Does Jordan actually believe this?

File: Sye Ten Bruggencate.jpg (66KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1920x1080px

>>140031773
So he's a presup?

>>140031773
Why don't you stop obsessing about social media and do something with your life?

File: 1306492950797.png (61KB, 627x620px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 627x620px

>>140031773

>>140031773
If he's talking about "absolute proof" then he's right. You can't truly know something as we have to make inherent assumptions about how our reality works and how we can understand it before proceeding from there. The best we can do are make models that we assume can show us more and assume that consistency is an important property.

>>140032255
Those.....those.....so nice.

You got to love how so many of the dilemmas our intellectuals face were answered so long ago, yet they repeat them as if they are eternal mysteries.

Or you accept a different axiom, like say, consistency

>>140031773
Hume's guillotine made me a theist, unironically.

Whenever you are making "good" and "bad" moral distinctions, you are making value judgments and, ultimately, using the currency of faith. It is just a weakness of the English language that mathematical logic and scientific logic and ethical logic all use the same language -- but they are not the same things.

>>140032465
This is a good video that explains both that concept and the reason the discussion still exists today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLJczkOU44

>>140031773
because axioms are the basis of all knowledge and pretty much everyone ignores them. very few people study epistemology.

>>140031773
sure, i'll buy it. but it says nothing about the nature of god, and is essentially just using the word 'god' as a metaphor for 'what is' or 'unified existence itself'

someone wanna tell me where I'm wrong?

t. happy to have god's existence proven//would like to believe

File: 1465437190664.png (54KB, 608x336px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 608x336px

>>140032156
How else we will get the word out and save the world?

>>140032465
Try were answered. The only reason we even have subjectivity is because of the ego of humanity, for better or worse (worse, sadly, but the ego of humanity will also kill it quite literally )

>>140032156
>posted on anonymous social media platform

>>140032817
I think it's better, unless I'm having a conversation with someone and it becomes evident they are going to require a 30 minute lecture before we can continue because they have the wrong starting point. That being said, I hate it when people don't bother arguing with me until they have given me a 30 minute lecture. So fuck me, fuck.

>>140031773
I'm pretty sure he is referring to god as an abstraction or "the highest value"

>>140031773
It does work

>>140031773

"You need an axiom, thus you need God"

t. retarded godbot who made 2000 assumptions about reality and called it one

>>140032255
I have "absolute proof" that if I stick my penis in your mother she'll enjoy it.

>>140032756
When he says god I think he's referring to faith. You must believe something to be absolutely true that you cannot prove. All science requires this faith. Unfortunately this means nothing can ever be proven without faith. And someone will always disagree or not believe. So I guess even proving god through science a thousand times means you still must have faith.

>>140031773
>God = the ideal
>the ideal = truth
>truth = confirmation of something
>confirmation = proof
Not that hard to understand

this post is god because it says it is

>>140031773
L O G O S
O
G
O
S

File: 84657742.jpg (47KB, 600x504px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x504px

>>140031773
>proof is impossible without an axiom
>godel proved that

File: 1430605795863.jpg (261KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 900x900px

>>140031773
That isn't how Godel's incompleteness theorems work.

Liberal arts professors shouldn't opine on maths and other subjects they're not qualified to.

Jordan Peterson is a fucking hack who has no idea what he's talking about.

I fucking hate normies and boomers. UofT is a garbage school.

>>140034761
>UofT is a garbage school.
best in canada though

>>140033973
but that implies that the universe exists because we believe it to exist. I don't think faith is required to realize that there is something, and that this something pushes and pulls, creates and destroys, etc.

i dont understand still

File: binx.jpg (40KB, 600x589px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x589px

>>140034823
>>140034823
No, UBC, McGill and Waterloo are all better than UofT depending on what you study.

UofT is a shithole in the downtown of worst city in North America that gives birth to SJW Frankenstein monsters like pic related.

>>140032255
He isn't right about shit because their is no god. Things can be proven with math, and that's how they are proven--with math.

File: disgust.jpg (44KB, 460x613px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x613px

Your use of language is cringey

>>140031773
>/pol/ doesn't understand the concept of axioms and Godel Incompleteness Theorem
not surprised tbqh famalam

File: 1504306996593.jpg (23KB, 300x297px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x297px

>>140033333

>>140035464
All maths starts with axioms

>>140035464
Peterson's argues that whatever your highest value is, is de facto your god. In that context it makes sense.

>>140035560
ass

>>140036167
Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual.

>>140037015
If anyone /pol/ listens to isn't a pseudo-intellectual it's Peterson

>>140037791
he's a pseudo-intellectual, he spouts off on Gödel without knowing what he's talking about

at least lauren southern, milo, etc, don't pretend to be intellectuals

>>140035174
But even to prove facts about the universe you have to make assumptions about it. It must have a beginning or always have existed. We can't really prove it by observations obviously but we know it must be true.

>>140038447
>Lauren "nigger loving" Southern and Milo
Considered killing yourself yet?

>>140031773
This christcuck falsehood has been debunked centuries ago.

>>140038447
>he spouts off on Gödel without knowing what he's talking about
And you do? Like really, what is your argument other than calling a professor stupid and saying he's wrong?

>>140031773
Wrong. Faith in God is not a prerequisite for all proof; acceptance of predetermined axoims, created by the predeterminer, is a prerequisite for all proof.

File: Bismuth.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>140035464
>their is no god
There may or may not be, but if there is, then every day American grammar strays further from Him.

> Godel is disproven because the universe is self similar.

> You don't need "God" to define morality, you just need a moral standard (i.e.: the NAP, the doctrine of Karma).

> Peterson is a fucking degenerate

>>140035178

>ubc

>mcgill

>waterloo

all literally worse

only faggots that dont get into UofT suggest otherwise

>ubc

chinks try to go to uoft

>mcgill

trash

>waterloo

trash, only good for comp sci

File: 1500921282903.jpg (22KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x320px

>>140038447
reminder that anyone who calls Jordan Peterson a psuedo-intellectual is an asspained tranny.

>>140031925
that's some FUCKED-UP LAAAAAWGIC

>>140032756
Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

>>140033973
You don't need faith or belief. You just need mutually agreed assumptions of what is true to start. It's perfectly OK if all parties involved laugh and state we can't actually prove it, and they're effectively arbitrary assumptions.

Peterson is a Hegelian subverting Christians...but he's still genius

>>140040104
> You don't need "God" to define morality, you just need a moral standard (i.e.: the NAP, the doctrine of Karma).

What exactly do you think you're saying? Morality *is* a standard. Saying you need a standard for a standard doesn't make sense. You also don't get to pick what's moral any more than you get to choose how many moons Jupiter has.

File: 13888108157_1dbc693ff1_b-e1452790173898.jpg (223KB, 1000x632px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1000x632px

>>140042217
top fucking kek , this made me laugh.
But you are only partially right. Peterson is merging Hegel into christianity which should have happened long ago anyway.

Well he never defines what 'God' is and whenever pushed for an answer he falls back on the idea that God is a meta-hero i.e. an amalgamation of all human truths as a literary hero but he is clearly a religious man and dances around the blurry line of human vs absolute truth to justify his irrational beliefs to his largely reasonable audience. I think he believes in the classical idea of god but simultaneously rationalizes his irrational belief system by defining 'god' as an irrefutable human truth that we all can relate to but his podcast with Sam Harris showed his inability to reconcile physical absolute truth and human truth. Yes all proofs require an axiom but to define the axiom of all axioms as 'god' is misleading and disingenuous

>>140031773

It's just the unmoved mover argument repackaged. No idea why he thinks this is comprehensively convincing.

>>140043748
thanks for the flag, haven't been here for a while, or never seen this one

>>140043292
Imagine every single concept you could possibly know. From concept of red, iron, loud , iq, harambe, physics, sky, pizzagate and desu.

Now , when we speak of God, we are speaking about someone, something(both those terms are wrong because they belong to concepts above) that transcends all of those concepts, time and material world.

How are you supposed to define him(and again not him,she, it because it belongs to the concepts of human understanding) if defining him implies understanding him. Understanding would imply that we are more powerful then him.

Try imagine ant define you. Now that is you trying to define God. Or even better, Try imagine a plant defining you. It is infinetly times easier for plant to understand humans than its for us understanding God, because it's just impossible

>>140040248
We all know UofT would love to think they're the greatest thing ever.

We also all know that's a load of fucking crap.

>>140031773
what does he mean by this?