Anyone who claims to have tested the bible to "look for errors" and claims not to have found any did not read one single page of the bible. You can't get past the first page of the bible without finding something that's demonstrably false.
Troubling that he described a justice system exactly backwards-“if there’s evidence he didn’t do it then he let him off the hook but if there’s not evidence he didn’t do it then we have to say he’s guilty.”
Had the same issue right at the beginning. Kinda scary to think about that. Because with that reasoning you can find all sorts of "hints" that one may have done it. Just like they did with witch hunting. "Hey shes a woman" (one point), "She knows and does things with herbs" (two points), "Someone saw her wielding a broom" (three points), "Someone got close to her house and got really ill" (four points), ... So what she has for her defence? "She said she's not a witch, well that's not convincing, so burn her....". Just had to think about the Monty Python sketch ( X2xlQaimsGg )
Are uou running under the presumption that witchcraft isnt real? ou don't believe in witches? I know ppl that are witches, it's a legitimate recognized religion. They verifiably really exist.
It is actually the complete opposite. The church does not declare doctrine that it always taught. The fact they needed these declarations is because the was dispute about the ‘right’ teaching.
37:22 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong. This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
Hume says "reject the greater miracle". Hume does not suggest "accept the lesser miracle", that would be a mistake. Just because "magic done it" is the only explanation we have doesn't make it anymore or less likely to be the correct explanation.
He got it completely backwards. You don't start by believing it's true then look for reasons why it's not. That's the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.
"Youre thinking changed"... "maybe youre logic broke, and youre unable to see it"... Pot, meet kettle... lol Great talk though. You were both very respectful, and knowledgeable. Very refreshing
Since Jediism is acutally a real thing, I'm sure people actually write down things in a much more serious tone. So scholars in the future would probably look at all the "evidence" to be convinced it actually happened. Because why would someone invent such a well fitting false story? That's just ridiculous.... So it has to be true.
Lucas may have only prophetized it to us 46 years ago, but Star Wars happened a long, long time ago and has proven to be consistent and true for far longer than 2000 years.
I can't believe he shot himself in the foot that bad by admitting the Quran is actually better than the bible. This is what happens when you just start talking without first thinking about how to spin it.
As religiosos go, Catholics are pretty cool and non judgey compared to Calvinists, who are so cruel and heartless I can barely listen to them condemning everyone, from babies to Catholics. Hence, this was a pleasure to listen to as I work on my puzzle, sip wine and pet my dogs.
He dropped it on his head and behold; the book was still there intact, proving God's word is powerful - not getting demolished by the sheer thickness of his skull.
@40:00:00 "the holy spirit continued to guide the church prevent it from proclaiming error"... "if you test it, in every single instance, thousands of instances over 2000 years, it's never been proven wrong"... Dude, explain the Reichskonkordat, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat, Article 16 of which requires Bishops of the Catholic Church to take a loyalty oath to the German Reich... this was the holy spirit not allowing the church to "proclaim error"?!?!
They weren't the bad guys until the war was over and the history books were written. Disney even started making n*zi cartoons too dude, everybody thought they were gonna win.
They would probably say the cross references within the Bible itself prove it. But that’s a terrible argument because the stories were written after the events took place so you can connect whatever you want by making things up
@@c1h2r3i4s56987 Not to mention the versions of the Bible people read today are not the original, and has been heavily edited, and some chapters were taken away because apparently human beings knew better about the message "God" wanted to spread, like the council of Nausea..
You continually let them get away with things like "well we know it's *possible*"... when we DON'T know that. We don't know that a god is possible. We don't know that miracles are possible. You have to stop letting them get that foot in the door. They don't get that.
The only things we can confidently say are impossible are things that entail logical contradictions. And given ALL the counterintuitive stuff we discover through science, it's evidently possible for reality - real things - to APPEAR illogical. So we ought to humbly concede that just about anything is possible.
@@robertcarlyle6102 No. Possibility and impossibility are SEPARATE things, and each would have to be demonstrated. You're confusing my assertion that we don't know something is possible with a claim (that I'm not making) that it's impossible. You would have to demonstrate that miracles are possible before we can accept that they are. You can't brush off the suspension of the laws of physics and reality as a "welp.. *other* stuff in science seems illogical, so why not?" Demonstrate that the laws of reality can be suspended before it can be considered a candidate explanation. Until you do, it's just not.
@@robertcarlyle6102 No, just about anything is not possible. Possibility and impossibility are both assertions that require a demonstration. "Anything is possible" is simply not true. It may in fact be impossible for there to be a god and we simply can't demonstrate it either way. It doesn't win the possibility badge by default.
Is there a logical contradiction entailed in the existence of a creator god? If not, I'm deeming its existence logically possible because that's how logical possibility works.
@@robertcarlyle6102 Dude.. that is NOT how this works. Possibility need to be DEMONSTRATED, not just asserted. You're saying that a logical contradiction is the only thing that renders a thing not possible. WRONG. You're saying that the inability to demonstrate something impossible makes it possible. WRONG. Why do you need this explained to you this many times?
@Sparkydr07 P52 is the earliest fragment of any book of the New Testament - a piece of the Gospel of John the size of a business card. Dated to early 2nd century.
If the perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god of the universe had a message that he yearned for us to know, why would he shroud it in subtlety and require that we interpret it exactly a specific way while making it entire interpretable in perfectly valid yet wildly incorrect ways?
These arguments can be extremely annoying for many many reasons, but one that stands out (for me) above the others is a Christian like this guy who NEVER take in new information. Literally never. His arguments, objections, justifications begin the second the other person stops talking. Notice how Peterson MOST times (not always, not always, but most) has a noticeable pause before he says anything. He is considering what the other person has said, allowing it to blend with his thoughts, and analyzes it in a way that he WILL allow it to change what he was about to say. If your argument is beginning as soon as the other person stops talking, then you’ve given it zero weight; you will NEVER learn new things that way and you’ll never change your mind even if you’re 100% wrong, and that’s a sad way to go through life. This “catholic” is entirely guilty of this; not one of the many VALID arguments posed by Peterson altered his script. He’s the type of Christian who would argue if Jesus popped up on earth right in front of him. No matter what they said, his inability to listen would have him denying the god he says he believes in. 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️☮️
What strikes me as odd is how can someone be so logically sound and still not look at the evidence and see that Trump won the election. Intelligence truly is compartmentalized.
For a great deal of time spent watching this video, all I'm hearing is 'my book has remained unchanged therefore what's inside it is true' which just comes down to circular reasoning in the end. A very long winded take on 'it's true cos bible says so'
Listening to this guest defend his god and the bible sounds exactly like a battered spouse defending their abusive partner and it's really sad to hear. This guy, if he's being honest, has wasted a hige chunk of his life to something that he can't even show any decent evidence for.
@planetpeterson Why do you think Jesus was real? The best evidence for his existence, as you say is incredibly shotty at best. Even by the most generous interpretation, Jesus is still an amalgam of many different people. There's just no good reason to believe that Jesus was real. Moses wasn't. Jesus is just special pleading.
@gowdsake7103 I mean... not just iffy, preposterous. The part that gets me is that Christians act like the supposed pain Jesus went through was like the worst thing that ever happened to a person, but people *in this century* have undergone much much worse torture. I feel like even the people who died of radiation sickness, endured more than Jesus did. And then, as you say, he just respawned a weekend later. Big deal.
I feel the same way about every historical figure prior to the advent of photography. There I'd simply no way to verify that any of them ever really existed. All of our history is just fantasy.
@gregsanich5183 What a stupid reply. There are many ways to verify a person's historicity that don't involve photography and all of them are missing for this religious figure. Not to mention we know that people in that time and area were very prone to making up Gods and sons of Gods, so it's incredibly likely Jesus was made up like all the rest of the sons of Gods. Do you think Hercules was real? Probably not, and not because there aren't photos of him. Krishna, Vishnu, Mithra, Osiris? Cmon, dude...
Anyone who claims to have tested the bible to "look for errors" and claims not to have found any did not read one single page of the bible.
You can't get past the first page of the bible without finding something that's demonstrably false.
Troubling that he described a justice system exactly backwards-“if there’s evidence he didn’t do it then he let him off the hook but if there’s not evidence he didn’t do it then we have to say he’s guilty.”
Had the same issue right at the beginning. Kinda scary to think about that. Because with that reasoning you can find all sorts of "hints" that one may have done it. Just like they did with witch hunting. "Hey shes a woman" (one point), "She knows and does things with herbs" (two points), "Someone saw her wielding a broom" (three points), "Someone got close to her house and got really ill" (four points), ...
So what she has for her defence? "She said she's not a witch, well that's not convincing, so burn her....".
Just had to think about the Monty Python sketch ( X2xlQaimsGg )
Are uou running under the presumption that witchcraft isnt real? ou don't believe in witches?
I know ppl that are witches, it's a legitimate recognized religion. They verifiably really exist.
@@Bunny99sWell, we did do the nose, but she has got a wart!
It is actually the complete opposite. The church does not declare doctrine that it always taught. The fact they needed these declarations is because the was dispute about the ‘right’ teaching.
37:22
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.
This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
Still waiting for him to tell us how he “tested” the Bible.
Hume says "reject the greater miracle". Hume does not suggest "accept the lesser miracle", that would be a mistake. Just because "magic done it" is the only explanation we have doesn't make it anymore or less likely to be the correct explanation.
He got it completely backwards. You don't start by believing it's true then look for reasons why it's not.
That's the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.
"Youre thinking changed"... "maybe youre logic broke, and youre unable to see it"...
Pot, meet kettle... lol
Great talk though. You were both very respectful, and knowledgeable. Very refreshing
He's a carholic and he doesn’t get papal infallibility?
I wonder if 2 thousand years in the future people will read about the lore of Star Wars and turn in into an actual religion?
One can hope. The Last Hope
Since Jediism is acutally a real thing, I'm sure people actually write down things in a much more serious tone. So scholars in the future would probably look at all the "evidence" to be convinced it actually happened. Because why would someone invent such a well fitting false story? That's just ridiculous.... So it has to be true.
Lucas may have only prophetized it to us 46 years ago, but Star Wars happened a long, long time ago and has proven to be consistent and true for far longer than 2000 years.
Sadly it’ll be the Kardashians :(
@@ZRBx4 Or, perhaps, the Cardassians. 🤷🏻♂️
I want to see the caller’s test documents. Where’s his Nobel Peace Prize?
I can't believe he shot himself in the foot that bad by admitting the Quran is actually better than the bible. This is what happens when you just start talking without first thinking about how to spin it.
It's logically possible that there's a planet between Mercury and Venus that we just haven't seen yet, but it's in no way plausible.
As religiosos go, Catholics are pretty cool and non judgey compared to Calvinists, who are so cruel and heartless I can barely listen to them condemning everyone, from babies to Catholics. Hence, this was a pleasure to listen to as I work on my puzzle, sip wine and pet my dogs.
What tests did this guy do that convinced him so much ?
He dropped it on his head and behold; the book was still there intact, proving God's word is powerful - not getting demolished by the sheer thickness of his skull.
@@Moldylocks 🤣
@@Moldylocks 💀
@40:00:00 "the holy spirit continued to guide the church prevent it from proclaiming error"... "if you test it, in every single instance, thousands of instances over 2000 years, it's never been proven wrong"...
Dude, explain the Reichskonkordat, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat, Article 16 of which requires Bishops of the Catholic Church to take a loyalty oath to the German Reich... this was the holy spirit not allowing the church to "proclaim error"?!?!
They weren't the bad guys until the war was over and the history books were written. Disney even started making n*zi cartoons too dude, everybody thought they were gonna win.
Fun fact Chris chan has more documented evidence than Jesus does. Let that sink in.
Every time he says "Strong evidence" he never actually explains what evidence he means. -.-
Wouldn’t we need verifiable original texts to prove any sort of inerrancy? If you don’t have that you can make any claims really
They would probably say the cross references within the Bible itself prove it. But that’s a terrible argument because the stories were written after the events took place so you can connect whatever you want by making things up
@@planetpeterson2824 could also talk about how the stories of the bible were rip off stories of different past tribal religions combined into one
@@c1h2r3i4s56987 Not to mention the versions of the Bible people read today are not the original, and has been heavily edited, and some chapters were taken away because apparently human beings knew better about the message "God" wanted to spread, like the council of Nausea..
Damm, 2 hours... Challenge accepted
Cheers to your tenacity, I couldn’t get passed 2:45. guest too insufferable
Who was your guest. I may have missed his name. But, i never got it
You continually let them get away with things like "well we know it's *possible*"... when we DON'T know that.
We don't know that a god is possible. We don't know that miracles are possible.
You have to stop letting them get that foot in the door. They don't get that.
The only things we can confidently say are impossible are things that entail logical contradictions. And given ALL the counterintuitive stuff we discover through science, it's evidently possible for reality - real things - to APPEAR illogical. So we ought to humbly concede that just about anything is possible.
@@robertcarlyle6102 No. Possibility and impossibility are SEPARATE things, and each would have to be demonstrated.
You're confusing my assertion that we don't know something is possible with a claim (that I'm not making) that it's impossible.
You would have to demonstrate that miracles are possible before we can accept that they are. You can't brush off the suspension of the laws of physics and reality as a "welp.. *other* stuff in science seems illogical, so why not?"
Demonstrate that the laws of reality can be suspended before it can be considered a candidate explanation. Until you do, it's just not.
@@robertcarlyle6102 No, just about anything is not possible. Possibility and impossibility are both assertions that require a demonstration. "Anything is possible" is simply not true. It may in fact be impossible for there to be a god and we simply can't demonstrate it either way. It doesn't win the possibility badge by default.
Is there a logical contradiction entailed in the existence of a creator god? If not, I'm deeming its existence logically possible because that's how logical possibility works.
@@robertcarlyle6102 Dude.. that is NOT how this works. Possibility need to be DEMONSTRATED, not just asserted.
You're saying that a logical contradiction is the only thing that renders a thing not possible. WRONG.
You're saying that the inability to demonstrate something impossible makes it possible. WRONG.
Why do you need this explained to you this many times?
"Your reason's probably broken because you don't agree with the magisterium" ☠️
1st century fragments ??? I dont think thats true, i could be wrong
@Sparkydr07 P52 is the earliest fragment of any book of the New Testament - a piece of the Gospel of John the size of a business card. Dated to early 2nd century.
@robertcarlyle6102
Thanks, I didn't think any 1st century fragments existed Currently
“everyone should just assume my religion is the true one because”
If the perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god of the universe had a message that he yearned for us to know, why would he shroud it in subtlety and require that we interpret it exactly a specific way while making it entire interpretable in perfectly valid yet wildly incorrect ways?
what does “some evidence of a miracle” look like??
The "Miracle" of Fatima: Idiots stared at the sun and burned their retinas.
These arguments can be extremely annoying for many many reasons, but one that stands out (for me) above the others is a Christian like this guy who NEVER take in new information. Literally never. His arguments, objections, justifications begin the second the other person stops talking. Notice how Peterson MOST times (not always, not always, but most) has a noticeable pause before he says anything. He is considering what the other person has said, allowing it to blend with his thoughts, and analyzes it in a way that he WILL allow it to change what he was about to say. If your argument is beginning as soon as the other person stops talking, then you’ve given it zero weight; you will NEVER learn new things that way and you’ll never change your mind even if you’re 100% wrong, and that’s a sad way to go through life. This “catholic” is entirely guilty of this; not one of the many VALID arguments posed by Peterson altered his script. He’s the type of Christian who would argue if Jesus popped up on earth right in front of him. No matter what they said, his inability to listen would have him denying the god he says he believes in.
🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️☮️
Church says Limbo, Church says no Limbo. So let's test to see where all the dead babies are shall we?
What strikes me as odd is how can someone be so logically sound and still not look at the evidence and see that Trump won the election. Intelligence truly is compartmentalized.
For a great deal of time spent watching this video, all I'm hearing is 'my book has remained unchanged therefore what's inside it is true' which just comes down to circular reasoning in the end. A very long winded take on 'it's true cos bible says so'
a letter in 1860 proves Mary accent to heaven???
Atheist; There is absolutely a logical proof. Three laws actually to weigh against claims.
Listening to this guest defend his god and the bible sounds exactly like a battered spouse defending their abusive partner and it's really sad to hear.
This guy, if he's being honest, has wasted a hige chunk of his life to something that he can't even show any decent evidence for.
its possible the caller is a booger in a cosmic dogs nose
The guest think hes smarter than he is.
Dead dudes said a thing and that negates science!! Wake up. 😂
Dude, has a serious copium problem.
dude is streching SOO much Im worried he might pull something😅😅
Strong evidence?? There is literally NO evidence
This whole discussion is pointless, because Jesus is just a mythical character. 🙈
Data 😂
@planetpeterson Why do you think Jesus was real? The best evidence for his existence, as you say is incredibly shotty at best. Even by the most generous interpretation, Jesus is still an amalgam of many different people. There's just no good reason to believe that Jesus was real. Moses wasn't. Jesus is just special pleading.
Even worst is evidence for resurrection. But then who whole resurrection thing is seriously iffy ! Died to save our sins for a whole long weekend !
@gowdsake7103 I mean... not just iffy, preposterous. The part that gets me is that Christians act like the supposed pain Jesus went through was like the worst thing that ever happened to a person, but people *in this century* have undergone much much worse torture. I feel like even the people who died of radiation sickness, endured more than Jesus did. And then, as you say, he just respawned a weekend later. Big deal.
I feel the same way about every historical figure prior to the advent of photography. There I'd simply no way to verify that any of them ever really existed. All of our history is just fantasy.
@gregsanich5183
What a stupid reply.
There are many ways to verify a person's historicity that don't involve photography and all of them are missing for this religious figure. Not to mention we know that people in that time and area were very prone to making up Gods and sons of Gods, so it's incredibly likely Jesus was made up like all the rest of the sons of Gods.
Do you think Hercules was real? Probably not, and not because there aren't photos of him. Krishna, Vishnu, Mithra, Osiris? Cmon, dude...
God can magic a man but not a book. Weeeeak