There’s NO Good Argument for Atheism w/ Jordan Peterson

📺 Watch Full Episode on LOCALS: mattfradd.locals.com/post/561...
🙏 Try Hallow: hallow.com/mattfradd
In this clip, Matt Fradd and Jordan Peterson talk about atheism and how there is no good argument for it. We were made in the image and likeness of God, and that's just a fact. You better believe it, or risk going to hell!
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this video is meant as medical advice
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[@Shiggy_]

Pints does a great job pushing back, not in a destructive way. But in a way that invites Peterson to explain his thinking further. This is great.

[@MonteMediaProductions]

“Created in the image of God means you wrestle with potential” Jordan B. Peterson

[@roshinvarghese6879]

I love JP but he keeps putting God as an EXAMPLE of the highest good. He is THE highest being and must be worshiped. God is not just a philosophy.

[@praisebegamecocks]

​@roshinvarghese6879 You think maybe his argument is that too much points in that direction in psychology, meaning, instinct, etc. Therefore there is a transcendent conscious principle that orders these things, and ordered them in such a way that conscious beings must align with him to properly function, and in effect his only issue is either he presents it withinthe argument he found compelling, or that he can't make the last leap to say he knows for sure that this being is 100% portrayed correctly in the Bible, but rather that his conviction is close enough to what would be recognizable as the true deity, that he concludes that it must be the most accurate reflection, but given that his reasoning grants the difference between faith and knowledge, he only argues it in so far as he can make a strong argument rather than forcing the last leap of faith on a person? Maybe you should just let people come along at their own speed, which is either what he's letting others do, or the journey he himself is on. Just because he won't say definitely that he knows what God is while making in argument that there is one doesn't mean you know his own private convictions beyond what he feels he can argue with sufficient certainty to argue publicly.

[@jakechilton1066]

@@roshinvarghese6879I think he is already Catholic. While he is hitting Truth, Bishop Barron is simultaneously hitting the Beauty front drawing people to the church. I could be wrong but it seems that way. It might be intentional he is using the abstract language to bridge the gap because he goes in and out of direct language consistent with our theology. To play devils advocate I get tired of our Catholic brothers and sisters painting him as “dangerous” because that seems to be trendy at the moment, it’s a Protestant mindset. Know and find comfort in truth and to your point yes correct him with the correct order of delivering truth.

[@waffleman1299]

Typical JP psychologizing word salad. The truth is that JP is as much of a materialist as Marx or Freud

[@sweatincowboy4692]

​@waffleman1299 quite a bit off, he's chewing. His worldview/paradigm was psychology and now it's shifting to metaphysics and eventually he will balance out with faith. Pray for him he has brought many to the faith and will continue too.

[@m.d.sharpe8892]

"A sugar daddy gifting me a theme park if I stop masterbating" is probably the funniest thing Ive heard in months

[@robberlin2230]

George Costanza!!

[@mjfraser04]

*masturbating

[@MavKennedy]

Might be the best line I’ve ever heard in a JP convo, and I’ve listened to many. 😂

[@mjfraser04]

*masturbation

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@TheCrusades1099]

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

[@jeanettapayne9631]

“The price for Life is Death”

[@CameronRabie]

"The wages of Sin is Death."

[@WarPoet-In-Training]

​@CameronRabie this is why, in christian theology, hell and the lake of fire are also referred to as "the second death". Because no matter how good or bad you are, no matter whether you're saved or not, you will pass from this life through death to the other side. So the verse saying, "the wages of sin is death" *could* be referring to physical death (as in, some sins will lead to death) but can also be understood as the final death. The second death. The eternal death. A death that, once passed through, is the end, rather than a doorway into what lies next.

[@vladgor4099]

@@WarPoet-In-Training Yes, this first death is just relocation. Its the true death in the lake of fire that people need to worry about. The wages of sin is death, easily applies to both the body and the soul. As both were corrupted. When Jesus came, he did not come to save the body, he saved US, our souls, and filled those who believed with the Holy Spirit. We are protected from the second death and do not have to fear it, it has no power over us. Neither do we fear the first death, since it brings us to our Lord, our long awaited reunion. But while we are alive, we have work to do, which the Lord has ordained for us to do.

[@martinscrapp7166]

@@WarPoet-In-Training yes. the 'wages of sin is death'. It is not referring to physical death, but spiritual death. The physical things around us, the planets, the stars, are all temporary. Spirit is eternal. Physically, we all die once. If you happen to be a believer in Jesus the Christ, then you'll be with Him in Heaven for eternity. If you are not a believer, then you'll be subjected to the second death - the spiritual death. Revelation 21:8 - _But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”_

[@enriquewahn]

Its useless, in the surface Peterson words seem kinda dumb and Not easily understandable but he is right💯

[@JeffreyChase-ri7vq]

I saw Jordan Peterson in concert recently. The best part of the event was when his daughter said, she was born again.

[@mach7479]

And he responded: “YOU HAVE TO BE PRECISE” and the audience erupted in tears and a frenzy of applause.

[@darwinlaluna3677]

To believe is not by forcing u to believe, it is to surrender all

[@HockeyRiveNord]

But if you don't, you're damn... that is called 'under duress' 🤔

[@korvonfrancis6552]

What happens to criminals when they break the law, they no doubt get sent to prison. Same when we break God's laws, we all deserve hell because we've all failed to keep his laws. However, God is offering us a presidential parden if you will, we can either accept the conditions of the parden, or we can face the full weight of God's justice on ourselves. That's not a choice under duress, that's a willful choice of your own choosing, it's not forced on you in any way. Christ has plans to flulorish you, not to cause you to parish. But if you don't want him then that's what hell is, eternity without him.

[@harrykane_]

​@@korvonfrancis6552 The equivalence is a little different. How about unlike judiciary system God by definition can do anything, therefore God can also be held accountable for not getting rid of the root cause of evilness? I honestly think the answer to this would be "God has a plan". Which is really nothing to argue against we probably would have to circle back to whether or not a God exists.

[@cirqueyeagerist5641]

@@HockeyRiveNord But the same is happening with Atheism 🤣💀Atheist are so darn hypocrite that they claim that if you believe you are a fool , Join us have no belief and you are smart 🤣

[@willi-ams7798]

​@HockeyRiveNord you live in a world bound by rules... break the laws of physic and see what happens... it's simple. you are free to break those laws but don't cry when you see the repercussions.

[@piesho]

Give me a good argument against the existence of fairies? What? Gotcha!

[@joaocalhandro]

Our not understanding of something (as a premise for God) = God of the Gaps. 3:03 "Belief in God [doesn't require evidence]. It's commitment." Now I'd call that an illegal chess move, myself... I love JP, but we part ways on this very subject rather quickly.

[@crepel]

"Why isn't your solar plexus conscious" said with such a force has got to be the funniest thing I heard in ages

[@ArielIsaac8111]

He’s spitting though

[@chomnansaedan4788]

Let him cook! 👩‍🍳👩‍🍳👩‍🍳

[@kirnbby]

Still a BS argument. Nice try christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian) Why isn't the solar plexus conscious?? Well, why isn't it conscious under YOUR VIEW of "spirit from God"?? It seems like "the spirit of God" can cause something to be conscious only when there is a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity. Why can't this magical spirit cause anything else to be conscious?? Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious? Why isn't you solar plexus conscious ? Why isn't a rock or a table or a chair conscious ?? It seems like your all powerful God's spirit can work ONLY under very specific orientation and working of the nervous system. Hmmm WEIRD. OR the simpler answer is that consciousness is the result of a SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity.

[@kirnbby]

BS argument. Nice try Christians. (If I can even call this nutcase a Christian). Why isn't you Solar Plexus conscious?? Well let me turn it around and ask you why isn't your solar plexus conscious in YOUR view of "spirit from God"?? Seems like this magical "spirit of God" requires SPECIFIC TYPE of neural activity to work......Weird. Why isn't your palms conscious? Why aren't your kidneys conscious ?? Why isn't a rock conscious?? If it is a result of the spirit of an all powerful God. The simpler answer is that consciousness is a result of a specific type of neural activity.

[@roberthawthorne147]

It might be. He doesn't know that

[@hamiltonian4698]

damn that last statement about consciousness being the Spirit of God brooding on the face of the water was 👌

[@Kezia_kaye]

Agree and it’s so beatiful. First time I’ve heard it.

[@draedon_]

If consciousness is nonphysical, then why does general anesthesia work?

[@caseycampbell1]

@@draedon_ because you affect it's container - the brain.

[@danj9339]

Thank you for saying. I didn't understand what they said in that last bit.

[@sisaytekle6621]

Let me add something more on conscious: everything we do on earth is recorded in our conscious, and one day, when we die, we will see what we have done throughout our entire lives in front of Jesus with big screen.so be careful with your actions on earth!

[@SueProv]

Matt. Really well done. I definitely like your approach.

[@anamari9434]

Agreed!!!

[@MJArcilla-nn1ct]

I guess he is doing it like Aquinas would? Setting up counter-arguments, but for his guests.

[@jacksonelmore6227]

Every clip of this pod I’ve seen have been straight bangers

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@jaylaw.7660]

💯💯💯💯

[@Alepap.]

Yes very funny

[@JacobLehman-ov4eu]

you guys are killing me with these teasers. I'll have to join the locals at some point!

[@carmenboatella]

I think he just gets better and better, more and more clear, confident, wise, truthful... how can history not say that he was one of the great minds of our age...? So excited to see what wisdom will come in the future I him.

[@Theactivepsychos]

What’s his best bit of wisdom from the last few months?

[@mcable217]

Yes, very clear.... the best definition of conscience is the spirit of God brooding on the water. That makes a lot of sense and will be useful I'm sure in further research on animal conscience and human cognition. Just check to see if the spirit of God is brooding somewhere.

[@criticalthinker8007]

Really. He likes to use conflated words that do not actually mean anything. His idea of a God is just a conceptual best not an intelligent creator; creating an all encompassing definition which ends up being meaningless because it has no exploratorily depth. He is very knowledgeable on a relatively small are of Psychology, you can always tell when he is being knowledgeable because he speaks plainly and does not get flustered which is therefore very rare. He likes to quote various philosophers but nearly always get them the wrong way round or mis-quotes them.

[@waffleman1299]

@@criticalthinker8007 exactly, his advice basically boils down to “live as if God exists” (but actually doesn’t) and it’s self-refuting and nonsensical.

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

I actually don't think so. I think he recently have went too far into one extreme of the political debate. I pity his involvement with the Daily Wire.

[@Critter145]

It brings my heart unbelievable joy to see the towering, discerning, penetratingly thorough intellect of Jordan Peterson turn to Jehovah and Yeshua.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's KZbin channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the KZbin channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own KZbin channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( kzbin.info or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )

[@benjisandk]

I think you will be thoroughly disappointed in his true views.

[@barrywhite36]

@@benjisandkyou know him personally do you ?

[@benjisandk]

@@barrywhite36 I don't have to: kzbin.infoq39wOXbZ65M

[@Dutchbrother07]

A thorough intellectual wouldn’t totally ignore the question he’s being asked as he does in this video. Intelligent though he is, I really wish he weren’t so dismissive of that question

[@BenEcho]

Absolutely loved every bit of this. Thank you Jordan.

[@markwilson2421]

What do you think Jordan thinks an atheist is. I am pretty sure 99 percent of his followers have no idea

[@TheDoctorProfessor]

​@@markwilson2421Reddit is that way sir

[@NicholasLaDieu]

Wouldn't the 100% lack of any supernatural evidence be considered a good argument?

[@seeingeye14]

Argue that against unseen gravity when you walk off a cliff.

[@lanesmith1465]

What do you define as supernatural and how do you know that their is 100% lack of it?

[@maudey53]

He's coming around! I am enjoying his journey. Sail on!

[@LockdLoaded619]

He's not coming around to Christianity. You can forget it. The Bible is wrong. God is real and so is Jesus. But professing faith in the Bible alone does not guarantee you a ticket to Heaven.

[@emmanuel8310]

​@@LockdLoaded619 Nonsense. You want him to believe a random anonymous Internet guy over an age long book of wisdom. Sorry but we're not all idiots.

[@barrywhite36]

@@LockdLoaded619what are you on about ??? Bible is wrong ? But Jesus and god is real. That does not make ANY sense.

[@ciscornBIG]

​@segagenysis6918 please stop and attempt humility. What a narcissist!

[@ryanziegler1410]

Which one?

[@ryanburns5667]

Beautiful discourse and exchange!

[@johnlocke6800]

This is a far cry from "i don't believe God exists, but i live like he does." Praise God.

[@josephthomas2226]

clearly there has been evolution in his views, right?

[@RossShelton-fp3vf]

He says belief is substantiated by actions and therefore he shows his knowing of Gods existence thru his actions. Unlike most Christians who think it’s just by saying a few words. His point is that you’re gambling with eternity so you don’t just get off that easy.

[@georgesimon1760]

But then he says that God is commitment, admitting that he doesn't believe in an actual god

[@danieltransvant3933]

He never said he doesnt believe but he explained what believe mean by saying he lives as if He does.Clearly you misunderstood

[@georgesimon1760]

@@danieltransvant3933 of course he doesn't say he doesn't believe. But he refers to God as "commitment" here. In other places he uses other nebulous terms for god that don't mean anything close to a god that people pray to or assume exists. I don't understand him because what he says simply doesn't make sense or is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

[@rodgod82]

goes from a Canadian psychologist to be a tele-evangelist in America

[@samuelcharles7642]

That’s where the money is

[@jessewallace12able]

Yes it’s total baloney

[@brodyburkett3740]

Dang. Never thought I'd see Jordan Peterson be wrong about something. Notice their conversation only concerns fully conscious able adults.

[@saracenrush2010]

Who knows what challenges those who are mentally handicapped have to overcome that may seem mundane to the regular person. Being your best is not the same as being the best. It's your best, your highest self, whatever that may be. And I feel this could apply to any intellectual capability, in all sorts of ways.

[@Bradchacha]

"God is the benevolence that shines through a good father." JP casually dropping such gems as definition is crazy. I'm a Christian and a psychologist (therapist). I used to listen to JP a lot...then over time - specifically once I got baptised, i listened to him less and more to Dr Voddie, Paul Washer, Dr Gavin and Nate Sala. Where i spent my time changed. And I've never been more joyful

[@jeremytine]

god is as much disease, war, natural disasters, suffering, evil.

[@noespensos]

What do you mean by “there”? What do you mean by “isn’t ”? What do you mean by “a”? What do you mean by “good”? What do you mean by “argument”?

[@ambe4825]

What do you mean by "what"?

[@franciscomijniewich8964]

🤣

[@legendman97]

Freaking brilliant, Dr. Peterson was critical for my reversion process back to Catholicism in 2016-17.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@angelbrother1238]

If he was here 15 years ago he would saved me 4 years of atheism lol

[@smellincoffee]

It's interesting how often that's happened, how close he's come to crossing the line into Christian belief, and yet how he resists the final jump into grace.

[@angelbrother1238]

@@smellincoffee JP is a deep thinker and most of the time free thinkers end up coming God kicking screaming . Took me 4 years to come back to belief in Gods existence again because I was the kind of person that questioned everything and what-if’ed everything to death . For me the hardest thing to do is to get my brain to just stop at night 😂 I think sometimes God looks at me and says “”does he have to make everything so frikin difficult all the time “” 😂

[@wiffleballer28]

it's a funny idea of "atheism" and "reversion" though, don't you think? you and Dr. Peterson and all other Christians are atheists in regards to all gods except yours. instead of "reverting" to the god you grew up with, you can apply Peterson's logic to *convert* to a different religion entirely! try Hinduism on for size, why don't ya?? and if not, why not??

[@theslyngl]

"Evidence.. meh..!" lmao

[@alextyze]

Are you going to post the full podcast here in KZbin? I know it is available in Locals, but Locals is unavailable here in Brazil... They didn't accept our government censorship so they were removed from our country and now I can't access the full episode 😅

[@TLgeek]

I think they said it would eventually be released here ;)

[@jgr7487]

It already was released

[@Riokosu]

It looks to be posted now 🙏🏽

[@youtubejpb]

Censorship in brazil? What a pitty news

[@markcarey67]

The best argument for atheism is simply that nothing like a God exists and we should be glad it doesn't because it would be way closer to the Cixin Liu or Carlos Castaneda universe than that of the Bible (even that universe is pretty damn terrifying). Also notice the Bible says almost nothing about all the other plants and animals just here on the planet we live on. It is a cartography of the human mind and its evolution and not any objective account of anything outside or beyond that.

[@johndeighan2495]

I liked the "ordinary guy asking dumb questions" approach. Sometimes the "dumb" questions are the most pertinent ones. And they're sometimes precisely the ones that academics strategically avoid. "But my wife exists." It's a good point. It's a very good point.

[@swish007]

In that analogy, imagine a guy who is being given ALL the signals that a woman loves him dearly and he’s too clueless to see it. (Or he thinks he’s too good for her or something) She may as well not exist to him. THAT’S atheism imo.

[@teks-kj1nj]

@@swish007 Well, if the the only sign of her was stuff written in a book and nobody has ever seen, communicated with, or knows where she lives or how to contact her, then yeh, she might as well not exist.

[@swish007]

I'd argue there's FAR more evidence for God's existence than there is that the girl (in the scenario I mentioned) was actually into you. but neither she nor God really exist to someone who is clueless

[@theamalgamut8871]

​@@swish007With the difference that god's writings are closer to the ones of a crazy stalker. He's a keeper!

[@theamalgamut8871]

@@swish007 How FAR is zero? Praise jeebus.

[@yogurtbanana2124]

I adore this. Everything about it! God bless the Lord

[@francismcglynn4169]

When an author writes a book, he has an end in view before it is written, and all of the characters in the novel have a purpose which is gradually unveiled by their interactions. Sometimes the interactions of the characters change the understanding of those involved and help to bring about the envisioned end. “Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26).

[@alirasheed1838]

When you are a phd and dont know that atheism is lack of belief ...

[@302indian]

Atheists believe in lots of things….just not God. Atheists love lots of things…just not God.

[@302indian]

People who don’t believe in God will believe in anything.

[@renewed6250]

"no good argument for atheism" is a non sequitor. Atheism is not an argument...it is simply not accepting a claim. You say you have a magic coin in your pocket that is invisible. I say "I dont believe you". How daft a 3rd party observer would have to be to lean in and say "what is your argument for not believing that?"

[@Hobohunter23]

I think the benzos fried his brain. unfortunately.

[@jonallsopp3053]

“You’ll take no solace in your accomplishments, if they are of second rate quality” That is an absolute truth. To me, it’s a source of guilt when I let that happen. (Which is try like hell not to, but often fail)

[@edwardstarrett5545]

Wow, you really managed to pull more depth on this out of the good Dr than I anticipated. We've heard him go after atheists before, but this was succinct and scathing at the same time. Home run!

[@danieltracy7136]

"The visible world, in and of itself, cannot offer a scientific basis for an atheistic interpretation of reality" Pope John Paul II

[@este4955]

Najlepszy Papież ever.

[@CatholicismRules]

- the Pope who had two PhDs in Philosophy.

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

​@@este4955 Z papieży posoborowych to: Benedykt XVI >

[@George-jd6fz]

@@CatholicismRules the issue with modern catholics, to be self-critical, is that many of them have a fundamental materialist ontological worldview. A lot of them presuppose materialism and then insert God as an extra person in their worldview. This in my view stems from protestantism bu originally Cartesian Scepticism, which fundamentally misunderstands God as Being itself and misunderstand Thomism. We need new essentialist thinkers (similar to Heidegger) to revolutionise and correct these material errors in order to overcome our materialist trap. Glory to Rome!

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️

[@jryanbv]

I cannot wait for this

[@doktabob328]

Atheism does not require a good argument, much to the chagrin of those addicted to arguments. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the absence of belief.

[@ministry77]

What is of spirit is spirit. What is of flesh is flesh. Enjoying Jordan's scriptural grasp. Thank you folks. Praise Elohim.

[@alexnik1181]

There can't be any arguments for atheism. I'm an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments supported by evidence for the existence of any god. Unless provided with such, I'll remain unconvinced. This isn't about proving there's no god, it's about the lack of good reasons to believe in one. In that case, the 'I don't know' position is the most rational. I don't need to pick a side on every single claim.

[@StageWatcher]

Except that by calling yourself an atheist instead of agnostic, you've picked a side on this claim.

[@dogsandyoga1743]

​@@StageWatcherPersonally, I'm just me 😊 If pressed, I'd definitely call myself an agnostic-atheist because it's the most honest position I can hold. I'm agnostic in the sense that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can KNOW that there isn't "some" entity out there that would qualify as a God. I'm atheist because I don't believe that this entity has been demonstrated convincingly.

[@alexnik1181]

@StageWatcher Here we go again. The word "atheist" is an imported word and comes from the Greek "atheos" which literally means "without god". That perfectly fits anybody who doesn't believe in a god. Agnostic is another word with a different meaning - without knowledge. We are all agnostics, because none of us really knows, even the theists. It's really frustrating when so many people don't even bother learning the meaning of words they use.

[@SeeSawMassacre]

While this line of reasoning is well and good at present, it surely won't stand up against the judgement of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." And if you want evidence for the existence of God, seek it. The prophecies of the books of the Bible are testament to the truth of God's Word. The historicity of Christ is better documented than Caesar's. The scientific evidence of intelligent creation, and the scientific veracity of the Bible can easily be found. Ultimately though, if you want to know the truth, ask. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him."

[@bennewby9600]

If God exists (we'll say the God of the Bible, given the channel we're on), what kind of evidence would you expect to find?

[@johncopper5128]

Thank you.

[@rebeccasmith4182]

Atheism does not need arguments. If Theism had good arguments, Atheism would not be a thing or would not be popular.

[@tatjana_t]

I love this!!! So wonderful to stop lying and believing in lies!!!

[@themanufan8]

I pray for the day when Jordan finally professes his faith in Christ. Keep praying for him everyone. We're ready for him to marry the psychoanalytical and the literal together.

[@donkler5476]

When's he coming back btw? It's been 2,000 years. Ever think that your religion is just as false as all of the other 4,000+ religions throughout history?

[@themanufan8]

@@donkler5476 not from my experience brotha... God speaks very clearly if you are opening to listen

[@kbobdixie1829]

Jesus is the only verifiable historical deity. ​@@donkler5476

[@Tyler-iv7po]

​@@donkler5476 "This one will get them for sure!!" 😂😂 🤡

[@donkler5476]

@@themanufan8 Yeah if you dig a big hole of confirmation bias, you’ll find anything you want to find at the bottom. That’s why there have been over 4,000 different religions throughout history, each with followers who were just as committed as you are now.

[@claudiumihai7269]

His arguments are weak. The conversations he had with Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris really showcase this.

[@soulitafire2445]

Great conversation 😁

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

Let's say you arrive at belief in God, OK - which God? You need to do some logical accounting to make that choice. You can't just throw logic out of it.

[@Critter145]

Materialistic Determinism is itself a loaded statement. With an end goal in mind, there has to be a Mind.

[@este4955]

Determinism was debunked long time ago by double slit experiment.

[@silversxm2609]

Yeah but that's the point there is no really good argument for Atheism.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Critter145]

@@silversxm2609 yeah, I kinda reiterated what he already said🤣

[@thefuturist8864]

What ‘end goal’ is in mind? There is a very good argument for atheism; it’s the same argument for not believing in a million invisible, intangible kestrals, or for rejecting the idea that water is liquid sin. We have no reason to believe that for which we have no evidence; if we believe in one non-evidential thing we must of necessity believe in every single other non-evidential thing. Put more simply, if you believe in a god, why not also the kestrals, or the sin-water? Out of all the many thousands of gods that have ever been posited, Christians seem to believe that they chose the right one. Atheists simply believe in one fewer.

[@Free-flyBE]

Coffee needed for this exchange:/ As a Protestant I find my 'blind faith' so much more peaceful than Catholic apologetics & dogma.

[@DAS1337]

Jordan is a passionate man and a very analytical thinker. I respect that. But Jordan responding to the word evidence as if it were a sin is remarkable to me.

[@g07denslicer]

As an atheist, I agree with Dr. Peterson when he says there is no good argument for atheism! The thing is though, I don't need to have an argument for atheism. Atheism is the default position. If you believe in the existence of God, you adopt the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove God.

[@HonestJohn4TW]

Really? I think if you applied your discerning thinking skills to the matter you could come up with a few options: enhanced scientific and technological advancement, potentially a more harmonious civil and social society, a more rational legal system, etc.

[@indigo3977]

so are you saying you believe that by avoiding the burden of proof, you effectively find a loophole? im a little confused. either way, i believe your thought process is a little shallow. all this bible stuff could be fake, along with Islam and paganism and any concept of a supernatural being, and there really could be nothing beyond the physical. however, were you to not believe in something beyond the material, and something really is beyond the material, you would be wrong. by this logic, you lose nothing other than some of your time and effort by believing in something, but you take a chance at losing everything by believing in nothing at all. if you value that time and effort of believing in something over a potential eternity in a great place beyond the physical, then that is up to you to decide for yourself, but if you are merely going off logic, you are standing in the shallow end of the theological pool. reconsider. look at all religions and what they offer. I have personally, and the one that makes the most logical and historical sense is Christianity. Jesus saves. look in the Bible, and if you look closely enough you will find it.

[@BARKERPRODUCTION]

Peterson adheres strictly to the scientific method in all of his other areas of study; psychology, sociology, etc. follow the data and see where it leads. And then in the area of religious belief he just throws that out the window. Very strange.

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

It's a cope

[@skylinefever]

I thought he had something when he suggested the bible is metaphorically true. However, this stuff sucks. Joker is metaphorically true. Joker did not exist. However, that doesn't mean if you cross mentally loners with a society that treats them like trash, you won't end up like Murray Franklin or Thomas Wayne.

[@CartoonistDave]

When delving into different fields of study some rules won't apply. I don't understand how atheists only want to use one ruleset to discern the reality around them. Even when I was a child, I knew that reality was so much more than what is observed measured and repeated.

[@RCGWho]

When you see beauty and wonder and order and goodness in the universe but also evil, you start to wonder why about all of it.

[@dp2791]

You exactly pointed out your issue. You rigidly demand scientific evidence to believe everything, and that's what makes you think you're one of the smart ones.

[@sonny-rush1388]

Atheism is the understanding that you are the only moral authority in your life. There is no one who judges you but yourself in the end.

[@habeshalad1728]

Thank god i learned to be smart enough to understand conversations like this😅

[@jonahwaring]

So true😂

[@jaybee9269]

Indeed!

[@roberthutchins4297]

So many eligious discussions involve free will. The snag is that there is no such thing as free will. Just the illusion of choice.

[@slimynaut]

Wrong

[@roberthutchins4297]

@@slimynaut çYou think with your mind. Where is your mind? It´s in your brain .A product of your brain. You have no control over your brain and what it decides. Your brain is what you were born with plus what has happened since you were born. It is YOU!. Yo . Your brain cannot decide to be another Shakespeare, though it might decide to have a go.

[@skywalkeracademyteam8831]

I enjoy listening to Jordan when he's in this mood the most. He's treading a hirewire between tired /irritable and educational and guiding...

[@johndoh795]

The problem with Cain's sacrifices wasn't that they weren't the best he had. The problem was he didn't sacrifice because of love and fear of the Lord. They were prideful. He expected because he was first born that his sacrifice was sufficient and deserving of reward. He expected God to accept his sacrifice because of his lineage.

[@shaulkramer7425]

Both can be true... because he felt entitled, he gave his second best to God.

[@johndoh795]

@@shaulkramer7425 But it's still not the real reason why. Those who pray to God and boast of their lineage find no favor with him.

[@ronaldorivera4674]

​@@johndoh795It wasn't because of Cain's lineage that he expected God to accept his offering, he and Abel were from the same parents, it was because he wanted to earn it through his works, whereas Abel understood that it's only by grace. Cain started the religion of works, trying to bribe God.

[@jon6car]

​@@ronaldorivera4674That doesn't really make sense. If Cain wanted to earn God's favor by works then he would've given the best he had in order to "bribe" God.

[@ronaldorivera4674]

@@jon6car Well let's take a look at what scriptures say he brought, Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. Verse 4: And Abel, he " also" brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offerings. I think the key word here particularly is " Also", which to me indicates that he also brought what Cain brought, which was the "firstlings" of his flock and the "fat thereof" meaning the first, best, and fattest of his offerings to sacrifice to the Lord. To me this seems pretty clear, that it wasn't because Cain's offering wasn't good enough but because his heart was leaning on his own self righteousness and not on God. Righteous Abel brought a sacrifice to atone for his sin not to be rewarded. I have to point out that if it was because of his lineage, that doesn't make sense because Abel and Cain had the same parents. Either way I'm sure there are many many ways people interpret this passage, regardless, may the triune God open our hearts and reveal the truth to us, filling us with his spirit, edifying us daily and conforming us into the image of his Son.

[@Bill_Garthright]

As an atheist, I am _so_ glad Jordan Peterson is no longer an atheist. I mean, we have no pope, no priests, no dogma, no magic book, and _no required beliefs, whatsoever,_ so it really doesn't make the slightest difference to me what some other atheist thinks. Nonetheless, I'm happy. You guys can _have_ him!

[@ThomasAbeyta-np9kt]

For god not being a belief system based upon a set of facts, it uses an awful lot of “facts” to describe itself, and certainly proclaims to know a lot of them.

[@paulpicquigny4494]

Could I love Jordan more? No, no I could not. What a fantastic summing up this is.

[@Kasher18]

I’m not smart enough for this conversation 😂🤪

[@ricco48219]

I don't know you, but I disagree. Take the challenge.

[@kwh1142]

Sounds like it's something you can learn from.

[@gato_gc821]

Sometimes I pause ⏸️the video. And process what I had listened to and meditate and play ▶️. Again 😅

[@RealTrentertainment]

That's Peterson's schtick. He takes you into a rhetorical hedge maze until you forgot why you were in there in the first place.

[@Rojofro]

Neither of them are either.

[@TheSabian321]

Maybe I'm simply not smart enough but Jordan Peterson is such an expert in obfuscating things.

[@nolanlynch2430]

Because he refuses to make clear the other side...if the Bible stories are TRUTH to him it doesn't matter nor does it seem right to him to say otherwise even if you could prove they were all made up. The message to him is true truth of the way life is and should be lived to him it doesn't matter.

[@genmaicha.lapsang]

Prof Peterson would argue that this is an "illegal chess move," Prof Dawkins would respond that Peterson is "copping out," Regarding the question of proving God's existence. Either he is there as a divine entity that got the universe started or he isn't.

[@rogeliorodriguez9350]

“God is the deepest instinct” Jordan B. Peterson, that is so deep.

[@belyy_rusky]

This is great, just joined, and worth it

[@outremer84]

He's just gone down the apologetics rabbit hole

[@toddgruber5729]

This is the greatest ever…I can’t wait to listen to the whole thing.

[@rednarok]

Everything in life leaves a blatant trail of evidence of truth, but it is so blatant we never even pay attention it, and that is the magic of life

[@ahuman5150]

Asking for evidence is an illegal move lmfao ok mista!

[@davidbell2547]

You misunderstood. It's circular reasoning to think that evidence proves God doesn't exist. God must be outside of creation to be God

[@almejitico]

I thought I had heard it all until "Evidence is like an illegal game move"...

[@CircumambulationMaedia]

He's taking about the paradigm. The Bible isn't a scientific text.

[@joshpetermann]

It’s a categorical error. “Show me a square circle.”

[@prometheus1438]

@@CircumambulationMaedia Then we shouldn't take it that seriously as to dictate our life

[@AMH793]

@@prometheus1438”we don’t need evidence” “Why not?” “Because we said so”

[@j.vdubois5074]

Show me the evidence for that odd ought claim.

[@jaymarshall845]

The trouble is that Jordan's understanding of God is so fundamentally different from that of most religious people, including whether they be at the top or the bottom. You can metaphor religion and God into meaning potential, moral standards, and the spirit of adventure if you want. But most believers honestly believe that if you got in a time machine and went back you would see Mohammed splitting the moon on winged horse, or Moses flooding the Nile with blood, or seeing Christ rise from the dead after witnessing him being crucified. The Petersonion view of religion is so elastic that even according to JP himself, even a self-describing atheist is a believer (see vid with Matt Dillahunty). Frankly, I don't think atheists are the confused ones. I think JP simply doesn't understand what it means to be an atheist. Edit: Atheists also don't assume to know what's happening at the quantum level. The difference is that we don't jump to conclusions just because it might make people better.

[@flux5836]

Can't take the amount of word salad in this video

[@jawaanwatkins6569]

The guy said evolution is below us. Seems narcissistic to think that we're better than evolution.

[@pop6997]

Matt you are a fabulous interviewer! ❤ ...and Jordan is one of my favourite type of people - they don't mince words. They start at the beginning & do the work 👍

[@Rojofro]

They are both grifters. Jordan got famous for bm telling others to make their bed with a hint of transphobia.

[@XxxULTIMATEZxxX]

The problem with the atheism vs religion argument today is that both sides simply do not understand the other on a fundamental level. They don’t understand where they are coming from, their belief system or their way of viewing the world. It’s like two people who speak different languages trying to communicate. They can both keep talking but neither will ever be understood by each other. It only ever works when you leave your own mindset behind and adopt the other person’s mindset on a fundamental level.

[@Leroy0070]

One of those is belief system, the other one is a rejection of the belief system.

[@Nickers19]

Many atheists have been theists and many of the ones who haven't been have studied it to different extents. Some theists talk with atheists and some of them know where the other side is coming from. So, what do you mean? It's true for some, but not all

[@Nyghl0]

I feel sorry for the host trying to be civil in the face of JP's rampant irritability. I feel more sorry for all the people who are unable to distinguish this from smartness, and especially those predisposed to being persuaded by the kind of venom that he's practically spitting.

[@Bigdogshaving]

Sketch

[@jaybee9269]

He’s disagreeable at worst, not bitchy, or irritable. And it’s wisdom, not smartness.

[@Nyghl0]

@@jaybee9269 which bit is wisdom though? He outwardly dismisses what amounts to the scientific method: evidence, materialism and determinism - all the things that directly led to the technology to enable him to broadcast his objections to the world at the touch of a button... simply because things look a little bit more complicated at the quantum level. And as we've all seen countless times before, here comes the Jesus smuggling - the "God of the gaps" to fill in the ever decreasing realm of things we don't yet fully understand: instead of "illegally" trying to prove what's real, just commit yourself to a tale because you have an instinct to act socially (conscience), and religious tales often condone acting how we already were. He mistakes correlation with causation - the classic religious error (along with confirmation bias). "And you think well that's not God, well have it your way, like y'know, you're playing games". The game playing is making the jump from the verifiable and falsifiable to all the religious mysticism, for literally no reason than to make it match up with the story you were taught as a kid because you it to be true, which is where the confirmation bias comes in. Perhaps he's saying it in a way that sounds like wisdom to you, but pick it apart and it most fundamentally isn't.

[@jaybee9269]

@@Nyghl0 >> The aggregate is wisdom. And he doesn’t dismiss evidence; if anything his academic corpus is intensely evidence based. It’s his conclusions in conversation that are often inductive. But inductive logic is valid. I wish I’d had Jordan as a therapist. I know Jordan’s religious philosophy is like nailing Jello to a tree for some very bright and callow young people. But he wants the best for us, after all. I can’t help but wish I’d seen Jordan debate the late Christopher Hitchens.

[@Nyghl0]

@@jaybee9269 2:57 "Evidence, euargh. Like I said, it's an illegal game move". He literally dismissed evidence in this very video, I wasn't simply falsely accusing him - everything I've said has been backed by evidence or reason. Given his academic background, don't you find it odd that he is quite happy to go along with scientific method, except when it comes to God, when suddenly it's all nonsense? Religious logic is abductive, which is an invalid form of reasoning, it's not inductive. I've no doubt that he means well and does want the best for us, he probably would have made a good therapist for you - I reckon he does believe every single word he says. That's what gives him the conviction in his delivery - same as Hitchens. I'm unsure how well the dynamic between them would have gone though. They both have/had high levels of disagreeableness, Hitchens probably moreso. He tended to run down his opponents like a ruthless but calm and collected juggernaut - I think he exhibited psychopathic traits similarly to his brother, whereas Jordan still retains instincts of a listener underneath his relative aggression. Combine that with their different approaches - Hitchens would moralise politically, but Peterson is much more postmodern with his treatment of truth. Similar to your nebulous "the aggregate is wisdom", he seems to view truth as an emergent quality of action and customs, reasoning something along the lines that the bible "must mean something" given its historical pole position in western literature. It doesn't really mean anything, but it sorta "seems like it should" - and he places this as more true than things you can actually prove to be true. Perhaps Hitchens could have adapted to this, but mostly I think they would have been talking past each other like every other debater of note does with him.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

I'd say the fact that none of the thousands of gods humans have worship have ever been proven to be anything other than characters in books of myths and fables Is a pretty good reason to take an atheist position on the question of deities existing.

[@willcruikshank7972]

That’s a logical fallacy. A lot of wrong answers doesn’t prove that there isn’t one correct one

[@Hobohunter23]

@@willcruikshank7972 you can, however, have a logical fallacy and yet still be correct. lol.

[@ethancknight]

Atheism is the default position. The best “argument” for atheism is that there doesn’t need to be one. You aren’t positing anything as an atheist. I need a reason to believe a god exists, and so far there aren’t any good ones being presented besides “we don’t know how X came to be, therefore god”

[@TheReaper569]

Except that it isnt. Do you have a reason you trust your wife or mom?

[@etyquiette]

This interviewer makes so much more sense than Peterson who is just shouting cliches at him

[@Alien1375]

What is the best argument for not believing in space unicorns?

[@739jep]

There is no good argument for not believing in space unicorns ;) 😂

[@jonde-cent4897]

@@739jep It’s an illegal chess move!

[@meb280]

What does a unicorn explain? Does it have the ability to create like intelligence does?

[@739jep]

@@meb280 they’re space unicorns you blasphemer! And they’re all knowing and all powerful - so of course it can create anything. Says so in the space unicorn bible.

[@meb280]

@@739jepMuch more logical to think everything came into being out of nothing. Don't need intelligence to create order, design, complexity and information. Why, I'll bet there is no 'person' behind this response of yours, it's likely a parrot randomly pecking at a keyboard. Polly want a cracker?

[@Victor_Andrei]

It's remarkable with what intellectual confidence Peterson can talk about something completely made up. I genuinely wish I could do that.

[@Sonic_Egg]

“The price of life is death.” Jordan Peterson ❤

[@michawisniewski8341]

JBP defies atheism: Actually not a single atheist: yes, thats what atheism means for me

[@NickZoran]

Atheism is not a position that needs to be argued for…

[@Meyer-gp7nq]

Because it is not worth arguing for. It’s an absurd ideology. Life randomly popped into existence? Then it randomly evolved to complex multicellular forms? Then it randomly developed to a life form with rational wills? Evolution can only make sense if it was guided. DNA is code and code requires a programmer (and that’s only ONE argument for God)

[@Jake-mv7yo]

Yeah I just thought it was common sense. I still think belief in a god is a mental illness no matter what fancy things the smart man says.

[@SeeSawMassacre]

Not now, but it will in the judgement. And the law of God is written on our hearts. The only way to be saved from God's righteous judgement against our sinful lives is Jesus Christ.

[@jon477]

I appreciate your willingness to help atheists and to bring them to what you believe to be the correct path and heaven. Since the video didn't really supply it here's an argument for atheism. Every conversation that I had with someone of Christian faith goes somewhat similarly. Personal experiences with God, promise of Paradise, Answers to where we come from and morality comes from. That's all fine and I enjoy these conversations. But here's my issue. There's not one piece of concrete evidence that a Christian can supply to support their faith, that a Muslim or a Buddhist can't. And that matters. Because the leap of faith is necessary. Real evidence is not sufficient to imply the existence of the Christian god. How can a loving good God expect me and others to worship him on lack of evidence? I would really be open to see some. A standard of evidence that would fall outside of justifying faith in other religions, say.

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

@@Meyer-gp7nq You say "randomly" but if you throw in a 100 billion years anything will develop with that amount of time.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

A Question I've started asking is "What Is The Evidence for Atheism?" I'm always asked (generally) by people who know little about this is "What's The Evidence For God?" So I've started asking the reverse. To say the replies are simplistic is a Huge understatement.

[@quentins8165]

I don't need evidence to not believe in something.

[@JustinColletti]

@@quentins8165 Atheism isn’t as simple as just “not believing in something” though. There are necessary positive beliefs one must have in order to declare atheism. For starters, you need to have a positive belief that at some level of analysis, the universe itself is eternal, with no beginning. You are also required to believe that there is nothing that exists but the material world. It also seems necessary that you believe all actions are predetermined and that free will is merely an illusion. And that’s just for starters! All these presupposed beliefs and more are required for you to posit that atheism is simply “not” believing in something. That’s a whole lot of contentious, controversial, far from obvious belief that is required for “simply not believing in something”. It is very far from “not believing in something” if so much pre-requisite belief is required to take the position.

[@michaelpaulholmes9667]

@@quentins8165 "Not believe in something" is different from "believe in not something". ~believe(x) != believe (~x)

[@erric288]

​@quentins8165 the problem with that approach is that everyone needs some sort of ordering faith or philosophy or understanding of the cosmos to order what they do in life. It's not something we can dispense with or our lives would be nonsense and aimless. So you do need to believe in something and have good reason for basing your life on it. There being a God or not needs to be defended because the stakes are so high in that debate. Whether one assumes there is a God or begins from a presumption that there is no God, makes little difference. It is one of, if not the, fundamental questions that a person needs to answer before continuing the process of developing a worldview to order their life. The question is not so much "Does God exist?" it is more so "What explanation can I reasonably defend for the existing reality that I experience?". God can certainly be an answer, but if you decide that there is no sort of God whatsoever, you really should have an explanation for how and why the world is and that answer should be able to order your life appropriately, and that ordering should comport with the world in such a way that "good" things happen in life for you and those around you and indeed the entire world to some degree.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@JustinColletti Thank you for proving my point.

[@murn3229]

I loved the part where Jp explains why there are NO good argument for atheism.

[@WinsteadB73]

Atheism doesn’t need an argument, because it’s not asserting anything. It’s just the lack of a belief in something other people believe.

[@brandonunderwood7668]

Everything asserts something, theism asserts God, atheism asserts nothing. If it’s a belief then it’s asserting a world view. Also atheism is the lack of belief in gods. So you don’t even have the definition right. You can’t assert a world view then say you don’t have to defend it, that’s logically inconsistent with how every other belief system has to defend itself. If you rule a nation and don’t prepare defenses then it falls. If you get into a fight and don’t defend yourself you get beat up. If you fail to defend your worldview then it will crumble.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

It is incredible how religion can turn smart people into dumbs.... (I belive in god)

[@Reloading20]

You should have asked Jordan why he's an atheist then. This guy turns into Michael Eric Dyson whenever he speaks about religion.

[@junacebedo888]

Matt is a devoted Catholic yet here he blocks Jordan as if he is an atheist. Ergo, you can argue like a believer even if you are not

[@johns8596]

Here's the best argument. We just dont know. So some believe and others dont. Really simple. There are gods laws and mans. Both are based on morality. If you break them you get punished. But they arent exactly the same. When he said hierarchy my mind went straight to lobsters.

[@angelbrother1238]

He is 100% right one target with what he said about determinism and the quantum level . This was one of the first evidences that got me to start doubting my atheistic point of view

[@ejjames7786]

They’re not arguments FOR atheism. They’re arguments AGAINST theisms, and they’re all really, really strong.

[@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia]

Sure. Stay in your faith of "nothing created everything."

[@jonde-cent4897]

@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia do you need faith to say “i don’t know how the universe was created”? Stay in your hubris of thinking you have the answers to everything

[@ejjames7786]

@@Anti-Alphabet_MafiaThis isn’t what I believe

[@marcioamaral7511]

​​@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia You're the one that believes that if you're a Christian... God says words and out of literally nothing,everything is created Atheism doesn't even talk about creation LMAO

[@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia]

@@jonde-cent4897 No. But that's not what you believe. Atheists always say "I lack a belief in God," but then turn around and say "God doesn't exist." Like if you knew. At that point it becomes a belief. And the irony of you saying that I know it all is that atheists think they know it all. That's why they call religious people "dumb" and "uneducated." Which is funny cause most atheists are white, and most religious people are brown people, and most of them are women. Talk about sexist and racist.

[@11antun]

JP is a blessing! Thank you Lord for giving him this minde and this heart and this longing for Truth and for Life, and for Love! I know you are with him! bring him Home❤

[@caseyspaos448]

For a guy who is notoriously mocked for saying 'it depends on what you mean by X' JP sure uses a lot of loaded and undefined, thus meaningless terms.

[@MrNiceBryce]

"The price of life is death." Excellent comment Jordan; this couldn't be more concise! To know God we have to die (give up ourselves) just like He died - freely giving up Himself (John 10:18) paying the debt that our sin earned - to reconcile us to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21). "For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). The free gift is His life; to have His life we have give up ours.

[@ricco48219]

Been saying this headline for years. (minus the "w/ Jordan Peterson") This is why I am not an atheist anymore.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Are you a THEIST? 🤔 If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

[@ricco48219]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda I am. And the contingency argument being better explained by God than nature. Mental phenomena being better explained as coming from mental beginnings. Fine tuning being better explained by design rather than randomness or necessity. The intelligibility of reality is the main one.

[@virgodem]

@@ricco48219 Why does the evidence suggest it took God 13 billion years to fine tune human life? The contingency argument is the cosmological argument, correct? That doesn't make logical sense at all. If the universe is all there is, then that would suggest time began with the universe. Causality requires time to exist, meaning asking if the universe had a cause makes no sense, as you're asking "what even lead to the existence of the universe?". An event like that requires time to exist. If time began with the universe, such an event would make no sense. Why is "mental beginnings" a necessity? How do you know it's a necessity? Or that it's even likely that mental beginnings caused mental phenomena? These aren't direct evidences, they're at best weak indicators. At worst, they're essentially God of the gaps. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't prove God did it. God used to be "best explained for" raise and gravity and the Earth and trees as well. Guess how well that turned out? Hell, just because we will never understand it doesn't even prove God is the underlying cause. It's entirely possible the underlying cause is purely natural, but it not be possible to determine how, for one reason or another. And for the record, which God do you suppose best explains this?

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@ricco48219 In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️

[@ricco48219]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda truth, potentialities, and what IS.

[@unzin-rb6pm]

he's really stern on this topic for someone who was atheist most his life...

[@randys3579]

OK, the reason God doesn't just open up the skies and shout "I AM REAL" to all of us is because of His Mercy. He is allowing us to have excuses. He knows that if He proved to us without a doubt that He was real, it would come with the expectation that, now that we know without a doubt, we would HAVE to follow him, worship Him in his desired way, obey him, sacrifice our self will for Him, and be a part of His church. And the unfortunate truth is, many (if not most) people would end up saying "OK, God is real. I know now. But I'm still going to do whatever I want." And God would not be able to forgive them. They would have no excuses, and no benefit of doubt. They would be condemned to hell. They would have no excuse whatsoever for not surrendering themselves to God's will. God remains mysterious in most people's lives so that when they die they may have at least some excuse. That is Mercy.

[@Greyz174]

"Hello creation of mine, here is indisputable proof that I exist, you have to join my church now" "I prefer not to, maybe I'll change my mind after I do my own thing, but I have this other stuff that I prefer at the moment" And then he gets mad and unleashes his wrath on his creature forever and ever, because I mean he just has to at this point. What a strange series of events

[@carlant_III]

@@Greyz174that won't be how that works. God's wrath is an expression of justice and love. You can choose to enjoy God's love, or resent it. Hell isn't an arbitrary thing God subjects you to, it's the natural consequence of rejecting him. Like JP said in the vid, if u enjoy the chaos, so be it, but you're heaping the coals on your own head

[@JGeMcL]

I disagree with this theory. He already did that with the angels and some fell. But the end result of your premise is that they still end in hell, it's just not as clear cut as undeniable proof. How is it more merciful to judge someone to death when they had partial information, but you had the ability to give them all information so they could make a fully informed choice? I believe God doesn't split the skies as you say, not because of mercy, but because of love. If God did that then it would be the same as holding a gun to our head. "Either you believe in Me right now or you die." Yes, the end result is the same, but He gives us time to decide, pleads with us to choose life, died for us to make life possible. He loves us so much He does everything He can to lead us off the path to destruction, but He won't force us. It is still our decision.

[@johnhood9567]

@@Greyz174 this is the essence of pride

[@Greyz174]

@@carlant_III original commenter says that God will condemn the person to Hell because they have no excuse for their rejection of him, not that they do it to themselves. God will do this to us instead of forgiving us. In response to deciding to go their own way, God will condemn them to Hell. This is one person purpousefully doing an action to another person, not just one person torturing themselves because they choose to be upset at God's love forever

[@voidheir9793]

What people with strong atheistic standpoints dont seem to understand is, that science can never give an answer to where everything originates from. Its simply impossible.