Can ANYONE retort this?

Faith in God is a prerequisite for believing in God, but not relevant for anything else.

Religious people who rely on axiomatic arguments are just as insufferable as logical positivists .

This kind of thinking assumes that people only believe in one type of religious structure.

"God" and "Axiom" are not the same thing.

that's not what godel proved

>as Godel proved
Reminder that any time someone brings up quantum physics, evolutionary biology, or Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems in a philosophical context, it's safe to assume they're retarded.

>axioms
or we can just treat truth as the best available explanation for the given data/circumstances/situation/phenomena and not be massive absolutists

if god isn't real is OP still a faggot tho?

...

God is a fucking QUEER lmao! Get fuckin rekt nerds.

Correct

faith in proof is a prerequisite for proof
faith in axioms is a prerequisite for proof
faith in God precludes proof by discarding it as necessary for justification

>evolutionary biology

all biology is evolutionary

the phrase "evolutionary biology" is a bit redundant

>faith in proof
nigga what. You don't have to have "faith" in proofs, you must just not be a brainlet in order to understand them.

All material phenomena filtered through sensory organs require a modicum of faith from the beholder. I have faith when I drive that every person I pass isn't going to veer into me

Fuck off peterson is based

What is with this influx of autistic youngsters sporting Pepe memes and unironically supporting Trump?

Is this the rise of the autists?

>these are the people who call you SJW's/cucks/numales

I bet the people bashing Peterson because of this don't even understand the incompletness theorem and why it utterly rapes the silly material reductionist idea that we just literally explain everything with just math and then use math to prove itself right. That's the implication, that math can't prove itself right, which is exactly why people instantly deflect with shit like because their brain can't handle that their entire world view is vulgar and wrong.

In 20 years that kid will be a liberal just like his conservative dad was liberal when he was 20.

Fuck off, leftypol. Like you look any better.

At the end of the day, Peterson is from northern Alberta the ultimate bastion of rural and suburban retards to ever exist, worse than even West Virginia and Ohio. Image a bunch of low class british people merged with a bunch of ukrainian serfs then found oil and became "nigger rich" while boasting about "hard work" and "country boy strong". The average Albertan aspires to a mcmansion with a Ford F-150 lift kit, topics of conversation include engine horsepower, sports, and bragging about how much overtime you get at work

Alberta MUST be destroyed

>rural and suburban retards
The day will come when people like you will hang.

Ohio is a state full of niggers if anything.

To Peterson it is. To him God is more like an abstract concept rather than a tangible thing or description of reality.

Wrong

Severe fentanyl/heroine addiction, and 24/7 sports coverage will wipe out the rural and suburban retards LONG before they manage to organize

Please leave this website, you city dwelling scum. You people are like ants, not even human.

He's probably from Toronto, the untermensch capital of the Earth.

>Make observations
>Use logic to make mathematical structure to precisely predict observations
>it werkz
>Godel shows that any logical structure will have statements that can't be proven to be true or false

MATERIALISM IS FALSE! CIRCULAR REASONING!

How stupid are you?
>anime pic
never mind

>lives in suburbia
>calls others scum
lmao

There's no reason why your axiom could not be derived nomologically or conceptually.

How do you prove that a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist? It's not possible conceptually. Nothing about that requires a belief in God.

I don't, but suburbia is comfy, you communist faggot. I bet you don't even believe in marriage or monogamy, you degenerate filth.

As if suburban retardism wasn't bad enough, Toronto is mass importing third worlders and converting them into suburban retards subdivision by subdivision that can best be summed up as radical suburban poo-in-looism

Toronto is the worst city on EARTH, video related

youtube.com/watch?v=EYYdQB0mkEU

What he has is Plato's conception of God. A timeless, invisible orderer of the universe that just makes logic happen because you say it does.

You're preaching to the choir.

Depends on the state honestly.

You don't understand anything about Peterson, do you?

POST MORE OF THIS SHIT IM DYING LOOK AT HIS DICK LMAO

>leninist

Why does it have to be faith in specifically God? That's presuming a lot about me, isn't it?

>math can't prove everything
>therefore God
That feels like a reach

You don't even understand the argument, you fucking fedora faoogt.

>t. materialist

You know when we say "back to /pol/" it's not supposed to imply that leftypol is welcome instead.

Not an arguement

God is not an axiom.
Even if God was, it doesn't exclude the existence of other axioms.
Also, and "axiom" is just a human word, it does not conform with reality, it only describes it.
He's basing his philosophy on a human convention, not a reality.
Even if you ignore that he doesn't seem to comprehend that just because he believes his God is an axiom doesn't make it true, as I already said.

Bad reddit biology is, sure.

>observations
Why are these valid?
>logic
Why is this valid?
>mathematics
Why is this valid?
>precise prediction
Nonexistent
>pragmatism
How is this valid?
Back to r*ddit, please.

Math is not self-evident, but it requires you to establish truths.

/thread

But what does that have to do with God? Even if yes, belief in God is an axiom, that doesn't mean that you have to accept it just because you accept other axioms.

They are valid because they describe what happens, dipshit. You actually don't need an axiom beyond "this observation is practical"

These types of arguments for god are only made by people who are very far up their own ass

>it happens becuz i sed so
>You actually don't need an axiom beyond "this observation is practical"
Why? becuz u sed so?
Do you even know what 'valid' means in epistemology?

Because "god" is just a fancy word for an unmoved mover, something that can have an effect without a cause, thus the mother of all axioms. Your understanding of philosophy and religion is beyond childish. Nobody is talking about "the bearded man in the sky" and certainly not Peterson. We're talking in some very abstract terms here. Why don't you actually try to understand the position you claim to oppose instead of just projecting shit?

1+1 is meaningless unless it has practical value
I don't have to prove "why" its true, I only have to observe that it helps me

Nothing in materialism requires math to prove itself you fucking brainlet. Unironically kill yourself

so this is the power of reddit epistemology
It doesn't 'help' you, you're memeing yourself.

But that is literally the only lag materialism stands on "dude, your brain is just chemistry, lmao". With math unable to be able to prove itself, chemistry is not an objective description of reality, but rather a pragmatic approximation and thus useless for debunking the concept of the "soul", free will and so on an so forth. Materialism is predicate on the absolute truth of scientific fact, all of which is predicated on mathematics, which is however proven to be incomplete for all eternity.

by "help" i mean observable
by the definition of axiom, no axiom exists whatsoever
reductio ad absurdum is apparently your method of epistemology

>observable
Observation is invalid you stupid rationalist.

"dude we have no evidence but you have no way to prove us wrong so we're right"

and this is why noone takes you seriously

I don't carry pepe cards

Why would truth be democratic or dependent on something as petty as social image?

Evidence doesn't exist, it's a meme made up by rationalists to justify their cancer epistemology.

Most materialists are nonreductive physicalists, get with the times, brainlet.

>With math unable to prove itself, chemistry is not an objective description of reality

No a posteriori knowledge can "prove itself", you dumb cuck. By your logic we should get rid of it entirely.

Why would you make assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever?Why is the basis of your argument the fact that you and you alone get to set the parameters of what is a valid argument?

Now I know you're memeing

Yes, all STEMtrash should be sent to the ovens
>argument
>fact
Go back to r*ddit with your cancer epistemology
>anybody who disagrees with me is just le meme because im a r*dditor that only cares about le social image

In western philosophy, "God" refers specifically to the god of classical theism, unless stated otherwise. It doesn't refer to a nondescript prime mover, you illiterate cuckold.

>"you are just a biological machine, because math, everything is deterministic, newtonian physics is everything"
>turns out hard determinism is bullshit and math is not able to prove itself right, thus invalidating your entire premise
>"YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, SO I STILL WIN"

I don't have evidence to support the existence of free will, but I have hard proof that the initial argument for materialism is horseshit. That doesn't prove me right, but it does prove materialism wrong. Step aside.

>No a posteriori knowledge can "prove itself", you dumb cuck. By your logic we should get rid of it entirely.
So why do you treat it as if it could? If you admit that math can't prove itself you basically agree that it is just pragmatic and not an objective description of reality, but rather a "good enough" approximation.

Idiot. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

>Yes, all STEMtrash should be sent to the ovens

You gave up on trying to argue and started some low effort trolling. Your epistemology is absolute trash that virtually no philosopher would ever take seriously.

Dont't breed, the world doesn't need more brainlets.

Fucking cuckold brainlet.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism

But when Peterson (or Jung, rather) talks about God, they are talking about the archetypal unmoved mover, you fucking faggot. That's why he is talking about Gödel. Peterson doesn't give a shit about classical theism. Also Aristotle and Aquinas were absolutely talking about an unmoved mover. Moron. You are either a fedora tipper or some sort of fundamentalist if this abstract notion of "god" triggers you so hard.

>Because "god" is just a fancy word for an unmoved mover, something that can have an effect without a cause

Which is a concept I can't accept because it is something I both disagree with and have no evidence towards it. If I believe in this then I might as well believe in Solipsism, because at least that I can point to my own mind as proof that I'm real and everything else is possibly something I created.

This statement relies on people not knowing what axiom means.

More quasi intellectual gibberish meant to intimidate people into belief. God has been dead for over a century now, let him go.

Math doesn't need to prove itself in order for it to provide justified true belief (i.e. knowledge). By your logic, axioms are the only type of knowledge that exists.

>something that can have an effect without a cause
God is King Crimson?

If Peterson doesn't believe "God" is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, he is not a Christian, period. It seems basic theology is too hard for a brainlet.

>comfy
>endless miles of houses that look just the same.
>economically dependent on the city for everything.

Do you deny the necessity of an unmoved mover? Do you buy into infinite regress?

>t. brainlet who doesn't even understand what Peterson means by "god"

> By your logic, axioms are the only type of knowledge that exists.
Yes, you fucking retard. You absolutely need axioms. Without them nothing is true. Knowledge is only as correct as the predicates it is based on, and if they happen to be false our entire system collapses, thus we need to accept some axioms. Without them nothing can exist or function. That it itself an axiom.

He is a christian in the same way that Jung was a christian. Fuck off, you fundamentalist faggot.

I never said you don't need axioms you subhuman brainlet. Do you have trouble reading?

>By your logic, axioms are the only type of knowledge that exists.
That's what you said.

>Do you deny the necessity of an unmoved mover?

Yes.

>Do you buy into infinite regress?

I don't buy into anything philosophical because I think it's all theories made up by people with too much time on their hands and too little real-world problems. I have more important things to do with my life than ponder my existence.

why is faith in god considered an axiom?

Okay, you smart ass sissy faggot. No unmoved mover, no infinite regress. Why does anything exist at all then?

"God" is the axiom, faggot.

Axioms ARE knowledge, but not the only type of knowledge. Are you stupid or something?

"It's not raining where I live" is not an axiom, yet it is knowledge. Are you epistemologically illiterate or something?

>Jung
>Christian

Lmao

>"It's not raining where I live" is not an axiom, yet it is knowledge.
But that knowledge is itself predicated on axioms, that's my entire point.

>Okay, you smart ass sissy faggot. No unmoved mover, no infinite regress. Why does anything exist at all then?

I don't know and frankly I don't care. "How does this benefit me" is the question I ask in life.

It benefits you by giving you a hunch that there is more to life than materialism, which is a really good argument against killing yourself or simply giving up on life because "nothing matters bro".

As long as "god" remains a purely unobserved metaphysical human-produced concept, everything non-physical referring to its existence can be discarted on the spot. Same goes for mathematics not describing natural phenomenons such as infinite sets and imaginary numbers.

>arguing is good becuz reddit sed it
I have philosophy published btw
>Take seriously
Oh look, more social image-love from the redditor.
I already have a daughter, incel.
>real-world
Fuck off back to /r/eddit