets incredibly complicated if we try to replace God and make ourselves like him without ... Exactly what the Bible says: God came into the world to teach us how to be able to be adopted as having a divine nature.]
Mathematically speaking, you have set theory. 1, 2, 3, 4; these consist of the set of counting numbers. Add 0, and you have whole numbers. Add the negatives and you have the integers. Going so on and so on, rational to real to complex to [...] hyperoctonions to [...]. /// God essentially appears to us as 0, an image of infinite + and -; everything is centered on God which is good but God also came into the world as a person due to the Logic (Logos) being made incarnate.
How do you divide by 0? I can offer mathematical senses but, ultimately, it is undefined. I don't know if my ideas work since it's pointless, yet I have considered it.
With 0: you can add 0 to, take 0 from, or find 0 throughout everything. But. It's nothing. Yet it is an amazing tool which really presents itself in a Differential Equations course because you can add 0 which is a combination of plus and minus 1 (-1 + 1) and something which couldn't be simplified any further suddenly becomes simple because you added 0 and broke 0 apart yet ... Now it's looking like other things like, say, the unregulated exponential growth curve of illnesses or electromagnetism or maybe someone could find it looking like the equations that represent the strong and weak nuclear forces. Yet you wouldn't have seen that just by looking at the jumble of what was in front of you as a scary (for most people, I'm born severely visually disabled and, as such, I have always been able to cherish characters due to the gift of super strong prescription glasses which only corrects the right eye yet the left eye has more problems than simple visual acuity) math equations.
TL;DR the best label for God is no label since, well... God created all. As such, try as we might with human reason... It gets incredibly complicated if we try to replace God and make ourselves like him without ... Exactly what the Bible says: God came into the world to teach us how to be able to be adopted as having a divine nature.
We have two allies separated by a common language, to paraphrase Churchill. You got the gist of it . . . "It" being a snippet of a deeper intellectual exchange between two luminaries about talking about God. Peterson ties to say that through language, God should be knowable. This would seem to be true, because, at least in a Biblical sense, God has spoken to his people, and people can speak to God, using language.
God is not a being but being itself (what does that mean): Barron says God is not being but "to be," in and of itself.
Mystics like Mister Eckhart, for example, say God is only a word, but "God exists as “God” only when the creature invokes him."
I know my response has been inadequate. One can study God, deny God's existence, or simply believe in God.
@@L.I.T.H.I.U.M so you mean god is not a thing like a choclate but rather avarage of all of the stuff we interpret as good?
@@ELDTAdventures-tp9jy we can interact with god but never can we understand it
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
Love Is The Answer..
Goverments Doesnt Like Truth😂😂❤
God Doesnt Care..
When We Do Good God Make Us Feel Good..
Children vote on own mirror😂❤
Free Of Any Charge..
Thanks to God
Amen
What is the definition of God? The purpose of definitions is to give a meaning to what people say in order for one person to be able to give information to another person. Without definitions, words are just noise or drawings. So without a definition for God, all what people can say about him as no meaning (independently of his existence or not), right?
For example, if I say "God is the belief in God", which is in my opinion an interesting recursive definition, that infers multiple conclusions about God: God is in the believers and manifests everywhere in their lives, I think we could say God as a positive influence in their lives, it explains why you have to believe in God to allow god to enter in your life and why this belief is so important.
That might not be you favorite definition, so what is your definition of God?
Another question linked to the first one: is God limited to his measurable influence on people? And let me be precise about what I call "measurable", by defining what's not measurable: something that's not measurable will have no influence whatsoever on any person at any time. There will be no way to know anything about it or if it even exists.
On one hand if God is limited to his measurable influence on people, God being the belief in God seem to be the right definition, there is no need for a superior entity which would introduce God as partly not measurable. We could even push as far as saying that God is the collection of all what exists and is measurable.
But on the other hand if there is more in God that anyone can ever feel, that is God is not limited to what's measurable, how do you know that what you feel/see is God and not something else that is not God but has all the measurable properties of God?
God is a word.-Meister Eckhart.
@@ELDTAdventures-tp9jy Well yes, that might be a definition too, I would say a Magritte "this isn't a pipe" inspired one. I would be interested to see a believer definition of God. By the way I'm not atheist but rather agnositic, meaning in my situation I don't mind if people believe or not or if God exists or not, but the discussion is interesting.
@@lysandremaybe3419
Meaning is defined by binary opposition. Good needs Bad, Beautiful needs Ugly etc.
God is "meaningless" in that sense, not because he is devoid of meaning, but because He is exactly the opposite.
God is the summation of all meaning at the same time. He is limitless in the sense he encompasses everything.
By contrast, all of his creations are limited. And in here lies the nature of God: God deduced that there is darkness, so he made light. He deduced that He is immaterial, therefore created matter etc.
A good definition of God is that He is the source of all that is outside existence.
I love JBP and am paying to see him on tour soon, but he talks a full 5 minutes of word salad while Bishop patiently practices patience. I LOVE JBP, but his stream of consciousness is exhausting after a while
His stream of consciousness is not really word salad, but it is exhaustive. If he were to master the art of concise and pragmatic communication, he would be perfect.
Talking to the logical mind!
Nothing logical about religion
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
You're on to something really important.
Machine learning/Artificial Intelligence is the merger of two fields: statistics and data structures.
The fact that the LLMs work mathematically proves that deconstruction is nonsense.
i am happy that the concept of god is not constrained, although understandably highly dependent on, religious texts.
I find it odd that Jordan has yet to do an episode with an orthodox Reformed thinker! There is so much miraculous depth to be found in the gospel, yet he has seemingly settled for preaching of empty works and scriptural mishandling.
Must be perspective. I find theologians and reformed thinkers to have a more shallow understanding, dry and lifeless. While I find Petersons teachings interesting and full of life.
I went to church my entire life, but it was a video Peterson, 6 years ago, where he talked about truth, that it first pierced into the darkness of my life. His words set me on the course of truth. And they have allowed me to see Christ and his teaching more and more clearly. The two testify together.
If I had to choose a theologian or pastor or Peterson as my guide in life. No doubt I’d go trust Peterson with the job
@@Logan-un6qw Well of course it’s perspective. And we all have our own. They are informed not only by incomprehensible amounts of different stimuli through experience, but chiefly informed through our beliefs.
Eloquence saturates a thought but the substance behind it makes the difference between a dye and a flash of color now faded. God has ordained duly called ministers to be His mouthpiece during this age, and you hold Dr. Peterson’s voice in higher regard than His. That is a decision in your hands. But out of care for you I ask, are you confident that your source of eternal life will sustain you past your death and see you past your sin?
Christ will, which is why I preach Him crucified to those perishing and not.
@@00jaad But the Kingdom if God is obtained through understanding. And Christ chastised the religious teachers of his day for their rigid religious teachings, which did not allow for nuance and questioning.
I don’t put Petersons voice before”His”. I understand that the Holy Spirit had given Peterson knowledge and eloquence to lead people to Christ at this time.
@@Logan-un6qw I want this to be a discussion more than an argument so I hope that is how I am coming across. I take time out to reply and write because I care.
The Pharisees were not chastised for their rigidity, they were chastised for their rigidity in the wrong doctrines. His issue was that they held outward religiosity (which is prideful) over dependence upon God. If they rigidly held to humility before God they would not have been chastised. The whole point of the law was to show us our inability and our need for a Savior. The Pharisees were guiding people to damnation through their teaching of self-sufficiency.
Let me clarify. God speaks through His Word. Duly called ministers faithful to their vocation exegete God’s Word, thus being His voice. Dr. Peterson’s theology is clearly not orthodox. He does not “preach” Christ-centered doctrines. And the “Christian ministers” he does bring on, don’t either. Which is why I was calling for him to bring on someone who does. It saddens me to see. The question is, which Christ (messiah) is Peterson “leading” people toward?
Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB95)
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
@@00jaad I understand what you are saying, and think you are missing the same depth that orthodox teachers mix, precisely because they are orthodox.
Christs teachings lead individuals in the way of life. Petersons teachings do the same, and agree with Christs teachings.
Petersons teachings have led thousands to read the Bible and find Christ. This is evident by reading comments on his videos of individuals giving their testimony.
There is deep practical meaning in Christs teachings that most orthodox teachers do not touch. And the spiritually hungry find much of that meaning through Peterson.
For example. Christ teaches that we should be dutifully in the small things, and worry about the challenges of today, and tomorrow will take care of itself. Peterson teaches to start changing the world by making your bed (little things), and that if you attend to what presents itself before you, your future will take care of itself.
Christ teaches to be humble and take the lowest seat and you might be raised to the highest. Peterson teaches that you must become willing to be a fool before you can achieve or learn anything, and to take joy in the process of being one.
Peterson takes the teaching of Christ, and puts them in terms that resonate with the very complicated minds of people today. And there is no doubt that God is orchestrating it.
"..there's no intrinsic meaning in the text.."
Meaning is definition, but it is not only definition. Meaning also comes from means, as in means and ends.
What is the difference between the "morning star" the "evening star" and the planet Venus? Isn't the difference reliant on the telescope? The means to the planet Venus is the telescope yet it isn't in the meaning of Venus. Venus could be a goddess or a planet or a name for someone or something else.
What makes Venus mean planet? The telescope. What makes Venus mean a goddess? Greek myth.
The means to an end can be unique or plural. But once you have the means the "meaning" changes.
Before Descartes revolutionized algebra using the x,y coordinate system there was geometry. Descartes didn't invent lines, angles, circles and triangles. The fact that algebra can solve geometric problems and models solving geometric problems in a new way doesn't mean that geometry is "necessarily" included in algebra. The concept of angle is not inherent or "intrinsic" to Descartes' coordinate system. Without the "means" of geometry could algebra be as developed and expansive as it proved. I think not. Developing the coordinate system first does not give the concept of angle naturally. It is only by the "means" of geometry that angle could be added/expanded to algebra. Math is no antidote to meaning, no sinecure. Math can not be used as "THE" judge of meaning, it is "A" judge, one of the totality of the plurality of "means". Math, too, is a belief!
Congratulations. You have discovered the basis of scientific positivism! (not being sarcastic. Positivism is literally based on the idea that science is the sole judge)
@@Wendeta-hq2cp As far as I know meaning isn't a field of study in "science". Is that what you meant? Or is "the means" the basis of scientific positivism? The means of measurement?
@@kallianpublico7517
No, meaning is the field of study of philosophy, the precursor to science. Science simply postulates with apriority that there is meaning and goes from there. That is why Positivism is a form of faith itself.
@@Wendeta-hq2cp Yes, as far as math is "a means", then the faith of science is exposed. The trouble is the telescope 🔭. . So long as science finds means to discover "things in themselves" (planets and germs), then no faithful need apply.
Unfortunately science also relies on devices in between math and the telescope. In between faith and fact. Devices that stretch the definition of measurement and observation.
Devices like clocks and rulers measure nothing, they, rather, impose meaning: time and space. Scales ⚖️ actually measure "something" even though the weight system is concensually imposed. What LIGO measures is a puzzle. Some actual "thing in itself" or our inference of what it "should" measure?
@@Wendeta-hq2cp Yes, as far as the "means" is math, then science does involve semantic, faith. The problem is the telescope 🔭 . As long as science sticks to "means" that involves "things in themselves", like planets, then semantics is bypassed by meaning.
I mean, God is in His own category. One might say, the category of categories 😁
Yes, or maybe the eminent ground for the categorical itself ...
The poisonous pretention is insisting God is supernatural, it's antithetical to the concept of reciprocal altruism
Sam's critique is specific to the bible and allegorical sacred texts. Sam is by no means a postmodernist.
agreed
Not a particular fan of the comments on this one so far. If you really wondered about this, it’s a pretty astounding set of possibilities. But there are a bunch of… Lackluster reactions here. Less than coherent basics assertions about how God’s everywhere. A few pseudo philosophical qualms, that don’t differentiate the question or evidence appropriate to answer them.
The interesting thing here is it takes away the necessity for God to be proven or disproven, and points out how that isn’t actually the correct category for what this concept is.
It’s possible to view God as rhetorical construct that exists, without having to accept or deny the falsifiability of “creation to creator” per se. In fact the whole of what’s necessary to deal with this God, is to deal with the nature of this hypothetical. God is the unification of the significance of the claim of existence, who is beyond beginning or end. And that’s all in the data of cognition as it stands. Answer that, and deal with the material questions once you figure your relationship to the God which exists purely in the stuff that constitutes your mind and identity. Because he exists in there. He claims to be that. “I AM THAT I AM.”
First off it's 2 Christians talking about why Christianity just has to be right. Second his assertion about words being interchangeable and that there's good in the world doesn't conclude anything. Does he dismiss there's also evil in the world, with the same connotations for evil words as well. Clearing someone flying blindfolded.
I hope someone can help me out here...
Long story short... Long time atheist. Very recently questioning it. Started studying The Bible. Still not a believer. Have been (weirdly for me) quite moved by some things I've read, to the point of being emotional. Kind of feel like I believe something that I never used to but can't quite justify it to myself yet...
My question: If God is not a being, why is he described as a who and not a what? I think this is where I struggle, as I do believe there is a higher power but I've always believed that people that "believe" see God as a man in the sky rather than the (what I consider to be) universal law that guides us. I understand how ignorant that question must be to someone who knows the answer but I don't know the answer, so I asked it haha
Is this the difference between "The Father" (that I think I describe above in what I imagine believers thinking when they think of God) and "The Holy Spirit" (that I think I describe when I talk about the "universal law" that guides us)?
I'm 15 minutes into the full podcast and I think I have had the question answered but if anyone would like to chip in, I'd love a discussion about it :)
I still don't understand the "he" as a reference however, rather than a "what"
U r absolutely right :) human beings are evolving. That includes our brain and consciousness over years. My understanding is that in those days, I don’t think people weee able to understand an arbitrary concept. Well, even modern day people/athisiem still only believes in what science can explain but science is able to understand only 5 percent of the entire galaxy. 95% is unknown. To satisfy this, we have termed as god. I have changed this myself as “universe” “ that is is not”…. If possible read about “shiva” a Hindu god aspect. He is described as “ that is what is it not”… “ “that which doesn’t have a form”… the higher consciousness is the state which will give more answers to our curiosity. And human beings are capable of getting into this state of being that, being in peace where we can find the real truth. And that truth is for u to find out :)
Explain the world without God? The good bishop is being too kind. I would contend that one can only 'explain' a corner of the world without God. It will always be a partial explanation, and one with no final grounding for the human condition, our understanding of reality, or metaethics, and, finally no basis for coming to grips with the suffering and evil.
Did Peterson really spend the first four minutes of this video explaining what a synonym is? This simple answer to all of this is that humanity created God to be the explanation of human awareness of self. There is nothing in what these two say that denies that as a possibility.
Jehovah tells us in his word what, who, how, where. He proves what He is in word and deed. Universal Sovereign is who Jah is. His major attibutes are shown in the faces of the chrubs that surround his throne. Love, justice, wisdom, and power.
Ezekiel 1:10 "Their faces had this appearance: Each of the four had a man’s face with a lion’s face on the right, a bull’s face on the left, and each of the four had an eagle’s face."
Can you guess what each face represents with the knowledge I just shared?
OMG!! I be do’in some thinking lately on the philosophy of mind, about what is at the foundation of reality or the mind and body as far as mental and physical substances and properties are concerned. As an attempt to prove that God exists, or whether that conclusion could ever truly be arrived at philosophically.
This idea of being prior to thought, and the creator of all things, it’s very similar to an idea I’m exploring now. Which is that everything is reducible to just being different forms of information. From here, the idea goes, that we can explain consciousness and thinking, as well things like gravity or even things such as the immaterial soul, as active vs inactive forms of static or dynamic information. Static information are basically logical statements. 2 + 2 = 4, “if p then q, p, therefore q”, and so on. Dynamic information would be a type of information that uses these static facts. Which the why there’s active and inactive forms of dynamic information. Active information chooses how to use these information, fundamentally being a mind. Or maybe not necessarily if gravity should be considered an active form of information. Then inactive form of dynamic information is something like a particle or the human body. Things that can cause things to happen but don’t have any control over itself. Only moving and having a certain property or properties.
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
@@Fuji_62 It’s this kind of comment you made that start making me think, maybe we shouldn’t be reading the Bible anymore. People just end up complaining about how people interpret one thing in some way instead of another. Why think Jordan Peterson is wrong in his conclusion?
Just a question for you to think about. I haven’t read enough of the Bible to care about the answer.
@@encounteringjack5699 shut up then.
You might be interested in quantum Consciousness
@@ZeroKool30 Does sound interesting from what I just looked up, but anything that is going off of the assumption that “everything is physical”, aka reductive physicalism, is not something that works. With property dualism though, maybe. That’s why I’m exploring properties and how they function. To try and find something wrong with property dualism.
Have goodness of have a relationship with God. Have wrongness of, have relationships with Evil.
God is Love and The Devine love of Jesus Christ. God being dynamic is the I am that hits every scope of practice.
God being love created a house for love in marriage between two.
The moral of the virtue led by a persons life. Like at a feast, the communication of the just who lived by faith.
A witness but a story to aspire more hope.
Thank you for your post and communication!
This one true God is pure Love, and only by coming out of this Love is it possible the most complete wisdom, and by this wisdom he is almighty. This God is at once supreme Order, Truth, and Justice. And He Himself is all the Light and all Life.
I and Thou. God says “I AM” Do we listen. When God speaks, He speaks as “THOU”.
Transcendence Humility Otherness Unknown. Whatever God reveals to us is when we are present to Him. It does not give us knowledge of God as an object but as a Personal Being. That is why only prayer enables us to come before God who is Transcendent. When we acknowledge in Humility that we are creatures we become aware of the total Otherness of God, that God is Holy and we adore. The range of what is Unknown about God becomes greater the closer God allows us to draw near to Him. (Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope)
The fundamental truth being; neither atheists nor theists can't prove their positions/beliefs. Everything else is semantics for the sake of argument.
Define "prove" . . .
@@ELDTAdventures-tp9jy That which is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, to a person of average intelligence, even to those who may not be willing to change their perspective but must due to popular concurrence.
@@merlepatterson Thanks for the reply. That sounds reasonable to me. Much appreciated!
I've always wondered what people mean by God. This helps
what people think of what they mean by god is anything but what original scripture tells us what god is and if god does not mean elohim and is infact abstract to elohim ie spiritual then it is not what the sripture tells us what god is
I have lived to see the goodness of God 🤸🤸🤸♥️💫
I know I know we went around in 2 circles, God doesn't go around in circles, life might, living doesn't, so it's not to be or not to be it's like he said being, so rich and successful people do they sit There and do the being, think about what they have produced who for why how and what and are content with their actions, is this what yr telling us
I actually thought previously about some of the points given in the video. I kinda feel weird now.
Then God said,”Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness…”Genesis 1:26
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, make and female he created them.-Genesis 1:27
What is an image? What is likeness?
What is it like to be a rock? To be a tree? To be an ant, a snake or an elephant?
What is it like to be a human?
What are the images of the above?
Is an image the same as what something is like?
What is kind to which things are made according to? Is not mankind a kind?
Mankind is made in an image, a likeness and according to a kind. Made according to a kind is implied if not expressed in language semantically and contextually.
But are other things not also some image? Are other things not likenesses ?
Made in an image and a likeness is implied by necessity of being a thing and contextually in the making of mankind.
Things other than mankind are the made according to kind expressly and in images and likenesses by necessity and contextually.
Consider also the paradigm which would much like to disallow the express beginning and did and do not allow for the idea of an image or a likeness because, as openly declared when a beginning was understood to have occurred, to be made in an image or a likeness would be too biblically similar to reality. Therefore that paradigm must by necessity disallow by what it disavows.
Prior to everything, yet dependant on his flock, what use is such a being? We already have rulers and they suck too.
God does not need man . . . man needs God . . .
God is in no way dependent on man.
The priest has no bearing on Christianity, everything is pagan or traditional.
You need to interview Cliffe Knechtle.
That apologist is a moron lol.
So, this disproves that point that atheism and belief in God are either/or. I'm an atheist and I understand how I can't find the origin of morality through objectivity, but the I realized that objective also includes "objective statement about subjective experiences", making moral axioms an agreement (for example, we don't have to prove why causing others unnecessary suffering is wrong, we just have to agree on it and then derive conclusions using rationality from there) So, if now we can map the agreement between what is "good", we will have a meta-good, or God even atheists would agree with. In a way belief is unconscious agreement. So, it'd be more like belief than agreement.
How do you go your entire life being a bishop and God didn't show up in your life as a person? Am I the only one this happened to? Of course he's being itself, he also sustains your body in an imaginal eternal state, he can be anything he wants, including a person "external to you" in the same way he made the universe "external to you" never say it's "this or that" it's always both with God he made all things including paradox.
JBP needs to address what religious people get wrong for once 😂. People are insane.
As an atheist I’ve been a big fan of Peterson’s work. He has never spoken about the works of Alan Watts, has he?
Jesus was not a fan of sacraments, I don’t know why Catholics can’t see that.
Sacraments are the jet fuel of the Church. No sacraments = no church, kind of the direction it's heading. In 30 years or so, the UK will become Europe's first Islamic Republic. I'm sure North America will soon follow, so the debate will shift to what Allah means . . .
I am Jesus, I do not like Catholics, they kicked me out of their church
No.
"a Constitution does not function in the absence of a moral people"
for God to be truley present. People have to keep Mosaic Laws With Christ in their core.
"Make a Way for him."
It is not possible to talk about( explain) the INEFFABLE. Contemplatives are close to BEING( without all this talk).
God is everything that is good❤
I've never found anyone who can explain why, under the evolutionary hypothesis, a sense of beauty should appear or evolve.
the concept of ugly comes from disease, either in plants and animals or in humans, we do not see so much any more because of modern nutrition and medicine but naturally there would be many factors that leave scars and deformities in the body that is ugly so it a decease in a plant or animal.
And beauty is just the opposite all the signs that reproduction and health are abundant in the other person, that is why the concept of what is beautiful in another person evolves as the biggest danger to you reproduction changes.... when food is abundant obesity is seen as ugly and in time of famine fatness is seen as healthy.... same goes for nature and animal, abundant nature full of plant are animals mean food so we like it... a burned down forest or a decomposing animal is disgusting because it means death for us.
Pretty easy google: The leading theory is that we're hardwired to appreciate forms and patterns that are pervasive in nature, such as fractals, the Golden Ratio and symmetry, because they helped our ancestors survive. A symmetrical face, for instance, suggests good health and strong genes in a potential mate. I also guess it has some social factors. Maybe also so that you wouldn't be depressed all the time, I mean why do people enjoy movies? Also, al lot of things just evolve, not because there "useful" but because there just a random byproduct of something else that's important, and it just stayed. Like our tailbone or appendix for example.
@@fackfackfackfackfack Why would natural patterns exist? Why would certain ones be more attractive than another? Beauty is quite subjective and not all are attracted to the same patterns. Why are we hard coded to be attracted to patterns at all? What evolutionary reason would there be? We hypothesize that humans are attracted to natural patterns but you still haven't proven the evolutionary reason for it. It's supposed that symmetrical faces for instance are cues to better health and then to better offspring, yet it is WE who put this interpretation on it.
@@fackfackfackfackfackYour 'pretty easy google' doesn't answer the question at all.
"A symmetrical face, for instance, suggests good health and strong genes in a potential mate" This just begs the question: why does a symmetrical face suggest good health and strong genes? The only reason symmetry suggests good genes is because symmetry is the ideal, which leads us back to the original question: _why_ is symmetry the ideal?
Here's a similar question: what evolutionary reason is there for appreciating music, particularly complex harmonies?
@@m_d1905 There is an objective physicality to this universe, like 3 physical dimensions as a simple example, and patterns emerge from that physicality. One of those patterns is our subjective interpretation of this reality due to how we evolved in order to survive, which involves complex variations between individuals. Now, I'm not going to sit here all night and try to address your incredulity and/or questions concerning this topic while you constantly shift the goal post in order to protect your beliefs, like how you're doing to fackfackfackfackfack. Just remember, Evolution is easily on the same footing as General Relativity when it comes to explaining how reality works, and the mountain of evidence in support of Evolution does not even notice the tiny nit-picks made by apologists who constantly lie and misrepresent the matter through willful dishonesty and ineptitude. The original poster and you are making an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy) when literally all of the empirical evidence is on the side of evolution.
"Prior to being" what does that mean??? "I am a being so great that I don't have to exist?"
Define being.
@@m_d1905Doesn't anyone do any research or reflection here? "Being contains whatever items can be the subjects of true propositions containing the word is, "
Beings( things) have attributes.
Beings are of 3 primary attributes:
1. Kind
2. Image( morphology)
3. Likeness
All animals and plants… stars… planets… are things that exist with these 3 primary attributes.
He made man( kind)
As a kind of being.
God created us in his image ( morphology) and his likeness ( what it is like to be that thing… freewill… by your freewill you determine outcomes… freewill and determinism are different sides of the Same “coin”( language.. coin?)
Science disliked the idea of a beginning because ( in their own words) it was too similar to the biblical story.
It’s no wonder then why they would not look for an image in which we are made.
Even now even though they see the image they will call it pareidolia because they cannot conceive of it. Their minds are not prepared to accept it.
"Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés", meaning "In the fields of observation, chance only favours the prepared mind." Quote: Louis Pasteur
Abba Father God Most High ☺️
🔥let it be stated here clearly. I claim complete and total victory over every evil and every lie spoken by satan, the wicked one, the deceiver. He wants to pull God's vulnerable children away from Gods love, like an abductor stealing a child from their parents. FIRE!!!!! JUDGEMENT!! God loves his children. Oh yes, there will be a judgement. There will be weeping, and gnashing of teeth 🔥🔥Amen 😇🔥😎💯⚡♾️🙏🎄🙌
God is not religious. He just told me so.
🔥 irrefutable evidence for the existence of God. Love is the evidence. Existence is an expression of love. The word love, as defined in standard English language, is flexible enough to accurately describe whatever force created and sustains us. God loves each and every one of his children, forever. Amen 🔥😇✝️😎💯⚡♾️🙏🎄🙌
I love seeing this other dude pretend he has any clue what Peterson's gibberish means. Nodding along to a senseless word salad, it's hilarious.
Name two or more men that have ligitimately given birth.
And yet Jordan has never had a good response for Sam whenever he uses the cook book analogy because Sam always calls out his cherry picking. Sam doesn’t outright deny that there can be a less than arbitrary meaning to scriptures. He just points out all the Cherry picking necessary to maintain the idealized view of God.
Did nobody listen to Jesus Christ when he literally said your father is the 😈 ?
Why do people think the great lie was only in Eden?
The god of this world is not the father of Jesus, it is the devil who has used the father's name in vain to manipulate mankind to worship him. (Muslim, jew, Christian alike)
Look at issiah 6 and remember why the father made a new name above all else under his son Jesus to free the slaves from the law of Satan aka YAHWEH.
Atheism might be a concept that makes sense on a superficial level but once you find God you drop it like a hot potato.
That makes no sense
hm Doctor Peterson should get Apostate prophet, and David wood on, one of these days. that would be a crazy conversation, an ex muslim and a psychopathic christian. 🤣
Biology, chemistry, etc., provides knowledge to better understanding reality over mysticism. Open your mind and your world don't close it.
You are giving an advice and yet you're not following it.
Mysticism is not concerned with the materiality of the world, it flows inwards.
Science can explain the Phenomena, but cannot explain spirituality, it flows outwards.
There is no conflict to Science and Spirituality, they are complementary. Only if you go one-sided you will hurt the balance.
You make the error of implying the substance of something in itself separate to, but that can grasped by language, but you are chasing your tail, using language to simply describe those constructs. I think Wittgenstein pretty much disproved this fallacy of 'real objects.' No matter how hard you try JP you will never be able to introduce God through the kitchen door, by circumventing reason and I wish you'd give up this pointless quest.
As far he is concerned 😅
Who is "he"? Private joke?
Read Elpis Israel... ?
The big mistake atheists make is to assume that God must only exist scientifically. Hence why they ask for "evidence' of God's existence. What they don't understand is that God doesn't yield to science; He is above Man and above Man's basic senses.
God's presence can only be felt spirituality. It takes personal experiences and faith and prayer to know Him. It's not easy for some, but it can be done if you are humble and open minded.
The big mistake atheists make is to assume that Ghost and Goblins must only exist scientifically. Hence why they ask for "evidence' of Ghost and Goblins's existence. What they don't understand is that Ghost and Goblin's doesn't yield to science; Ghost and Goblins are above Man and above Man's basic senses.
Ghost and Goblin's presence can only be felt spirituality. It takes personal experiences and faith and prayer to know Ghost and Goblins. It's not easy for some, but it can be done if you are humble and open minded.
That's two assumptions on your part.
1: That Atheists assume God must only exist scientifically
2: You assume God exist
@EnervatedSociety My friend, what you call me "making assumptions" quite literally applies to you.
1. That atheists don't assume God must only exist scientifically
2. You assume God doesn't exist
Haphazardly copying and pasting what I've said with something else unrelated doesn't count as an effective counter arguement on this topic because 1. it doesn't fit the statement I've made AT ALL 2. it makes no actual point. It seems like you're just disagreeing just for the sake of it rather than trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Can you explain how i can spirtually experience ghost and goblins through prayer and faith? @enervatedsociety
@kaenwanderer4547 Are you asking me this? Because that's what that EnervatedSociety said, not me. You replied to the wrong guy.
You athiests need to cut out the religious persecution. You don't do it out in public, why harass God's righteous children on the Internet?
My dad is an atheist. Yet he practices certain things like be good to others. Note I didn't say to yourself. His conscience is quiet, so he has calling with no guard rails. He never tried reading the Bible and learning the useful stories because he never thought deeper than "those people who believe there's a big man in the sky are crazy"
None of this makes a god any more likely.
Besides, if the interpretations are not so arbitrary, why are there many, many denominations of Christianity alone?
"Deep" and "consistent" ideas? I think not.
I read 12 Rules for Life - and I love it
I am about to finish Beyond Order - I like it and have points about it that I dislike a lot
I will not read "We who wrestle with god"
Jordan Peterson, I like you as a person and philosopher. But I disagree. To me believing in God is assosiated with religion. The believing in God created religion. The concept of God fades when religions start disappearing and the beliefs as well.
Religion to me are ideologies. And one of the first rules in Beyond Order is "Abandon Ideology" - which by the way I highly agree to.
So to me it rather seems that Abandoning Ideology and believing in God is cognitive dissonance, the very foundation of hypocrisy and ambivalence.
"I act as if God exists" is not what you communicate right now.
Lemme do you one better:
I personally believe in reincarnation. Can't prove it. Will gladly waive the idea if proven incorrect. But I do not walk around saying it exists. And the believe of reincarnation actually makes me behave more consciously. Because tomorrow (reborn) I don't want to live in the shit I shat today (current me).
Doesn't mean it's right. But sure as hell comes down to the old Peterson who simply said "I act as if God exists."
Then that is your religion . . .
If by ideology you just mean any pre-conceived worldview, then you can never abandon that. Any human experience and knowledge presupposes some worldview made up by various transcendental assumptions.
So what is your worldview? Can you justify it? Does it work better for you and society over time?
my intellectual self says that God is our anthropomorphizing of reality. my irrational self hopes that God is a conscious being that will hear and grant my wishes to avoid tragedy. I think that a true religious person allows their intellectual self to be quietened with a leap of faith to let go of trying to control or understand how life plays out, because there are immeasurable amounts of absurd events that happen that are completely unfair, coincidental, reasonless, unlikely... things we cant plan for, and it throws off everything we thought would happen to the point that you might not bother thinking too far into the future because only an omnipotent being could predict any outcome further than even a minute ahead, let alone days or years
You mean the Lizard King?
Anyone else just marvel at the literary gymnastics this man has to perform to say there is a deity?
If there was a word salad competition, Peterson would reign as champion until the day the died
@@davidblack7625 hating on someones ability to have a wide range of available vocabulary comes across as massively insecure
It’s insufferable 🤮
@@NeedSomeNuance buddy, youve got 3 other comments on 3 other videos just trashing the guy, why are you even watching his content if you despise him so much?
@@nervous_II I want ppl on this channel to know there’s other ppl who disagree with them 🤷🏻♂️ often these two are hailed as really smart but they’re really not
Just cherry picking. And ignoring the horrible bits. That doesn't impress me much. We could have achieved the same knowledge without God as with.
It's intellectual gymnastics once again.
Everyone has different worldviews. The last 2000 years have had way more development in the accumolation of knowledge compared to anytime prior. Weirdly enough this period of time is also particularily affected by the judeo-christian worldview. Throwing away this worldview because its intellectual seems rather foolish. These men have spent their whole adult lives thinking about christianity and psychology so ofcourse its hard to understand. But if christianity can help the world fight tyranni, bitterness and fear, is it not worth it?
God had to die in order to be born into the place where his death would inevitably become apparent. Little did anybody know he had died until it became obvious. Little did anybody know He was born until it was necessary. Things always work out. Whether it's the way we wish it to or not.
Or in other words. People envoked God often to explain nature. And statistically invoked him more often, it's just ignorant people evoking God to explain things. That's not evidence of God nor is it an explanation of what we, atheists get wrong. As we have always said.
IT'S WRITTEN BY MEN.
Because the concept of "God" is culturally conditioned other words are associated with it? So what?
peterson says you can't read into the text what YOU want to be the case, then does EXACTLY that himself, as does EVERY religious person when they say "oh but the text is symbolic of this or that"
peterson is a buffoon as are all people who "interpret" the bible to their own ends.
Thinkers.....lol
There is no tooth fairy and no easter bunny and no god. It's not too difficult to accept if you are willing to accept facts.
@@CelestialSky-om4te Ok, pray, maybe that helps for you. I am fine.
I congratulate your ability to craft such sophistry to the weak minded
😵💫🧐🤔😒 oh god
These two are such bs
The human mind is the devil and the heart is God. Living from your mind creates a lot of issues . Living from the earth doesn’t,
How dare anyone tell atheists WE are wrong! How many thousands of years do religious fantasists need before they admit failure? How many wars? How many millions dead?
It’s a shame, because he has so much of value to give, but Dr. Peterson negates that by coming across as mad with this topic…
…and unless you can explain what created God, you have nothing.
But you're free to tell other people they're wrong.Typical.
How many millions have died for your atheist ideology? Haven't you learned anything from the 20th century?
The Unmoved Mover is that being whom set all other entities in motion and is the cause of all other beings.
God isn't created. This is why you can't find God. This is why you believe in nothing.
Yeah because atheists haven't ever started wars and haven't killed billions 🙄
Your final statements displays you having thought deeply about this.
Hey where did my reply go?
I was trained by God, given a greater mind, talent and ability. this should be in a book. my life was destroyed, I had to rely on spiritual things to survive, I am in need of help, as the greater mind cannot make people care, I do not want to do bad but I am being pushed to the limits, I want someone to care, I am in need of a good caring doctor
I care, what do you need?
@@JoyfulUniter I am unable to have a life due to filed down teeth, infections. doctors wrecked my life, I need people to help solve problems, my family is bad, they should have helped, instead they turned my life into a nightmare, I could of had a life, I have been left to suffer in a bad place
@@stephenkaake7016 What I'm going to say is probably going to trigger you. I'm going to challenge your narrative about your life. But I know God wants me to help you. So.. your imagination is the creative faculty, guiding what happens to you based on your use of it. It's the direct line of communication between you and God. Your inner narrative, the story you are telling, the words you create mentally. The inner speech, the story you craft mentally, the thoughts you choose to think about yourself. Your concept of yourself, is creating the circumstances in your life. Your hyper focus on the people who have done wrong to you, is creating a narrative loop, where you cannot forgive them, and yourself, and so you're stuck living in the past. The answer to this, is to honor God by imagining what you truly prefer as real, right now. God makes a thing inside you...based on how you assume things will go. He calls a thing not seen, as though it were seen...he creates form from nothing. The simple way out is directing your inner speech, assume the feeling you already are free, and live in that feeling, that is living in righteousness and honoring God. And God will project it onto the screen of your life, he created you in his image, there's nothing inherently wrong with you, it's the inner speech you are using...put off the former conversation, stop telling the story of the victim version of yourself, God will not deny you it's free will, he wants you to succeed but will bring you failure if you keep telling him you're a failure. So tell the story of your victory. For instruction how to do this process. Look up here on RUclips...Neville Goddard, "the habit that will change your life" it's the one that's 19:35 min long, channel name, Neville GodART, the one with the planet spinning in the background. Neville was trained by Arch. Michael, though I'm not sure he was aware abdullah was Michael, in any case, God bless you stephen, it's time for you to live a full and happy life.
@@JoyfulUniter these are serious crimes, serious health issues, I should not be told anything, people should just help
What a bunch of words that mean literally nothing. Peterson was cool about 5 years ago when he actually cared about people. Way to be a weirdo, dude. 😂
Here is a prophecy... Peterson is losing his grip on reality, and it will soon become evident publicly. Sad.
Hey badger48. There is sooo much evidence of Jesus. And God that has been proven it's ridiculous. And I'm not saying Holy books. I talking man's books. Historical, science. Those books.
Sorry, but there is no evidence for any god.
Prove it….
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink
@@TexasSheepdawg21 Burden of proof is on you actually. Otherwise I'd ask the best scientists to disprove "an invisible unicorn" and they'd have to leave all their work to disprove it.
1. The First Way: Motion.
2. The Second Way: Efficient Cause.
3. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity.
4. The Fourth Way: Gradation.
5. The Fifth Way: Design.
General Remarks:
* Later thinkers classed all five ways as variants of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Cosmology is the study of the origins and structure of the universe; each of the five ways is a reflection on the conditions which must have been in place in order for the universe, or some observed feature of the universe, to come about.
* The fourth way looks, at first blush, like a variation on the ontological argument. But like the other four ways, it's a posteriori. Anselm's argument is a priori. It is criticized by Aquinas in Summa I.II.1 (p. 417). Further, says Aquinas (I.II.2), any demonstration of the existence of God must be from the effects of God known to us; it must be a posteriori.
* The fifth way resembles a version of the teleological argument, or argument from design. Though the canonical argument from design is of much later vintage (17 Century), Aquinas might not object to this identification. The teleological argument, after all, is a posteriori.
The First Way: Motion
1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.
2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419).
3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.
4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion
5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.
6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.
7. But there is motion.
8. Therefore there is a first mover, God.
The Second Way: Efficient Cause
1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.
3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.
4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.
5. But there are effects.
6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.
The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity
1. "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be:" contingent beings.
2. Everything is either necessary or contingent.
3. Assume that everything is contingent.
4. "It is impossible for [contingent beings] always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not."
5. Therefore, by (3) and (4), at one time there was nothing.
6. "That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing."
7. Therefore, by (5) and (6), there is nothing now.
8. But there is something now!
9. Therefore (3) is false.
10. Therefore, by (2), there is a necessary being: God.
The Fourth Way: Gradation
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.
2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.
3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.
4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.
5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" (420).
The Fifth Way: Design
1. We observe that natural bodies act toward ends.
2. Anything that acts toward an end either acts out of knowledge, or under the direction of something with knowledge, "as the arrow is directed by the archer."
3. But many natural beings lack knowledge.
4. "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God" (420).
More proof for God (every religion basically) than there is no God. Even more so, tons of evidence of Jesus and his resurrection. Go do some research, then pray for forgiveness. God bless
replace the word God with good, then I can be on bored. but the way you watered it down to now it's just concepts and God is and has never been a being at all of any kind. are you not saying that God doesn't exist? sounds to me like you are presenting the chicken or the egg. eloquent speech with no facts.