I have not heard a single debate where Jordan Peterson has presented sound reasoning for a god claim, without him discarding any reasonable evidence to the contrary. Being unconvinced is the truthful option in any event of substantive contradictory evidence being present.
His role isn't a hard and fast debater. I'm not sure what's difficult about this. His role (as it always was) was to get people beginning to think about this stuff in a different way, not necessarily that one should stay there. He's also a gateway to more interesting people and more insightful thinkers. You guys always expect more of Peterson than really anyone takes.
@newglof9558 I don't actually expect more of Peterson. He is consistent. When in argument, he is open to encourage thinking in all channels except the non-existence of a god.
@@mdug7224 which is really weird when you realize he's not even a Christian. So, is he just getting paid to spout his nonsense? Or am i missing something?
@@CoffeeAddictEvan he just disagrees with you but has too much pride to put himself in a category. Not sure why you people always default to "grifting", especially when most grifters are left-wing.
Mr. O'Connor is the only Internet atheist I admire. That's partly why it saddens me to recall that he left the Catholic Church. So, it's hard for me to know how such a brilliant young man could remain Catholic in a home with an atheistic father and a lapsed Catholic mother. I know some people who were Catholics before their 20s, moved in with a nonpracticing Catholic, and no longer attend Holy Mass. Is it any wonder today's religiously indifferent ecumenism seems immoral to me?
@@davethesid8960 I agree with you. But I believe it should help non-Catholics become Catholics because thet's how you promote Christian unity. See Mortalim Animos. Today's ecumenism suggests the religious indifferentism Blessed Pope Pius IX condemns in error 15 in his Syllabus of Errors. I feel a little angry knowing Pius IX, Pius XI, and Leo XIII are still waiting ro be canonized when John Paul II and even Paul VI got that privilege. I'm sorry to say I suspect the got it because saints would seem to ratify Vatican II's novelties.
@@williammcenaney1331 The problem is a lot of people are unwilling to engage and listen whenever Catholics are involved. They despise the Church. I don't know what to do then.
This is when the strong intellectual and philosophical history and tradition of the Catholic Church really holds up well. Not so much in other areas, but that’s for another time.
If not accepting a claim no one can even show is possible, let alone it being the actual case that is consistent with reality does not make any sense to you then that says more about you and the reasoning that lead you to conclude a god exist than it does atheism. Doesn't make any sense to me that anyone could claim with any level of certainty that something is true when they have no way to even begin evaluating it and doing it enough to establish the very thing it is they are claiming is true and nothing short of it which does not rely on what you can best reason or anyone trying to connect the dots. Claiming something is true that you cannot even establish is true only makes sense if you are lying either to yourself and /or others
This depends highly upon what one considers “showing that something is possible”. The claim would be that God is not simply “possible” but necessary, given the available evidence.
@@ZTAudio I simply take whatever characteristic you describe your god as having along with the things your tell me your god is responsible and see if anything in reality suggest that those things are possible. For example if you tell me that your god created the universe , which implies intent via a thinking agent then I would expect you to demonstrate or point to something in reality that would suggest that it is possible for an originating thought and intent to manifest absent a physical brain, What makes god a necessity and what is the available evidence that establishes the truth of that claim? What you can best reason or speculate would not be sufficient enough evidence to establish the validity of your claim. What anyone can best reason or speculate is subjective to them facts are not established that way. If you tell me your god exists in realty then that is where you clam must be evaluated and if it cannot be then it's no way you or I can assign any truth value to the claim
How does a non-belief in anything spiritual not make sense?. There has not been any good evidence of spirits let alone one that can create everything out of nothing.
Atheism doesn't make sense? So, not believing you doesn't make sense? Not believing _you_ doesn't make sense (because you don't believe all of the _other_ theists in the world, do you?)? Of course, you've got all of those "learned theologians" on your side, huh? So I'll bite. How about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please. Why would *one* be too much to ask? Alternately, I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. Anything? Anything _at all?_ Again, why is *one* specific example too much to ask?
@@mrbaker7443 So,... nothing, then? *Nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking? Even *one* specific example is too much to ask? Well, that's why I can't take your religious beliefs seriously. Even Santa Claus had _some_ evidence that he was real - not good evidence, of course. But Santa Claus still beats God, huh?
@@mrbaker7443 you need to catch up, we don't got to "look at the trees" anymore, now it's "look at the quantum fields" looking at stuff doesn't tell me god did it, looking at stuff looks like nature to me, if you CLAIM god did it you lot still have no idea of how he does it, you can't even boil a kettle using "god did it" or do you pray for a cup of tea, or pray your car will mend? you need to pick up that mic and return it to the shop cos it's wasted on you.
@@mrbaker7443: So I guess maybe you're saying something like there's a lot of complexity in the world, it needs an explanation, and a god giving the world complexity would provide an explanation? But the thing is that the god themselves would need to be complex, and if we don't have an explanation for that, then we are still left, as before, with unexplained complexity. The thing to be explained, complexity, is not actually explained.
@@newglof9558 It is not an equivocation. God is a certain kind of a god. All gods share some god-making features, most importantly the property of being a conscious being that is not part of nature but has and exercises power over nature. God is obviously a god/deity in this sense. The difference is that God is a god that possesses various great-making properties as well, like a great deal of (or even infinite) power, wisdom, benevolence, etc. Nevertheless, God is just another god. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of all gods. Arguments against the existence of God are not arguments for atheism if they do not discard all other gods as well. Most arguments against God only target such features of God that aren't shared by other gods, so these arguments do not discard other gods, hence they are not arguments for atheism. The easiest way to solve things like the problem of evil is to just say that the universe was not created by an all-good or an all-powerful god, or neither.
@@Nexus-jg7evthat's definitionally wrong, lol. The gods in a pagan sense are mutable, composite, contingent, and usually folkloric Marvel superheroes. God in the Abrahamic sense is not in that genus.
@@newglof9558 Pagan gods are still gods, aren't they? There are some basic things that make a being a god, a divinity, or a deity. YHWH, is also a diety, but just far greater than other deities. The word God can be confusing indeed and it depends on whether people use it as a concept or simply as another name for YHWH.
'Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.' - Karl Marx
Well, that's certainly an uneducated, uninformed, nonsenical opinion - but you are allegedly entitled to have one and you are allowed to spread it around publicly....
@@newglof9558 I know what the obejct of study is. I meant that theology attempts to study in some way the fundamental nature of reality, but its most important component probably isn't really a part of reality.
Because our fedora friends are philosophically challenged and will swarm this video because you dared to insult their alleged non-belief, I'll say it here: Atheism is not, and has never been, a lack of belief or lack of conviction. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is the academic and philosophical definition of the term. Agnostic atheism is a nonsensical and meaningless term.
At least on this I agree with you. Being an atheist for me entails that there are no such beings as gods in my ontology. The agnostic is rather a person who isn't decided on whether they should or shouldn't include gods in their ontology. My position is decided and clear - there are no gods in my ontology, or worldview, or whatever. My worldview is naturalistic and mostly materialistic because I do genuinely believe that causal materialism explains what there is to explain sufficiently well. Even with things that are not fully explained yet, we have good clues, and inductively it is reasonable to expect eventual full explanation. The only non-phsysical things that I believe in are abstracta like mathematical numbers and sets, and moral properties.
@@Nexus-jg7ev"their ontology" is nonsensical. There's no "my ontology" or "your ontology". There is simply "ontology." Why make the distinction regarding abstracta? How is that not special pleading? "These abstracta exist by nature of them being mathematical." So what?
@@newglof9558 When I say 'my ontology' I mean my list of things that I believe to exist. Everyone has an ontology. Regarding the other point, I do not understand where I am special pleading. Could you explain, please?
@@Nexus-jg7evper your comment, you make an exception for mathematical abstracta existing without justifying why. Also please elaborate on moral properties.
