JR is reading from a script. He is assuming Peterson’s answer and just jumping to what he thinks the answer should be according to the script. It is a technique often used by apologists and flat earthers. Both the flat earthers and apologists know if the person answering completes their thought it will show the obvious flaw in the question.
@@lubrew5862 maybe he has a script but the audio ACTUALLY is desynchronized. It's an editing mistake. I'm a video editor, I know exactly what happened here.
@@lubrew5862 He does remind me of Austin Whitsitt- a slightly toned-down version of constantly telling the other guy they've already lost, and how badly they're doing in the debate.
He probably has couple of buddies that are slightly less intelligent than him so they are impressed by it. He also gets no resistance when he is around family when he spits out the nonsense. His family knows there is not point in having the conversation and the easiest way to shorten it without making grandma mad is by just letting him go on the tirade. I have a couple people in my family that are very similar. Most of us just avoid engaging them about anything political or religious or scientific.
It's like when Joey thinks he can speak French because he makes French-sounding noises and waves his arms around. I wonder if he's ever genuinely open to changing his mind.
Usually you can tell the level of somebody's intelligence by how quickly they might shrug and say, "I don't know." It is usually the ones that want you to always jump to their own (personal) conclusions about the big questions mortals have....about a hypothetical immortality they posit to be "true" that you can separate the men from the boys. A wise man won't pretend to know. A fool will want you to jump to his conclusions through word games, and not illustrating or pointing to evidence and real-world examples. For theists "truth" all exists in the realms of words and ideas, and never reality. They have magical thinking and magical words. For the disinterested observer, it inevitably looks like wishful thinking mixed with superstition, "I believe because I want to believe and I believe because Bob the Plumber told me so."
Surely JR knows he is insulting Peterson by saying he's no better than Peterson. JR, NOBODY thinks you're equal to, let alone better than him. Or us. Smh.
Ya , it's like the part of his brain that is supposed to be in charge of common sense, logic, and critical thinking is getting a wedgie from the rest of his brain !🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣✌️
One word for this dude. PROCESSES. Processes like logic, life and consciousness arent "immaterial". They're simply descriptions of things physical things do. His argument implies that even things like soccer games, Microsoft Office and psychotic hallucinations are immaterial, non-physical objects embedded in reality. It's absolutely trashed by playing it out to its conclusion. What a disgrace.
True. I think this would have better highlighted by a third party coming in every 60 seconds and simply saying "jr prove Christianity, Peterson defend atheism" over and over just for the purpose of keeping them focused. I mean that's all it ended up being about all along, and yet both sides were so prepared to do that implicitly that they talked past each other the whole time. It just demonstrates the safety of holding an atheistic stance and the impossibility of proving an unfalsifiable proposition, and indeed jr admitted he got the free content he needed out of it even though nothing happened, and Peterson got to relax and play guitar for a minute while we all got dumber for having listened, which is guaranteed anytime you listen to someone try to prove the hot wet garbage that is Christianity
I had to take off my headphones, cuz I started to have an anxiety attack, eating up the mic, and hitting pots simultaneously is just too much :D Hats off to having so much patience, Eric :)))
26:25. Did JR actually claim that his brain is identical to Peterson's? I'm intrigued to follow this to some other conclusions. Since Usain Bolt and I are both cis men, why can't I run as fast as he can? We're both human beings...
He doesn't understand that the brain is fundamentally just a very complex state machine, that a current brain state is very much a result of its past states, not just a function of its current external inputs and basic laws of physics, and no two real brains can ever have the same past, present and future states. Yet it's still purely deterministic.
Two (initially) identical neural networks, one trained on cat pictures and the other trained on tree pictures will very inevitably and deterministically produce different outputs when presented with the same images later. Is it because of free will that they produce different outputs from the same inputs and same underlying "thought" process? Two (initially similar) human baby brains, one raised and educated on the best scientific knowledge and methods while the other raised only with superstition and religious dogma, are obviously expected to reach very different conclusions about the world around them later in life when evaluating the same facts using the same deterministic processes in the brain, no free will involved or required. Of course, the second person is more likely to be wrong, and will also fail to grasp this point.
My argument against God's free will: 1. God's nature (values, personality, and attributes) informs God's decisions. 2. God's nature is either contingent, necessary, or a combination of both 3. Necessity and contingency are forces external to God. 4. Free will presupposes the capacity to make decisions free from external forces. Conclusion: God does not have free will. Ps. I know there are very smart people in this comment section, so if you have any criticism against my argument, please tell me. Cheers 🥂
So, using HIS LOGICAL ARGUMENT....Zeus was the rational, logical argument for lighting back in the day...because his believers asserted it answered the question, right or wrong. What the actual fuck.
It's infuriating when someone makes a few decent arguments for idealism, then jams in a bunch of religous claims about a creator and free will and so on. Even from an idealist perspective the universe is uncreated and free will only exists from a compatibleist point of view. It's dishonest to say consciousness exists, therefore christianity is the truth and you're a sinner.
Bertrand Russell dealt with 'transcendentals' nearly a century ago by demonstrating that any proposed transcendentals are fundamentally arbitrary in nature.
Presuppositional apologetics in a nutshell: Presuopose the existence of God. Presuppose universal awareness of the existence of God. Presuppose the deniers of the awareness of the existence of God to be liars. Use various verbal manipulation techniques in order to trick/force the interlocutor into admitting that they indeed are aware of God's existence (with near 100% failure rate). 😏
Meta ethics and presuppositionalism is a road to nowhere. This guy doesn’t realize that no one has access to the contents of another’s mind. What a waste of time. Peterson was right as usual.
Every apologist ever: "We don't know so of course we MUST jump to my conclusions." Every single time. Dishonesty and rudeness at it's most refined state.
Free will is not just the ability to choose, it's the possibility to have chosen differently. "When faced with a choice between X and Y, I chose Y" is just a tautology. Could you really have chosen X instead (that time, not the next time you might face the same choice)? If yes, how can you be sure, is there any way to prove it?
I never believed in a religion or magic, so i always wonder what its like to be so emotionally invested in something so obviously made up & silly. Its like would superman or batman win? Idk it depends in the story i guess, i wont crusade about it...
His attempt at control just looked like he was concealing a weak argument with constant interrupting. When we finally got down to an actual explanation it always boiled down to "mine explanation is better than yours, bro"... prove it or STFU
We need some kind of AI that can separate what each of you are saying at the same time and play them separately. I hate that I can’t hear what either of you are saying when that happens.
If the universe had a beginning the laws and rules of that originated moment is unknown. If the universe came from nothing there wasn’t even any rules to stop it.
JR listens to more intelligent people make the arguments he is trying to make, then repeats him poorly… and doesn’t understand what he is doing wrong, so assumes he must be right.
Being determined to come to truth and reaching different conclusions isnt a contradiction. I'll never understand why free will enthusiasts always use that as a "gotcha" against determinism
Math is not invented. It is discovered. What's invented are the words we use to describe it. 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks. Doesn't matter if we "invented" it or not, that is ALWAYS the case.
What IS invented, would be units of measurement. Those are completely arbitrary numbers. 1 miles could be 250 gloobens. 1 mile could have been 1.1 harpors.
I'm not "broken" or "fallen" or a sinner. I am in fact sinless. I am 100% without sin. It is in fact not possible for me to sin. Because sins are the mental baggage of the religious and I need not acknowledge them. Sins" are the social constructs of primitive, often insular religious society's taboos, phobias and hang ups so ancient and far removed as to be as ridiculous as they are irrelevant. And after the "big three" (lying, stealing and killing which are such ancient prehistoric laws they have to include them to even try to claim credibility) they become very culturally specific, tribal and bizarre.
This is my understanding: the laws are not the same as we use to govern. The laws are just things that describe observations. therefore the laws are irrelevant without the universe.
12:30 - no truth doesnt exist as it is a property of sentences. Truth and reality are not the same thing. Truth is simply a tool we use to evaluate the difference between what is real and what is fantasy or what is objective vs subjective.
Is there some logical problem with saying that the laws of the universe are mathematical descriptions of how the universe functions. Description of things are never the thing itself?
This guy is absolutely a dishwasher at the back of an Applebee's, scaring his coworkers with his rants about transcendental laws and being a brain in a vat. Also he talks over Eric even when Eric isn't talking... It's like he's got a voice in his head he's arguing with instead of who he's on the phone with.
In collisions between philisophers who wish to word things into existence, and scientists who simply describe existence through observation, measurement, and testing....the philosopher will lose every single time. This is why the Greeks had some great ideas, but never really got past Aristotle and some of his absurd claims. Aristotle had the smarts but was wrong on, well, just about everything beyond mathematics.
Peterson was talking about the Barycenter. When you have an object orbiting another it isn’t exactly orbiting the object. Both objects are orbiting their center of mass. In our solar system that center of mass is inside the sun, but not its exact center. So technically both objects are orbiting their collective center of mass
23:05 - "Because it has more explanatory power than yours". No, just no. It doesnt. "Because god" gives you no explanation for any how or why questions.
This guy likes the sound of his own voice far too much - and he’s literally the ONLY one who does. The rest of the world is tired and BORED of him and those like him! Ugh 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤡
Why is this man building a house while doing this? I can hear less than half the conversation becasue his mic is so bad all while he's throwing dishes down a stairway and running around.
"I looked like a fucking idiot so I'm gonna call in again to repeat the same stupid bullshit again" is fucking wild
But he came prepared. 😉
The way he railroads the debate is infuriating. He couldn’t allow a sentence to go uninterrupted.
That's partially an editing issue. Multiple times, JR answered a question before Peterson asked it. The audio of the calls are desynchronized
JR is reading from a script. He is assuming Peterson’s answer and just jumping to what he thinks the answer should be according to the script. It is a technique often used by apologists and flat earthers. Both the flat earthers and apologists know if the person answering completes their thought it will show the obvious flaw in the question.
He is a presupper, which is the favorite style of apologetics of people with narcissistic traits.
@@lubrew5862 maybe he has a script but the audio ACTUALLY is desynchronized. It's an editing mistake. I'm a video editor, I know exactly what happened here.
@@lubrew5862 He does remind me of Austin Whitsitt- a slightly toned-down version of constantly telling the other guy they've already lost, and how badly they're doing in the debate.
I presuppose all presuppositionalists are wrong under my presuppositions
And I know this cuz the tooth fairy told me
JR didn't prepare, he's playing only one card. Steamroll and attack.
This dude's audio while he's on call is the most chaotic thing I've ever heard
I love it when people spew word salad and think they sound intelligent.
He probably has couple of buddies that are slightly less intelligent than him so they are impressed by it. He also gets no resistance when he is around family when he spits out the nonsense. His family knows there is not point in having the conversation and the easiest way to shorten it without making grandma mad is by just letting him go on the tirade. I have a couple people in my family that are very similar. Most of us just avoid engaging them about anything political or religious or scientific.
It's like when Joey thinks he can speak French because he makes French-sounding noises and waves his arms around. I wonder if he's ever genuinely open to changing his mind.
mix the salad with some big words and there you go
Usually you can tell the level of somebody's intelligence by how quickly they might shrug and say, "I don't know." It is usually the ones that want you to always jump to their own (personal) conclusions about the big questions mortals have....about a hypothetical immortality they posit to be "true" that you can separate the men from the boys. A wise man won't pretend to know. A fool will want you to jump to his conclusions through word games, and not illustrating or pointing to evidence and real-world examples. For theists "truth" all exists in the realms of words and ideas, and never reality. They have magical thinking and magical words. For the disinterested observer, it inevitably looks like wishful thinking mixed with superstition, "I believe because I want to believe and I believe because Bob the Plumber told me so."
Isn’t it our brain’s job to tell us we’re amazing? Changing costs calories and brains are lazy thirsty bitches.
"God did it" has ZERO explanatory power. Theists are stupid.
Why is it that those who call you brother are the last people youd want as one?
@jim7831 My brother in Christ....I absolutely agree 😂
Pretty sure JR is the one who you hear in the beginning of the book ad lol
Surely JR knows he is insulting Peterson by saying he's no better than Peterson. JR, NOBODY thinks you're equal to, let alone better than him. Or us. Smh.
Ya , it's like the part of his brain that is supposed to be in charge of common sense, logic, and critical thinking is getting a wedgie from the rest of his brain !🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣✌️
This is what happens when a caller snorts all the cocaine in north America before calling.
I'm convinced he had some left to partake during the call.
One word for this dude. PROCESSES. Processes like logic, life and consciousness arent "immaterial". They're simply descriptions of things physical things do. His argument implies that even things like soccer games, Microsoft Office and psychotic hallucinations are immaterial, non-physical objects embedded in reality. It's absolutely trashed by playing it out to its conclusion. What a disgrace.
27:35 "what matches reality better?"
Things that are falsifiable, testable, reproducable, predicatable, like things we have actual evidence for.
JR if you are reading this, eat a bag of Richards.
Debate tactic - immediately start talking when you're opponent makes good points.then call your opponent Bro and laugh
Presuppositional apologetics is nothing but "I have a foundation b/c I said so! I solved Hume's problem of induction b/c I said so! Muhahah!"
JR just wants to dominate the conversation. He's not calling for any semblance of edification.
True. I think this would have better highlighted by a third party coming in every 60 seconds and simply saying "jr prove Christianity, Peterson defend atheism" over and over just for the purpose of keeping them focused. I mean that's all it ended up being about all along, and yet both sides were so prepared to do that implicitly that they talked past each other the whole time. It just demonstrates the safety of holding an atheistic stance and the impossibility of proving an unfalsifiable proposition, and indeed jr admitted he got the free content he needed out of it even though nothing happened, and Peterson got to relax and play guitar for a minute while we all got dumber for having listened, which is guaranteed anytime you listen to someone try to prove the hot wet garbage that is Christianity
I had to take off my headphones, cuz I started to have an anxiety attack, eating up the mic, and hitting pots simultaneously is just too much :D Hats off to having so much patience, Eric :)))
6:42 He thinks he’s crushing it lmao Dunning Kruger SOOOOO bad
If the word salad he spits out was real food I could feed the whole country but I'm not shure it would be tasty.
😄😄
The laws of physics, which are man made, are our attempt to explain the universe. They are not prescriptive, they are descriptive.
laws of nature are whatever regularities happen to exist in nature.
they are just properties of whatever happen to exist.
I died when you did the dueling banjos for the hillbilly caller.
26:25. Did JR actually claim that his brain is identical to Peterson's? I'm intrigued to follow this to some other conclusions.
Since Usain Bolt and I are both cis men, why can't I run as fast as he can? We're both human beings...
He doesn't understand that the brain is fundamentally just a very complex state machine, that a current brain state is very much a result of its past states, not just a function of its current external inputs and basic laws of physics, and no two real brains can ever have the same past, present and future states. Yet it's still purely deterministic.
We just need to distinguish between laws in a legal context versus a scientific context.
Two (initially) identical neural networks, one trained on cat pictures and the other trained on tree pictures will very inevitably and deterministically produce different outputs when presented with the same images later. Is it because of free will that they produce different outputs from the same inputs and same underlying "thought" process?
Two (initially similar) human baby brains, one raised and educated on the best scientific knowledge and methods while the other raised only with superstition and religious dogma, are obviously expected to reach very different conclusions about the world around them later in life when evaluating the same facts using the same deterministic processes in the brain, no free will involved or required. Of course, the second person is more likely to be wrong, and will also fail to grasp this point.
all they have is question begging
My argument against God's free will:
1. God's nature (values, personality, and attributes) informs God's decisions.
2. God's nature is either contingent, necessary, or a combination of both
3. Necessity and contingency are forces external to God.
4. Free will presupposes the capacity to make decisions free from external forces.
Conclusion: God does not have free will.
Ps. I know there are very smart people in this comment section, so if you have any criticism against my argument, please tell me. Cheers 🥂
So, using HIS LOGICAL ARGUMENT....Zeus was the rational, logical argument for lighting back in the day...because his believers asserted it answered the question, right or wrong. What the actual fuck.
Presupping just asserting foundational cause based on cherry-picked logical arguments. There is NO real evidence for any god. PERIOD.
Using determined physics as an argument for freewill is pretty funny.
It's infuriating when someone makes a few decent arguments for idealism, then jams in a bunch of religous claims about a creator and free will and so on.
Even from an idealist perspective the universe is uncreated and free will only exists from a compatibleist point of view.
It's dishonest to say consciousness exists, therefore christianity is the truth and you're a sinner.
Bertrand Russell dealt with 'transcendentals' nearly a century ago by demonstrating that any proposed transcendentals are fundamentally arbitrary in nature.
And yet, for some reason, drunkards like this buffoon will continue to use the same bullshit.
Was bro skiing?? 😂
Or doing laundry? Or reorganizing his bedroom?
JR’s problem is that he thinks he’s smarter than he actually is
Presuppositional apologetics in a nutshell:
Presuopose the existence of God.
Presuppose universal awareness of the existence of God.
Presuppose the deniers of the awareness of the existence of God to be liars.
Use various verbal manipulation techniques in order to trick/force the interlocutor into admitting that they indeed are aware of God's existence (with near 100% failure rate). 😏
"Is Math physical?" Yes! Every single psrt of it
Even the number 1
Meta ethics and presuppositionalism is a road to nowhere. This guy doesn’t realize that no one has access to the contents of another’s mind. What a waste of time. Peterson was right as usual.
Every apologist ever: "We don't know so of course we MUST jump to my conclusions." Every single time. Dishonesty and rudeness at it's most refined state.
My guy killing it on the guitar lmao
I think in that circle example, the laws of physics *are* the circle, as in the line which defines the edge of the category of reality
When a person starts "bro-ing" he knows he isn't making any sense but hesitates to admit it.
Free will is not just the ability to choose, it's the possibility to have chosen differently. "When faced with a choice between X and Y, I chose Y" is just a tautology. Could you really have chosen X instead (that time, not the next time you might face the same choice)? If yes, how can you be sure, is there any way to prove it?
Thoughts are physical actions
Deep River Blues! Nice
I never believed in a religion or magic, so i always wonder what its like to be so emotionally invested in something so obviously made up & silly. Its like would superman or batman win? Idk it depends in the story i guess, i wont crusade about it...
His attempt at control just looked like he was concealing a weak argument with constant interrupting. When we finally got down to an actual explanation it always boiled down to "mine explanation is better than yours, bro"... prove it or STFU
Hey mate. Store is unavailable. Is there another store out or in the works? Also. Is the book available in audio form? Cheers.
P1: if free will exists, we can choose to ignore the inner voice. P2: We can't ignore the inner voice. Conclusion: free will doesn't exist.
We need some kind of AI that can separate what each of you are saying at the same time and play them separately. I hate that I can’t hear what either of you are saying when that happens.
If the universe had a beginning the laws and rules of that originated moment is unknown. If the universe came from nothing there wasn’t even any rules to stop it.
JR listens to more intelligent people make the arguments he is trying to make, then repeats him poorly… and doesn’t understand what he is doing wrong, so assumes he must be right.
Were you playing some Doc Watson at the end there?
Your guests revert to calling you "bro" when they get uncomfortable. It's kind of funny.
J.R. is determined to be wrong. Use the word 'determined' any way you like.
Hahaha the Destiny strat. To play music when they start rambling. Nice😅
Gives no evidence for his reasonings, gives no explanation as to how anything would work under his hypothesis, just trolling to be obnoxious.
Ah man, you need to upload that 2nd video lol
if this was mentally sparing J.R. Came unequipped.
J.R - "Just Rambling". Mf steamrolled so hard I think he might have made the earth flat
The "laws" of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive. It's the difference between a car's top speed, and the legal speed limit.
Yo Eric, I think you're in the clear now, I heard dude give you the permission to laugh 😆
I will also interrupt every sentence you say if it's not what I want to hear.
Being determined to come to truth and reaching different conclusions isnt a contradiction. I'll never understand why free will enthusiasts always use that as a "gotcha" against determinism
The irony of a theist asking anybody to be honest...
All theists are conspiracy theorists. It is not debatable.
What about agnostic theists?
27:00 the word you want is "parsimony"
peterson we're waiting for the book :(((
A man of many talents.
Caller - "When did i say that?"
Peterson - "Did god create the universe naturally?"
Caller - "Im the one asking the questions"
3:42 is this the 1st time he's said his arguement out loud?
I lost count on how many times this caller moved the goal post
Imagine thinking you won on a gotcha
Math is not invented. It is discovered. What's invented are the words we use to describe it. 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks. Doesn't matter if we "invented" it or not, that is ALWAYS the case.
What IS invented, would be units of measurement. Those are completely arbitrary numbers. 1 miles could be 250 gloobens. 1 mile could have been 1.1 harpors.
Yeah, it feels kind of like saying we invented cats because we gave a name to them.
Why does JR have two kinds of voices?
I'm not "broken" or "fallen" or a sinner. I am in fact sinless. I am 100% without sin. It is in fact not possible for me to sin. Because sins are the mental baggage of the religious and I need not acknowledge them. Sins" are the social constructs of primitive, often insular religious society's taboos, phobias and hang ups so ancient and far removed as to be as ridiculous as they are irrelevant. And after the "big three" (lying, stealing and killing which are such ancient prehistoric laws they have to include them to even try to claim credibility) they become very culturally specific, tribal and bizarre.
This is my understanding:
the laws are not the same as we use to govern.
The laws are just things that describe observations. therefore the laws are irrelevant without the universe.
PP really needed to utilize the mute button a bit more with JR, he allows him to railroad way too much and just straight up talk over him.
The black hole information paradox is kinda weird, but I have read some preliminary research paths that may show the paradox doesn't exist.
12:30 - no truth doesnt exist as it is a property of sentences. Truth and reality are not the same thing. Truth is simply a tool we use to evaluate the difference between what is real and what is fantasy or what is objective vs subjective.
JR is just doing a really amateur version of Hegelian idealism.
laws of physics (along with laws of logic) are descriptions of the properties of the universe
Is there some logical problem with saying that the laws of the universe are mathematical descriptions of how the universe functions. Description of things are never the thing itself?
J. R. Can have his mind changed rather than he can change his mind so his verbiage obscured the gist of the conversation
This guy is absolutely a dishwasher at the back of an Applebee's, scaring his coworkers with his rants about transcendental laws and being a brain in a vat.
Also he talks over Eric even when Eric isn't talking... It's like he's got a voice in his head he's arguing with instead of who he's on the phone with.
I feel like the mute button was quite lonely during this convo.
In collisions between philisophers who wish to word things into existence, and scientists who simply describe existence through observation, measurement, and testing....the philosopher will lose every single time. This is why the Greeks had some great ideas, but never really got past Aristotle and some of his absurd claims. Aristotle had the smarts but was wrong on, well, just about everything beyond mathematics.
What was Peterson saying about the earth and sun orbiting before dud cut him off?
Peterson was talking about the Barycenter. When you have an object orbiting another it isn’t exactly orbiting the object. Both objects are orbiting their center of mass. In our solar system that center of mass is inside the sun, but not its exact center. So technically both objects are orbiting their collective center of mass
@@lubrew5862 aahhhg ok thank you!
J.R. is off his meds again
that caller was the dumb
Can you make traduction of your book, in French for example ?
The laws of physics are named in a collective name... The universe or nature or reality
Sorry, but nobody who begins and ends every statement with "bro" should be taken seriously.
It’s super annoying when guests keep brushing their mic against shit.
23:05 - "Because it has more explanatory power than yours".
No, just no. It doesnt. "Because god" gives you no explanation for any how or why questions.
This guy is infuriating...
This guy likes the sound of his own voice far too much - and he’s literally the ONLY one who does. The rest of the world is tired and BORED of him and those like him! Ugh 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤡
He is just going to BS in his own video on what he thought he heard. What a numpty.
Me use big words that have many meanings to prove my point.
Why is this man building a house while doing this? I can hear less than half the conversation becasue his mic is so bad all while he's throwing dishes down a stairway and running around.
this guest is really really stuck with their poor bias that makes them intellectually dishonest with themselves XD