When did you realize Jordan Peterson is a brainlet?

when did you realize Jordan Peterson is a brainlet?

>when one canadian professor destroys you entire antisemitic subversion strategy

Basically everything we know is based on smaller unknown truths yet to be explained. Thus, the construction of an unknown entity controlling the unknown foundations of the universe is necessary, unless everything crumbles. At least that's what I think this individualist cuck doctor is trying to say.

yes

Actually you are.

Every scientific field snd all reason and logic are based on one assumption that is taken without proof or evidence which is the first blind leap of faith upon which the rest is constructed logically.
Such UNCONDITIONAL and unwuestionable assumption is called Axiom. It is literally the first step based on nothing which you later use as foundation for everything else.

You arent intelligent enough to understand him lol.

And BTW god is literally undisprovable.
For a person who takes god as an axiom the ansver to sny question is "because god wills it for his divine plan" just like 2+2=4 for you.

BTW incompleteness theorem states that there are some things that are true however they cannot be proven.

it's raining
>prove it
*points at sky*
>doesn't prove shit without my faith in g-d!!!!

>proof is impossible
>as godel proved

Is he?

Mathematicians were busting their ass to mathematically prove that 2+2=4 then failed and gave up.

Some things are just taken as is.

The religios people dont try and rationalize the god insted they just take the god as an axiom and base all further logic upon it.

>its raining
>perhaps
>or maybe you are in coma and hallutinating
>Btw i dont even exist, im just a voice in your head

Can I prove that you are not on coma?
No you cant, you just assume you arent.
You cant prove the existance of reality outside of your head you just assume it's there. Or dont and go crazy.

The thing about the concept of god is that it is OUTSIDE of the nature, its literally supernatutmral and whatever the fuck evidence and reason there is just might be it's trick. Or not.

I CHOSE not to believe in god because i hate the idea of unelected authority however I understand that there cannot be an evidence that disproves it's existence.

>nothing can be proven with out axiom
>what is 'cogito ergo sum'

JBP expresses himself poorly, but he's right. Any logical or mathematical system that tries to be completely self-referential implodes because it either becomes circular/tautological or you have an infinite regress of assumptions. The conclusion is you have to be a Platonist, or a metaphysical realist to use a more neutral term, for logic and mathematics to hold true. That's the first most obvious implication. Further down you can see why it'd lend itself to theism. Orthodox Christian theology also makes a similar case, using transcendental logic. This is Gödel's own conclusion, and the Incompleteness Theorem came about as a response to Russell and Whitehead's attempts to show that logic and mathematics are completely self-referential and therefore disprove metaphysics. They failed, Gödel won.

That's Dr Peterson to you bucko.

He's still better than Mike degrass tyson

>very scientific field snd all reason and logic are based on one assumption that is taken without proof or evidence
this
that's what science is about but apparently people think that some "scientists" can spout out absolute truths

Hahaha fuckin brainlets

Just get two apples, then another two apples. Count them...four. there what do I win?

who

So he sucks at math.

how does that proof math you absolute fucking brainlet
more like mike deshill actyson

If you don't believe in God, you are a brainlet.

Only in systems that are consistent.

How does it not you goat?

Lewontins fallacy.

Is this real? Please tell me this is a fake.

An axiom lol.
You know that you exist.

How do you know that everything else exist? What if its all an illusion and the world is nothing like you think it is? What if you are the only real thinking person and the other people are all fake authomatons like NPC?

Can you prove that?
No you cant you just chose to believe it.

His point is that from a logical standpoint asking someone who believes in God to substantiate their claims by "proving that god exists" is illogical.

Peterson is an idiot

>'cogito ergo sum' is an axiom
So, are you a nigger or just normal retarded?

No.
2 + 2 = 5

When you get two apples and another two apples there's a fith invisible apple appearing right behing your head, you just cant see it but its there.

Disprove the 5th apple

my eyes

you are fucking retarded lmao
you should stop

what did he mean by this

You made the positive claim that there is a fifth invisible apple. The burden of proof is on you. Prove there is a fifth invisible apple, faggot.

What he is saying is that you cannot come up with theories and suppositions without a good dose of abstract thought, or "faith" as you would call it.
This "faith" or "faith in God" is a prerequisite for all proof, also he's just fucking with atheists on purpose.

>everyone hates militant individualists
accurate

RETARDS

a = a is not believed through a leap of faith, it is believed because it is necessarily to be believed.
The law of self-identity cannot be disputed you monkeys.
God can be.

>axiom
>noun
>a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Do you think that "i think therefore I am" is not a self evident or obvious statement?
Yoy accept it as a truth and I cannot refute it.

However the point is there's no evidence for the axiom itself. You just see it and think "hmm makes sense ok I believe it"

i like how as soon as someone mentions god or religions all the wannabe intellectuals show up and start throwing out names and gaslighting

never fails.

I wish we could talk in person so I could see that look in your eyes that tries desperately to convince me I will never be taken seriously by the world if I'm religious. I really feel for you guys, they did a number on you in the schoolhouse.

Axioms never have evidence, empirical claims have evidence or don't, understand the words you want to use before you use them.

Descartes' cogito seems self-evident enough although the point he wanted to make was to again establish the law of self-identity, a = a, which IS a self-evident truth that isn't based on "faith" or anything.

It's a law of our thinking, you cannot think it wrong.

Yes.
but the point is that there's no evidence or proof for the axiom itself, it just "makes sense" and is accepted unconditionally and from there the theorems are built up with logic and stuff

You're also fucking stupid, 2 + 2 = 4 is proved properly.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem only applies to Arithmetic that is more complex than 2 + 2 = 4, which can be derived through Baby Arithmetic.

None of you retards understand shit, faggots.

Because it makes perfect sense and you cannot dispute it. I can easily dispute God without being retarded.
Axioms by definition can't have evidence or proofs.

a = a is undeniably true.

>greentext contradictions
>yeshuan judaist spergs out
lmao

I think we got into semantics or language argument.

Yes axioms dont have an evidence and apparently they cant.
Ssssssso can't I say they are based on nothing or on themselves with circular logic?

not really though, i'm laughing at your frustration

No you can't, because an axiom is not an argument or a theorem, it's an axiom, it cannot be possibly be based on anything or derived from logic, else it would be an axiom of a foreign system for illogical.

a = a is the foundation of logic, denying it would be by DEFINITION denying logic, axioms cannot be circularly arrived at.

Circular logic is this:

The earth is flat because I say so
I say so because the earth is flat
Thus the earth is flat

On the other hand there is no premise that predates a = a, a = a is the premise from which all of our thinking begins, it's the law of our thinking.

Sure, if by "God" you mean some hippy bullshit like
>I BELIEVE IN THE UNIVERSE, MAN
You do need to believe that the world around you is real, and consistent to get anywhere in science. But a lot of people for some reason combine that with a need to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good sentient entity.
In some cases, they even think that they personally know this entity, and that it cares about them very much. So much in fact, that it wrote a fucking book that we should all read and follow to the letter. Even when stuff in the book contradicts the observation we make of this universe, supposedly crafted by this entity. Which is fucking absurd.
You do need to believe something to make a vision of the world that isn't just "Well, my consciousness exists, I guess, but I could be a brain in a vat for all I know, who knows maaaan". It doesn't have to be god, and it certainly doesn't have to be your god.

>The law of self-identity cannot be disputed
Wrong. It can and has been.

By whom? Hegel?
Explain to me how he does it.

When he wrote a whole book telling people to clean their rooms. however the real reason for this has nothing to do with with his Judaist beliefs.

>Ssssssso can't I say they are based on nothing?
>No it's an axiom, it cannot be possibly be based on anything

>Can I say it is based on nothing
>No it isnt based on anything

If a=a i assume nothing also equals nothing right?
We really are having an argument around semantics and language expression rather than substance. You just say the same point as I do but in other words.

It's actually true though.

>I don’t like god because I didn’t elect him so I choose not to believe in him

This thread is fucking GOLD

>By whom?
Indian philosophy.

What you're confusing is that an axiom cannot ever be based on anything, it's not part of its modality, there's a difference between saying it is based on nothing -and- it cannot be based on anything.

>If a=a i assume nothing also equals nothing right?
Depends on which philosopher you ask, most would argue that nothing has no truth-conditionals and cannot be talked about.

No we aren't having a semantic issue here, you try to downgrade what an axiom is so "God" can be an equally justified postulate. Which it isn't, God makes no sense.

Ok kek
Got any names? I doubt you even know what you're talking about.

...

Please, all brainlet, high school drop outs, and CS majors, dont even try to talk about Godel Theorems, because you can't understand it.

That also goes out for Peterson.

1=3
5=79

1+5=82

BOOM fuckin get on my level brainlets

Adi Shankara for example, would deny all axioms of logic.

>Depends on which philosopher you ask, most would argue that nothing has no truth-conditionals and cannot be talked about.

int * myPointer;
myPointer = NULL;
if(!myPointer)
printf("Ur a gay");

Clearly, they're fucking wrong.

6=3
60=8
6+60=11
BOOOOOM

Looks like we were arguing over picrelated lol.

As for the axiomality of god, well there is a large group of people who accept it as a self evident truth and treat it as such.
And while it is a positive claim refuting it is literally impissible because the supernatural claim literally is beyond and above the nature and cannot be proven or disproven with natural science or knowledge of the nature.

To deny all axioms you'd have to get a concept of "denial" and "axioms" which rely on "denial" and "axioms" being "denial" and "axioms", once you throw out logic, "denial" is no longer "denial" and "axioms" are no longer "axioms" meaning he would deny logic while also not denying logic at the same time.

>As for the axiomality of god, well there is a large group of people who accept it as a self evident truth and treat it as such.
Which is not at all comparable to what philosophers and mathematicians mean by axiom, an axiom is globally self-evident and can be deployed to build up a system.
God has none of these attributes, it is impossible for the mind to deny that something is "unity" or simply itself, a tree is a tree, an apple is an apple, a is a, God on the other hand can easily be denied without relying on a transcendental mind.

>And while it is a positive claim refuting it is literally impissible because the supernatural claim literally is beyond and above the nature and cannot be proven or disproven with natural science or knowledge of the nature.
That's why it's useless and why no one who understand what an axiom is considers God an axiom.

He did add the qualifier, "without an axiom" though so you're wrong when you restate it as proof being impossible.
He simply said proof requires an axiom.

2+2=4 isn't just taken as is, we have set theoretic constructions of both the natural numbers and addition. But even without them if you take the set of the naturals as axiomatic and define + as a binary operation on them properly then 2+2=4 will follow from the definition, rather than being taken as part of the definition.

Good argument germanibro, fucking love 4 chan for arguments like this.

do you post on KC/int/ as well, bernd?

>Ayn Rand tier philosophy
Peterson is unironically midwitcore

Godel is like quantum mechanics - everybody assumes a pretentious know-it-all attitude when discussing it.
And how is this mature, respectful dialogue? It's like politics with Liberals - it's "you're stupid," "that's dumb," "omg that's the dumbest thing I've heard this year." This is what modern, public discourse has become.

Thanks, Jews.

You claimed there are four apples. The burder of proof is on you that there aren't other ones. There is no such thing as burden of proof in mathematics, only proofs. If you claim something, you must prove it. You claimed 2+2 = 4. Your comment earlier is not a proof, but an example. What happens when you use oranges? Pears? Raisins? Now you have to test thsoe too. And every other possible thing. It just happens that you won't be able to. How do you not know that if you take some weird matter, in pairs, that it won't add up to something other than 4? You can't. Your proof is absolute trash and don't try to put the burden of proof on someone else, because its all on you as soon as you made the statement that 2+2 = 4. And your apple example is not a proof since it doesn't take into account every possibility.

Nope.

You take two physical apples and add another two physical apples. You now have four physical apples. Why are you assuming that the burden of proof doesn't apply in mathmatics? Anything asserted must be proven, or it can be dismissed without proof. This applies to any field. Stop playing word games like a nigger, you nigger.

A claim that goes against empirical observation should come with additional proof and not the other way around.

...

>antisemitic subversion strategy

If mommy's nazis lo e collectivism so much why not migrate to North Korea?

The thing about individualism is while it is less effective at achieving shared interest of group it is most effective at achieving individual happiness.

Collectivism can achieve a shared goal but at the cost of all your personal goals.
The reasonable idea is to induvidually sacrifice minimal necessary personal interests to defeat the collective which is lookig to take away all of them.

BTW not one collectivist society was ever a place worth living in, literally every collectivist regime was a self containing prison actively preventing the inmates from escaping out of it.
And the whole collectovist system does always serve ONLY the individual interests of the leaders and the ruling elite which makes it look odfly like slavery of the collective to an individual.

Collectivism is a lie, humans arent like bees and ants, there are NO collective interests, collective feelings or collective happiness for people. Sometimes there are shared interests of individuals like fighting againt being enslaved into collectivism.

>if you like living around white people so much why don't you move to an autocratic asian country
hmmmm
>wanting to defend your people as every Western country did prior to 1965 = communist nazism xD
hmmmmmmmm

Defending yourself and the people you like isnt collectivism. It is serving your self interest.

If you were sent to war against people you dont hate for the benefits you dont recieve and having no reason to do it other than being forced to fight them that would be collectivism.

>Defending yourself and the people you like isnt collectivism. It is serving your self interest.
Agree
>If you were sent to war against people you dont hate for the benefits you dont recieve and having no reason to do it other than being forced to fight them that would be collectivism
Maybe but by that definition of collectivism you've just described every nation that's ever existed, so are you some sort of anarchist?

A defencive war or an offencive war for significant economic benefits that will improve the living conditions of citozens do benefit the citizens. Especialy if the army is not cinscripts but are people who went voluntarily and get paid for their services.

I am a minarchist and I would love to see the gubmint as small as it gets doing little but managing the defence and enforcing laws that exclude victimless crimes.

Even the greatest physicists in the world are subject to their observations which in the very act of observing long enough to formulate measurements distorts everything, according to the Copenhagen interpretation. This
observation provided us such peculiar results we were left with more questions than answers, in order to even extrapolate anything from that there requires some degree of faith in extraphysical dimensions, suspension of disbelief toward alternate universes.
A degree of individualism and collectivism is essential to a great society. Too much emphasis on either is a recipe for disaster.

The difference between 1 and 3 is 2, the difference between 4 and 6 is also 2.

Difference between 3 and 4 is only 1
Therefore 1 =4

What about algebras where addition is not commutative or associative?

> We don't know, Jorah
>....Sky-daddy

Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you should make shit up.

Leave storytelling and fiction to fantasy.

Doing something for the benefit of "the citizens" is pursuing collective interest, no serious war has been fought by volunteers alone and no serious war would be. What problem do you even have with ethno-nationalism if you support freedom of association?

Lmao how can you even argue otherwise.

when threads about him started appearing on Sup Forums

Are you joking? If anything, his appearance on the scene proves that Sup Forums is always right. Peterson was astroturfed endlessly on here, and then we find out he has a jew wife, completely predictable.

Not a collective interest but a shared interest.
The difference is what's in it for YOU. Are you doing it to get your slice of a bigger cake or are you doing it for some kind of somebody else's greater good that doesnt benefit yourself.

>I CHOSE not to believe in god because i hate the idea of unelected authority however I understand that there cannot be an evidence that disproves it's existence.

Honest atheist

theoretical physicists everywhere are killing themselves because of your 9000 IQ supposition rn

>we find out he has a jew wife, completely predictable.
Thinking she's ugly doesn't make her Jewish, user.

>What problem do you even have with ethno-nationalism if you support freedom of association?

A country llike Japan which has no minorities has a right to keep itself closed off but not to opress the few gaijin citizens it has. Said gaijins should not be stripped of right or reduced to the second class. However new gaijins can be prevented from arriving.

Burgerland has given niggers the rights now deal with them you dont uncitizen your citizens. They can indeed close the borders for new arrivals but only if american niggers snd spics vote for it.

As for self association a country like Burgerland can get super segregated if citizens want to do it but that would be a horribly unhealthy practice that would lead to civil war and should be discouraged.

>Not a collective interest but a shared interest.
This is semantics as far as I'm concerned but explain to me how white nationalists working together to form a white nation doesn't fit your definition of a shared interest, it's not like we're willing or able to coerce people. I know this is just the typical divorced from reality "it must always be voluntary" lolberg shit (pro-tip, the groups who coerce their entire population to contribute to a war will always btfo any equally powerful group who refuses to). You come off as just as delusional as a communist when it comes to understanding human nature- we all want to be left alone to do what we want, but we also want to control other people, society is the end result of the push and pull.
>that would be a horribly unhealthy practice that would lead to civil war and should be discouraged.
Evidence suggests otherwise, it's the multiethnic neighbourhoods that results in the most conflict, not the segregated ones, and how exactly are you going to discourage a natural phenomenon? Forcefully?

>God on the other hand can easily be denied without relying on a transcendental mind.

Do it...........

Read Quine - The Dogmas of Empiricism and you will see your mistake

How exactly you plan on building a white nation? Decide to buy all the houses in some places and only let the white people in? Buy an artificial island and make your own nation? Well go ahead no problem whatsoever. You can even pay the niggers to go back to afrika if the accept it. Could try and trade niggers for whited with South Afrika too.

Or do you want to remove the undesirable niggers with violence? Im afraid niggers have as much rights as you do.
>, it's the multiethnic neighbourhoods that results in the most conflict, not the segregated ones,
Like detroit, Ghettos and No-Go zones?
No not at all
A segregated community develops its own segregated culture which leads to cultural conflict.

If you super-segregate the niggers from ghettos will just grow jealous of you and start raiding and attackig you just like south afrika or rabid muslims from no go zones who dont even speak any English.
>how to discourage
With propaganda and cultural pressure exclusively. And by showing what happens in ghettos and no-go zones.

aquinas' 5 ways