Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

@MyopicTurtle Not quite as good and evil are a product of the immaterial mind not movement of molecules. Thus free will is the ultimate center of it. In this case we can look to the Christian God which once again gets it right and you can see it in the analogy some Atheists use. "Can God create a rock so big he can't move it?" We'll the answer is yes, and he did it's called free will.
5
@19e-k2m Exactly I've heard it put well like this. "A prerequisite to belief in God is the willingness to dethrone ourselves."
5
To be compelling you have to have basis and logic to what one says. Sam Harris has neither for under his Atheistic worldview good and evil and even truth has no meaning as everything is relative. It gets even worse for his naturalistic atheistic worldview cannot even account for his own rationality he needs to argue for it with. I would say William Lane Craig and John Lennox are far more compelling.
4
Maybe he shouldn't push absurdity then. He seriously wants us to believe mindless matter manifests code that progresses to a higher state over and over... That's a literal belief in magic that's not science. The magic of naturalism.
4
Ironic because Sam's worldview is as religious as it gets. Atheism is a mythology of magic.
3
I can. Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
3
@peznino1 let me guess you believe in the mythology of magic called atheism?
3
@peznino1 Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Truth is not relative, we don't all have our own truth. That's why testing everything is important. Christianity is evidenced based. Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd and clearly not the type of faith presented in the bible and used to do science. Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which essentially means a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person. Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species. The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature can intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that. You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with. So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God and the belief in God is what encourages the very enterprise of science which is why it birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. There is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just believe a God exists but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as Jesus promises and does for all those that seek him.
3
@yinoveryang4246 I mean so is discussing evil with a Atheist when the concept has no meaning from such a worldview as everything is relative.
3
It was a bunch of nonsense. Sam's Atheism can't even account for his rationality he needs to defend it with. It's like a chicken arguing why KFC is amazing lol.
3
lol why Atheism is dead and science killed it. There is no value to discussing topics with Sam Harris other than to point out his flawed logic.
2
@NousTrapper Oh? Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." lmao no mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex machina mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Atheism is dead and science killed it. Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
2
@ikitclaw9878 Wrong, if God has no agency over his attributes in exerting them in a measured way then he is not all powerful.
2
Cute but what is good is all relative under Sam's atheistic naturalistic worldview so the word becomes meaningless. His whole worldview is self defeating from a scientific perspective alone.
2
lol that's so ironic because Sam's Atheistic naturalistic worldview is destroyed by science in this very fashion. There is no origin to his free will and rationality to be produced from such a worldview thus it's self defeating.
2
@laza6141 No no ultimate origin. I'll spell it out then. If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed. Atheism undermines rationality. To think naturalism is the only answer and thus ones brain/mind is the end product of unguided processes is an absurdity far less to trust that to do science with! Ridiculous! No one would ever trust a computer made in such a way. Atheism can't survive the advancement of science. Atheism is dead. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Whereas believing how the fathers of modern science thought that this universe is the product of an intelligent God, that gives you justification for doing science. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist I hope that helps you get where I'm coming from now.
2
It's all esoteric nonsense. There is no basis for anything Sam says for under his Atheistic worldview good and evil and even truth has no meaning as everything is relative.
2
@peznino1 Mankinds most proven knowledge the space time theorems have told us there must be a God. Borde and Vilenkin took Hawking and Penrose work on classic general relativity and expanded it as far as possible with 5 papers in an attempt to disprove the Big Bang and it's Christian implications and concluded "all reasonable cosmic models are subject to the relentless grip of the space-time theorems." They gave examples where you wouldn't need an absolute beginning to space and time but in such models you wouldn't have life. So there has to be a causal agent(God) beyond space and time because the universe is not cyclical/eternal. But are they a personal "God"(intelligent, caring) or "something else." Fine tuning evidence tells us the causal agent is a personal God. So we logically have God, that is a personal in nature. So an easy test is which faith gives us a big bang, fine tuned universe of an intelligent caring God. Only Christianity nothing else comes close religious nor scientific in all of human history. The big bang is uniquely a biblical concept. Science has advanced to a point we know now life is based on an immaterial concept, information, found in DNA. There is no physical process or naturalistic phenomenon that can produce such communicative information. A mind is required. Life requires God. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. The universe is inherently coherent. Christianity claims God the Word created everything by transfer of information.
2
@peznino1 Exactly you can't even be honest with yourself, you'd rather have blind faith in nothing. Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." lmao no mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex machina mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it. Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
2
@michmonty95 Yes emergent properties that somehow magically emerge when there is zero naturalistic pressure to create the structures that make up the whole of those properties working in tandem. It's nonsensical. It's a belief in magic.
2
@jotho1793 What I commented to other person; Atheism undermines rationality. To think naturalism is the only answer and thus ones brain/mind is the end product of unguided processes is an absurdity far less to trust that to do science with! Ridiculous! No one would ever trust a computer made in such a way. Atheism can't survive the advancement of science. Atheism is dead. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Whereas believing how the fathers of modern science thought that this universe is the product of an intelligent God, that gives you justification for doing science. You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins.
2
@SonoftheWest316 This is why all the militant new atheists have lost relevance. Everyone has seen their arguments are flawed and they are out of touch.
2
Nothing to hear, most everything he says is nonsense. Evolutionary theory is pseudo science, the flat earth of modern science.
1
It's all so ironic because without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative. It's so asinine hearing people argue for 2 hours from a self defeating premise.
1
@ikitclaw9878 ESL courses would be helpful for you since you don't know what the word "wrong" even means.
1
@Thisismyflightsongbaby Wrong. Christianity is evidenced based. Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd and clearly not the type of faith presented in the bible and used to do science. Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which essentially means a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person. Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species. The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature can intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that. You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with. So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God and the belief in God is what encourages the very enterprise of science which is why it birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. There is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just believe a God exists but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as Jesus promises and does for all those that seek him.
1
@Thisismyflightsongbaby Your Atheism is the mythology of fairy tales. Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." lmao no mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex machina mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it. Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
1
@tylerdurden4396 Sure, without God as the basis for reality, good evil and truth loses all meaning for it's all relative. Everyone has their own truth and idea of good and evil it becomes without meaning. The thing is truth is exclusive, it's not all inclusive, we don't have our own truth. If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed. Atheism undermines rationality. To think naturalism is the only answer and thus ones brain/mind is the end product of unguided processes is an absurdity far less to trust that to do science with! Ridiculous! No one would ever trust a computer made in such a way. Atheism can't survive the advancement of science. Atheism is dead. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Whereas believing how the fathers of modern science thought that this universe is the product of an intelligent God, that gives you justification for doing science. You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins.
1
@PeteQuad Hence the problem for the Atheist. You aren;t following,
1
@ym5891 Exactly. This conversation is all esoteric nonsense. There is no basis for anything Sam says for under his Atheistic worldview good and evil and even truth has no meaning as everything is relative.
1
@laza6141 You rephrased the premise to argue from to say I was wrong. No. Notice how I used the word "origin" if you can't get the thing in the first place then the premise is wrong. A Atheistic naturalistic worldview is self defeating, science has killed it. Atheism is dead.
1
Doesn't matter without a God morality originates from it's all relative thus good and evil loses all meaning and even worse so does truth. This is why Jesus said I am the truth, not I have the truth. He is saying he is the ultimate truth of all things. Christianity stands alone in so many ways in it's reliability.
1
@Jonagold92 God=mind aka a person. Our universe is inherently coherent, it's rational. We can do math and science. Rationality must come from rationality meaning a mind. Atheism/naturalsim presents a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality as the origin of all because they have no mind at the origin. The problem for the Atheist/naturalist is where did their own rationality and morals come from because it can't be the product of naturalism and thus their naturalism can't be true. It's all self defeating. So there can be no objective morals or truth from such a worldview. I'll spell it out. If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed. Atheism undermines rationality. To think naturalism is the only answer and thus ones brain/mind is the end product of unguided processes is an absurdity far less to trust that to do science with! Ridiculous! No one would ever trust a computer made in such a way. Atheism can't survive the advancement of science. Atheism is dead. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Whereas believing how the fathers of modern science thought that this universe is the product of an intelligent God, that gives you justification for doing science. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins. There is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God.
1
It's about time we get to see Lennox haha. My only complaint is I wish the video was longer!
1