HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
*breath in*
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>there are people who respect this retard and give him patreon bucks
literal only good thing he has done is stand up to SJW pronoun nonsense
I don't know who this bloke is.
Can someone tell me if he's worth looking into / following?
>doesnt know what an axiom is
sage
Is this another gay e-celeb thread?
yeah i tip my fedora to that kind of stuff
but other than the religious stuff he is quite good
hope he will look at r9k and try to fix the neet problem
SLIDE THREAD
SHULTZ BROTHER IS ACTING ATTORNEY INVESTIGATION AWAN BROTHERS "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
MSM IS NOT COVERING THIS SCANDAL
>it's a brainlets can't understand Peterson episode
When will they learn? This rerun is getting boring desu.
Nah he is pretty based.
I got a webm just for you OP:
>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>*breath in*
>HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
nice argument bro
Why can't I filter out these "HAHAHAHAHA" threads?
definitely worth
Based leaf bro. Try this if you got the time:
youtube.com
Hey bros, sage this ancap shill to high heaven and abandon thread; shits going down.
we can discuss trump being based AND peterson being retarded
i understand what hes trying to say but very poor choice of words
SAM HARRIS ABSOLUTELY BTFO HIM ON HIS PODCAST
PETERSONKEKS NEVER RECOVERED FROM THAT
AHAHAHAHHA
back story?
fedora's overused and fundamentally misunderstand what proof is, they seem to believe science is a fount of proof when science cannot produce proof or facts or objectivity.
what Peterson is referring to is quite obvious from a philosophical perspective, for proof you need an objective reality. His definition of God is pretty loose, nevertheless its at least consistent enough to form a universal basis for which proof can emerge. These distinctions are extremely nuanced, and its not to say proof emerges, but that it may emerge. and proof really only exists in alcohol and mathematics.
This is actually true, though. In Descartes' meditations, the goal was to determine whether or not anything could be known for sure. Aside from his cogito ergo sum, Descartes made the argument that God must necessarily exist, and because of this, we can know that the external world exists since God would not lie to us. This formulation allowed for renaissance and enlightenment thinkers to think that when they were doing scientific research, they were uncovering the mind of God. We could rest assured that what we were discovering was true, or we had made a human mistake in our efforts. The entirety of scientific research as a source of "truth" from the Renaissance on was predicated on the existence of God. Without the existence of God, or some axiom, as the guy states, all of our knowledge loses its certainty. We can only have conditional proofs, and not absolute proofs.
got a counter argument to him?
It is OP's karma 1 week for now for shilling against based Peterson.
>babby's first philosophical argument
Axioms do not require God, this is such a retarded claim that only a theist could make it.
>but muh fancy words means he's smaht
Americans were a mistake
"Oh magical sandnigger in space, the god that does not belong to me"
He kinda looks if he has some sandnigger in him though, so fuck him anyways and his cat.
But this also is why Husserl said psychology is not science. It is metaphysical and therefore subjective and unfalsifiable.
This is why he hates post-structualist. They prove that psychology as a "science" is pseudo-science.
Clean your fucking room faggot
wtf I'm a christcuck now!
Read this, then try to deduce "therefore, God" from it: rationalwiki.org
Harris did nothing but show his total ineptness concerning epistomology.
Do you not speak english m8? He said god was A axiom, implying there may be others. (Hes also right)
no, because he gave no argument.
He just (badly) oversimplified & reworded Godel, and slapped word 'God' on top of it (which is just an arbitrary symbol in this case). You can place 'X', 'A', FooBar' in place of 'God', nothing will change.
thats the implication although god is definitely not just an axiom.
nobody as articulate as peterson would tweet this without baiting
peterson is not baiting
He's better at speaking than at writing. Two different processes.
you guys should google goedel and a bit about the computer scientists that 'proved' his theory
Why not link it. Posts like this are just as bad as the liberals who say "educate yourself"
Wew lad. I would never have believed you if you hadn't typed in all caps and pretended to laugh over text!
Pseud, avoid.
don't be a lazy shit user
>rationalwiki
even god refused to name god out of fear of being misunderstood.
peterson is baiting
He's good for atheists to take their first steps back into God's grace, thats all the nice things i have to say about him.
my dude, it just gives examples of the theorem.. doesn't try to derive anything else from it like peterson did
>godel
this and that guy tied up and that woman without a face are the most cringy series of webms for me
Faith in proof*
What is this dumbo's problem. I like that he's trying to get young men to unfuck themselves but for a philosopher/intellectual of his supposed calibre all this "DUDE GOD LMAO" talk is eyerolling in its credulity.
I prefer not reading something with "simply explained" in the title. Read Descartes and maybe you'll understand a bit better
true, because it's a tweet. He just referred to Godel's argument because obviously you can't fit it in a tweet
I only bring him out on special occasions. Peterson is good for Sup Forums so I remind OP shills their fragile existential circumstances.
truth trips. He's well read, but watching 10 minutes of any speach is enough to recognize that his atheism has permanently twisted his soul. He's tormented and everybody but him knows why. He pridefully stares into the infinite and it destroyed him.
you sure got me. I haven't been on Sup Forums for 11 years or ever been on liveleak or rotten.com or anything and now i must leave after seeing a gross webm
You can tell how much of a retard someone is when they give their opinions on religion. Stuff like:
>I don't understand why you believe in God when there is no evidence
(Or some other variant) is an instant giveaway, for instance, as it shows they can't comprehend anything that doesn't take a physical form, or something they've seen or touched.
How is God an axiom in this model of reality?
Axiom that universe exists is actually fundamental for all proofs.
His bible shit is great. He goes through making an argument for it without the actual god. Where god is just a piece of us.
Fake, nobody could possibly be this retarded.
>physical form
Somehow the physical form isn't evidence itself. This XYZt environment shouldnt exist much like this meat robot my soul is piloting and navigating this mortal coil with shouldn't exist.
so he made one retarded tweet years ago
to be honest the thing where he said Jews were alright is the only retarded thing he's done
I'm not too sure if you're being sarcastic
lol, so this is the Sup Forums's hero?
>he used the concept of god and is therefore wrong
Kill yourself
Yeah great faggot. Just like your HAHAHAHA whatevers got me too. Damn wtf OP is a genius I will totes just like accept your views fno.
You can't fix NEETs because NEETs don't want to be fixed. At least not the ones that are so deeply invested in their self-loathing that they believe (possibly rightly) that there is no hope for them. Peterson already addresses people like that when he talks about resentment and the evil side it can bring out in people.
/r9k/ is the ultimate hateful, resentful loser. That's why they've had legitimate school shooters post there.
FUCK E-CELEBS! BIGGER SHIT GOING DOWN! PIC RELATED! SPREAD IT AROUND LIKE WILD FIRE!
That's not true. Harris was just being a talmudic kike and didn't even understand what Peterson was talking about. It's the same as when Harris got rekt by Scott Adams.
Harris has this idea that everything is either black and white true or untrue. Any little bit of deviation from the truth (ie, getting the general gist right) doesn't count and it's false and a "lie" too. In his mind, if I said "2,000 people died in XYZ today" and the actual number was 1,998, he's call me a liar and a scoundrel. He's a pathetic kike.
>didn't even understand what Peterson was talking about
Because peterson kept trying to define truth as something that literally nobody but him defines truth as and wanted to base everything discussed on that
YES YES YES
AWAN ARRESTED...... AWAN USING BILL / HILLARY CLINTON LAWYERS
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ FAMILY MEMBER STEVEN WASSERMAN IS THE OVERSEEING ATTORNEY
DWS ALSO CALLED THE POLICE AND TOLD THEM TO GIVE BACK THEIR LAPTOPS OR THEIR WOULD BE " CONSEQUENCES "
COMEY-MCCABE EXPOSED, COMEY WIFE RECEIVED $700K FROM HILLARY CLINTON FOR NOT PROSECUTING EMAIL SERVERS / TREASON
NO ONE IS COVERING THIS IN THE MEDIA
YOU KNOW WHERE THE OPTIONS BOX IS , NOW SPELL IT OUT
He isn't an atheist, where did you get that idea from?
> there is no god because you can't prove it
> certain proof can exist
Literally pick one. Any proof relies on other things which would need proving creating an endless cycle of regression, until you either come to a circle where your proof proves itself or you have to have a fundamental belief that you regard as not needing proof.
Without that fundemental belief there is nothing. You cannot ne certain the world exists because uou cannot prove your senses are trustworthy.
pajeet, my son...
Yeah he is. He wont outright say he is atheist- he will even claim to be 'spiritual', but his veiled blasphemy is clear to any believer
I agree with him that there is a black and white, but he's such an absolutist that he's never going to get anywhere.
He's basically a number nerd that is withholding ammo from his platoon because he's busy arguing with supply that a crate of ammo has 998 bullets instead of 1k.
Meanwhile Trump is laying waste to the battlefield with stolen enemy artillery.
>Faith in God without proof of God
And the circular logic continues
am I the only one that doesn't get it?
someone give me a basic gestalt
>improperly use mathematical theorems to virtue signal to your followers
>receive money
That's a really shitty way of defining the need to believe in logic before arguing about God.