Comments by "" (@nightmareTomek) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1. It's just an empty claim Peterson is making, and then he proceeds to declare the hill he's standing on as the moral highground.
    7
  2. "I'm trying to define God" means he hasn't yet defined it for himself, which is weird when you put it like that. It further means he's gonna define God over the course of the conversation to put it as far away as possible from being debunked, so that it can be used as a basis for an attack on atheists. This is high level language acrobatics, can be called dishonest or pseudo-intellectual as well.
    4
  3. ​ @Fleshgait-u6c  Good answer, however it would have only worked 50 years ago and wouldn't now anymore. But by now they have realized they can't give you this proof, so they trained themselves in this philosophical word salad like Peterson used to not actually prove God but to declare themselves as the moral ones. You'd just get crushed by their gish gallop fallacy.
    4
  4. They're insanely polite lol, even complimenting Peterson when he's clearly in his semantics fog. Not only wouldn't I be able to be so polite, I don't understand how they can be.
    3
  5.  Pichkalu Pappita  He still only disproves the human definition of God, which is limited by our understanding. Children call their dads all powerful as well, and you don't go to them showing them that their daddy not only isn't omnipowerful but also doesn't exist, do you? God could be omnipotent on our plane, but not on the one he lives on, which would be one plane above us. Like a game designer, who's omnipotent over the world he created, but outside of it he needs a second 'omnipotent' being to carry a table. Rationality Rules himself said, that the debunk doesn't cover all definitions. But actually he made a mistake to deduct from a disproven description (omnipotent) to a non-existence. Does God really need to be infinitely potent to be omnipotent in our eyes? Also there are people who call themselves God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex I'm still an atheist btw.
    2
  6.  @aitchpea6011  Exactly.
    1
  7. This only disproves that God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent/omnibenevolent. But not really his existence. He could have limited power, but enough to create the universe. I'm an atheist btw.
    1
  8.  Pichkalu Pappita  Yeah, yeah, I know about these patterns. My point is, that you NEED to make God omnipotent IN ORDER to disprove his existence. That's another pattern humans have: to arrange things in a certain way to benefit their understanding or argument. I'm an atheist, but I never understood God to be so very omnipotent. Very powerful and able to create stuff is quite enough. Supreme in relation to us is enough, since we came up with the definition of God, no need to be all supreme. That also doesn't make the speed of light God, because the speed of light cannot "create stuff". In my opinion God's speed is irrelevant, if he can create the Big Bang, it doesn't really matter whether he can reach the speed of light or not for him to be allowed to be called God. All powerful would also mean, that he can make things happen instantly, right? And what would happen to your definition, if he could do anything but would need a preparation time? Would he stop being God? Sounds absurd to me. And you are not free to decide over this. Thus I guess I am an agnostic. I think we can safely say, with a high certainty, that God doesn't exist. But not with absolute certainty. As already said, the Rationality Rules guy said himself, that it doesn't cover all definitions of God. As long as you can't disprove them all, you cannot disprove God. What would a believer of God respond to this "irrefutable" debunk of God's existence? With "ok, then God isn't omnipowerful, just powerful enough to create the Big Bang. I still believe in him". Probably. They will search for loop holes as long as necessary, and so there will always be a way to define him in a way he can't be disproven. And even unrelated to that always a slim chance that God exists but is outside of our understanding, and doesn't bend to the argumentation chain "a God must be omnipotent and with this simple trick I can disprove the existence of omnipotent beings". You can choose whichever definition of God you like most, but you cannot decide over the definitions of other people.
    1
  9.  Pichkalu Pappita  lol. You are a moron. You want to push through your view of debunking God, forcefully. Reading your comment past the first 3 lines is a CHORE. You also seem to have failed at every opportunity to understand my argument, even failed to pay enough respect to actually READ IT properly. And then you say such bullshit like "if you studied some scientific", yeah go fuck yourself, too. Have you studied something? Anything? Why are you unable of compiling your wall of text into an organized presentation, instead of leaving it such a mess? I have studied mathematics, if you insist on knowing. The "gigantic math machine" you speak of like it were overly complex magic, doesn't simply deny God. What denies God is the way his video twists formulations around and skillfully hides the fact, that he cherrypicked a definition which fits his argument. Then again, to give him some credit, as I already said for the 3rd time (third time!!!), he said himself, that it "doesn't disprove all definitions of God". Holy crap, learn to read properly! Definitions of Gods are also opinions. You can't shame an opinion you don't like out of a conversation, like a feminist. Have you been raised by a single mother who doesn't know how to make a proper argument which doesn't rely on demeaning your opponent? Do you even know what deterministic means? If not, then why the fuck are you using it like an insult? It's not an insult. Look it up. And then tell me again how you came up with the idiotic assumption that I am deterministic. And then it goes on. What is your first sentence even supposed to mean? Because you don't agree that there could be a "powerful enough" God, for you speed of light becomes God? You can see God and speed of light however you want. But don't you have the capability to see that people have different opinions, different interpretations and different definitions of God? Are you incapable to comprehend that your definition isn't absolute? How you define it for yourself is irrelevant, if you wanna "disprove" someone else's definition. You can't just say "I define Elephants as being yellow, and since there are none, it's proof that Elephants don't exist". That's one lazy way display your own opinion as the truth, and quite frankly… also the definition of God complex. But I'm starting to doubt that you can even understand this paragraph. If the first line of your next comment is remotely as pointless and unorganized as your last comment, you can be sure that I won't read more than 5 words without blocking you.
    1
  10.  Pichkalu Pappita  Btw, as I scroll through these comments, I see that other people have said the exactly same thing I did: the (manmade) definition of God has been disproven by the video, and not his existence. Maybe you should read these comments if you still have trouble to understand my core argument.
    1
  11. 😅😅😅😅 I wonder if he has all his understanding about the world from philosophy books and never actually looked at the world himself. Instead of getting to the point he takes every possible detour there is in a conversation.
    1