The Greatest God Debate In History | Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty

[LuckyR]

Why do you ask?

Because in my opinion, Forums are a place to discuss topics with posters, not a list of "interesting" videos.

Don't the posters need to watch the video before it can be discussed?

Not if the OP summarizes what they find to be the germain issues and poses questions thusly (like everyone else does who relays personal anecdotes, etc).

Hence my query.

[LuckyR]

Because in my opinion, Forums are a place to discuss topics with posters, not a list of "interesting" videos.

May I ask where exactly do you get all you're (sic) personal debatable philosophical ideas from?

I'm assuming you learn what you know by reading, watching and gleaning from others ? or do you just simply make-up everything you think you know about philosophy, and that only you're (sic) ideas are original?

Well, part of the beauty of philosophy is that (like opinions) everyone's got one. Of course, regardless of the source of one's philosophy (academia, the Classics or merely based on one's life experience) everyone participating should be able to defend their's using logic and/or examples, preferably from Real Life.

As to my sources of my belief system, they come from my experiences dealing with others, my own thoughts and external sources I come across. You?

I have no illusions that my perspective is unique or that if it was unique that that would mean anything. In fact if you think about it, if one happened to possess a "superior" viewpoint, wouldn't it be logical that numerous others would come to that conclusion and also adopt it?

[Dontaskme]

Well, part of the beauty of philosophy is that (like opinions) everyone's got one. Of course, regardless of the source of one's philosophy (academia, the Classics or merely based on one's life experience) everyone participating should be able to defend their's using logic and/or examples, preferably from Real Life.

Yes and of course, Jordan Peterson and Matt D have their opinions too. So?

As to my sources of my belief system, they come from my experiences dealing with others, my own thoughts and external sources I come across. You?

Same place as yours I guess.

I have no illusions that my perspective is unique or that if it was unique that that would mean anything. In fact if you think about it, if one happened to possess a "superior" viewpoint, wouldn't it be logical that numerous others would come to that conclusion and also adopt it?

Well sure, why not- I mean everyone’s opinion must come from the same place, namely from their own perspective. So?


Are you still waiting for my Synopsis ?
The one that comes from the same place as yours assuming you had one you made earlier, that is. Or couldn’t you be arsed to bother with concocting your own, especially when you can just read about someone else’s then make up your own mind about whether it meant anything to you, seeing though you do appear to be rather a curious philosopher in my opinion.
And that’s why I like to watch YouTube videos where philosophers share their opinions on the internet. Just like people do on philosophy forums.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Greatest God Debate In History | Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nQUg4QeI_Y
This was an extremely interesting and fascinating debate. Just wanted to share it here.
Duration: 1hour : 40 mins

I did not listen to the whole of the above video but did download the Script to get a quick glance of the debated points.
I have listened to debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.

Peterson is a God and Religions apologist.
The way he presented his positive sentiments for theistic religions sort of indirectly lend support for theists especially the extreme ones to commit their evil acts upon non-believers.
The fact is a certain religion [I..] is inherently evil and humanity must strive [towards the future, not possible now] to wean off all religions with emphasis on the very evil one and others thereafter.

Thus I agree with Dillahunty and Harris's views that God does not exist as a real being.
However I believe the idea of God is a very critical useful illusion at present in the absence of alternatives to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Humanity must find alternatives and wean off religions in the future.

Here are the summing up views in the JP vs Harris debate;
taken from the Script, so not well presented.

Jordan Peterson 2:04:23
There's lots of things about which Sam and I agree but the devil's in the details.
Of course you know I I'm very sympathetic to his claim that we need to ground our ethical systems in something solid and demonstrable.
My problem is I'm not sure how to do that when I don't believe that you can derive a value structure from your experience of the observable facts.
There's too many facts you need a structure to interpret them.
And there isn't very much of you and so part of the reason part of the way that that's addressed neurologically is that you have an inbuilt structure it's deep partly biological it's partly an emergent consequence of your socialization and you view the world of facts through that structure.
And it's a structure of value now that structure of value may be derived from the world of facts over The evolutionary time frame but it's not derived from the world of facts over the time frame that you inhabit.
And it can't be so the problem I have in with our discussion so far isn't really any of Sam's fundamental ethical claims because I do believe there's a distinction between the hellish life and the Heavenly life say the life that everyone would agree was absolutely not worth living and the life we could imagine as good and I do believe that we should be moving from one to the other.
The question is exactly how is it that we make the decisions that will guide us along that way. And
I don't believe we can make them without that a priority structure.
In fact I think the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that we can't.
And I mean also the scientific evidence and I would like to go further into the devil that's in those details and so that's my situation at the moment

Sam Harris 2:06:32
well part of these conversations and now we've you and I
Have had I think four conference done two podcasts this is our second live event and thank you for doing this by the way this is hey it's my pleasure honor to do this.
It's an honor to do this and it's uh it comes with risks for both of us to do
This I mean I think you can sense we don't have precisely the same audiences all of you are sort of rooting for one or the other of us to some degree.
Uh or for the spirit of Truth.
And yes and but clearly the conversation is the point, right this is not though this conversation had the character at many moments of a debate I don't think either of us view it as a debate in in the trivial sense, it's not about Point scoring it's about making sense in a way that's consequential because we're talking about issues of great consequence.
And you obviously care about these things and uh it matters whether we Converge on the most important questions in human life.
And as you know I'm worried that religion doesn't give us the tools we need to converge.
What does give us the tools is a truly open-ended conversation.
And what then you simply have to look honestly at the obstacles toward any conversation being open-ended and religion presents those first and most readily it's it is a the idea that certain things have been decided for all time.
And there's no future evidence or argument that is admissible on those points.
Now that is clearly bad everywhere in science it's bad everywhere in how we renegotiate our proximity to one another in society in new laws.
And new ideas are born all the time about how to structure institutions and social relationships because new things happen.
I mean we didn't have an internet and then we did so our old laws and our old expectations of human communication simply don't work in the presence of this new thing right so we have to figure out we again.
It's a navigation problem and what I'm perpetually in contest with even in conversations like this is the sense that the rules need to change just a little bit for this class of books.
I mean literally this side of the bookstore right there's like any other part of the bookstore will then there's no barrier to honest conversation but you move over here you've got this shelf of books there you have to hold your tongue right there.
We can't pick and choose we can't say that while we can say that Shakespeare wrote some fantastic plays the best play has ever written and some are actually not that good right.
We can't say that about God.
Right we have to find some tortured way to make the most of his diabolical utterances.
Okay that's the thing we have to outgrow and so what I'm continually in tension with you is the degree to which your style of talking about religion and narrow the power of narrative and and
The meaning derived from it aligns that point and seems to let people off the hook on that very point.
And that's the that's where we need to hold the line in my view we need to we need to sure that that it has to be clear to us at this moment in history that no one has the right to their religious sectarianism.
Really I mean it up to the point clearly that there's a there's a soccer there's a World Cup version of it that is benign but once it gets taken past that point
We have to figure out how to pull the brakes and that becomes a real problem if you are going to dignify the foundational claims of these faiths, claims like Revelation and Paradise and blasphemy and apostasy. [which Peterson is not condemning]
I mean these are the things that you come up against and I think.
Conversation like this are incredibly important because we need to convince the better part of humanity that it's possible to live the best life possible without recourse to divisive nonsense.
And where we draw the line between divisive nonsense and reason the necessary discourse is what we're we're bickering over and I think I think it's important that we continue.

[Dontaskme]

I did not listen to the whole of the above video but did download the Script to get a quick glance of the debated points.

Well thanks for your interest at least, that's the purpose of me posting these videos, it's so great debates can be witnessed in realtime at the click of a mouse, between articulate and impeccable speakers in my opinion. I like to think of this forum as a newspaper, for people to read, if there is any interest or enthusiasm to do so of course, but that's entirely up to the one who is curious enough to enter the thread topic in the first place.

Thus I agree with Dillahunty and Harris's views that God does not exist as a real being.

So do I.
I too agreed with Matt D and Sam Harris.

Here are the summing up views in the JP vs Harris debate;
taken from the Script, so not well presented.

Thanks for your efforts to further bring forth to our attention these fascinating debates about the possibility of God's existence or none existence.

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, in that video if they discussed whether God existed or not, did either or both of them provide a definition of what 'God' is?

[Dontaskme]

Just out of curiosity, in that video if they discussed whether God existed or not, did either or both of them provide a definition of what 'God' is?

I don't know whether they know what God is.

But I do, I know that God is a concept known, and that's all I know about God. I know the concept.

And that I can know a concept, means there is knowing, and knowing requires a knower.

God is known to be the knower of this knowing. Although it is not clear where or what or why or who is this knower of this knowing without making that knower another concept known. There are plenty of theories, and ideas, but what is a theory, and what is an idea? except more concepts known, in this conception.

Where is the exact location of a knower? can it be pointed to, does it have an image, does it have an age, where was it born, how long has it lived, where does it live? is it alive or dead, is it both alive and dead?
All these questions are still being debated and waiting to be settled upon by humanity, the God discussions are still happening now today as we speak, as though we have absolutely no idea what exactly we are referring to when it comes to the knower of knowing.

''Knowing'' is rather a very strange concept to grasp, is it not?

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, in that video if they discussed whether God existed or not, did either or both of them provide a definition of what 'God' is?

I don't know whether they know what God is.

Okay.

But I do, I know that God is a concept known, and that's all I know about God. I know the concept.

So, does a so-called 'concept known', TO 'you', EXIST, or NOT?

Also, is a 'tree' also a so-called 'concept known', and if yes, then does a 'tree', TO 'you', EXIST, or NOT?

And that I can know a concept, means there is knowing, and knowing requires a knower.

BUT WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this' 'I', EXACTLY, which 'you', "dontaskme", talk ABOUT and refer TO, here?

God is known to be the knower of this knowing. Although it is not clear where or what or why or who is this knower of this knowing without making that knower another concept known. There are plenty of theories, and ideas, but what is a theory, and what is an idea? except more concepts known, in this conception.

Where is the exact location of a knower? can it be pointed to, does it have an image, does it have an age, where was it born, how long has it lived, where does it live? is it alive or dead, is it both alive and dead?

ALL of these QUESTIONS, CAN BE, and ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN ALREADY, ANSWERED, and IN AN IRREFUTABLE WAY I will add here.

However, considering the Fact that 'you' have NOT YET just ANSWERED JUST the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED here, let 'us' MOVE ALONG and SEE if 'you' GET TO ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and ASKED.

All these questions are still being debated and waiting to be settled upon by humanity, the God discussions are still happening now today as we speak, as though we have absolutely no idea what exactly we are referring to when it comes to the knower of knowing.

And, as I have been CONTINUALLY POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, 'this' IS BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL VERY LOST and CONFUSED individuals.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True throughout this forum.

''Knowing'' is rather a very strange concept to grasp, is it not?

YES, VERY, VERY True.

'Knowing' IS CERTAINLY NOT A 'very strange concept to grasp' AT ALL. Well NOT FOR 'Me' anyway.

In fact 'knowing' IS A Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY concept TO KNOW and UNDERSTAND, and ALSO GRASP, as well as EXPLAIN and SHARE, by the way and ACTUALLY.

[Dontaskme]

BUT WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this' 'I', EXACTLY, which 'you', "dontaskme", talk ABOUT and refer TO, here?

I don't know who or what is this I

All I know is that the I appears to manifest as happening here in the image of itself as it appears as a letter of the alphabet. But I do not know, or have any idea how or why this happening is happening, or that it has any purpose or reason to happen. All I know is it's happening, and that's all I can know.

[Dontaskme]

'Knowing' IS CERTAINLY NOT A 'very strange concept to grasp' AT ALL. Well NOT FOR 'Me' anyway.

In fact 'knowing' IS A Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY concept TO KNOW and UNDERSTAND, and ALSO GRASP, as well as EXPLAIN and SHARE, by the way and ACTUALLY.

To me, 'Knowing' implies there is a knower.

But I have no idea or clue as to what a 'knower'' looks like, I cannot even point to a 'knower' like I can point to a physical object. So that's why I say it's a difficult concept to grasp, because I cannot hold a ''knower'' in my hand and look at it as if it was an object.


I know the concept of ''knowing'' but I cannot see the form this 'knowing knower' takes physically, like I can an object...that's all I'm saying.

[Dontaskme]

And, as I have been CONTINUALLY POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, 'this' IS BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL VERY LOST and CONFUSED individuals.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True throughout this forum.

And that confusion and lostness appearing throughout this forum would be exactly what's appearing as it happens.

But so what Age? so what? if that's what's happening, then so be it, what's happening now can never be unhappened as in undone, can it? what could possibly unhappen or undo immediate happening? all that can be known is what's happening, and never not what's happening, right?

[Age]

BUT WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this' 'I', EXACTLY, which 'you', "dontaskme", talk ABOUT and refer TO, here?

I don't know who or what is this I

THEN I SUGGEST THAT 'you' do NOT USE the letter and WORD 'I' TO REFER TO "your" OWN VERY LITTLE and INSIGNIFICANT 'self' here.

All I know is that the I appears to manifest as happening here in the image of itself as it appears as a letter of the alphabet.

So, what MAKES 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' can be ASSOCIATED WITH and/or SPEAK FOR 'I'. AFTER ALL there IS ONLY thee One and ONLY 'I', and if 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' ARE 'It', then 'you' ARE, SADLY, VERY, VERY MISTAKEN "dontaskme'.

The ONLY 'one' that 'you' can REALLY SPEAK FOR IS 'you', the LITTLE and conceptually separated individual 'i', ALONE.

But I do not know, or have any idea how or why this happening is happening, or that it has any purpose or reason to happen.

'you' may well NOT. But, 'I' CERTAINLY DO, and 'I', ALSO, KNOW IN 'a way', which NONE of 'you' could REFUTE.

BUT AGAIN, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one of 'you', little individual human beings, would like TO 'TRY', then PLEASE DO.

All I know is it's happening,

'you' MEANT TO SAY and WRITE, 'All 'i' know is 'it' IS happening'.

and that's all I can know.

ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong AGAIN. FOR two reasons:

1. 'you' ARE NOT 'I'.

2. 'I' CAN and ALREADY DO KNOW FAR, FAR MORE than JUST 'it' IS happening.

[Age]

'Knowing' IS CERTAINLY NOT A 'very strange concept to grasp' AT ALL. Well NOT FOR 'Me' anyway.

In fact 'knowing' IS A Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY concept TO KNOW and UNDERSTAND, and ALSO GRASP, as well as EXPLAIN and SHARE, by the way and ACTUALLY.

To me, 'Knowing' implies there is a knower.

To 'you', does 'Knowing', REALLY, ONLY JUST 'imply' there is a 'knower'?

I would have thought for 'you', human beings, that it would have been fairly straight forward and VERY OBVIOUS that 'knowing' could ONLY HAPPEN and OCCUR IF there IS/WAS A so-called 'knower'.

But I have no idea or clue as to what a 'knower'' looks like, I cannot even point to a 'knower' like I can point to a physical object.

THIS IS BECAUSE, as 'I' have INFORMED 'you' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY, that the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE BOTH INVISIBLE 'things'. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you', "dontaskme", could NOT KNOW what 'they' LOOK LIKE, NOR could NOT even be ABLE POINT TO 'them', with the physical finger OF 'that body'. HOWEVER, 'they' can be DESCRIBED, or ILLUSTRATE, THROUGH and BY spoken or written words, which as some would say, POINTS DIRECTLY TO 'who' AND 'what' the 'knower' AND thee 'Knower' ARE, EXACTLY?

It REALLY IS 'this' SIMPLE and EASY TO UNDERSTAND, and COMPREHEND. But, FOR SOME like 'this one', it was AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR 'them' TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, AGAIN BECAUSE 'their' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS KEPT, literally, HOLDING 'them' BACK FROM LEARNING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING.

So that's why I say it's a difficult concept to grasp, because I cannot hold a ''knower'' in my hand and look at it as if it was an object.

AND TO BE SO CLOSED and BLIND to think that ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IN the Universe is visible with the human eyes, made up of 'matter', and/or is ABLE TO BE HELD in the human hand, like physical objects can IS BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

BUT, 'this' IS the RESULT OF False AND Wrong BELIEFS, and 'CONFIRMATION BIAS', itself.

I know the concept of ''knowing'' but I cannot see the form this 'knowing knower' takes physically, like I can an object...that's all I'm saying.

BECAUSE 'it' does NOT and WILL NEVER TAKE THE physical 'form', like a (physical) object.

If 'you' EVER JUST START TO CONSIDER AND COMPREHEND 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact, then 'I' can START REVEALING TO 'you', EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'your' OTHER BELIEFS ARE IN FACT ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

But, UNTIL THEN 'I' LEAVE 'you' STUCK in those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect BELIEFS that 'you' HAVE here.

[Age]

And, as I have been CONTINUALLY POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, 'this' IS BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL VERY LOST and CONFUSED individuals.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True throughout this forum.

And that confusion and lostness appearing throughout this forum would be exactly what's appearing as it happens.

YES, and which IS WORKING PERFECTLY as 'this' HAS FITTED IN PERFECTLY WITH MY GOAL, which IS BE-COMING REALITY, HERE-NOW.

But so what Age? so what? if that's what's happening, then so be it, what's happening now can never be unhappened as in undone, can it?

YES, CONFUSION and LOSTNESS CAN DIMINISH, OBVIOUSLY, and BE REMOVED, COMPLETELY, and IS/WAS DONE, by the way.

And, what 'you' ARE SAYING and IMPLYING here is IF 'this discussion' was taking place in say the days of 'world war 2', and 'you' ARE 'TRYING TO' ARGUE that 'what is happening' IS HAPPENING and 'this' can NOT be UNDONE, EVENTUALLY.

Also, IF 'you' WANT TO START TALKING ABOUT 'the present' can NOT BE EVER 'unhappened' or 'undone', at the 'present time/moment', then 'we' COULD DISCUSS 'this' AS WELL, if 'you' like.

what could possibly unhappen or undo immediate happening?

What 'you', people, BACK THEN, Wrongly REFERRED TO AS 'time travel'

all that can be known is what's happening, and never not what's happening, right?

MAYBE Right AND Correct, BUT MAYBE NOT. BUT 'this' IS COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC here.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know who or what is this I

THEN I SUGGEST THAT 'you' do NOT USE the letter and WORD 'I' TO REFER TO "your" OWN VERY LITTLE and INSIGNIFICANT 'self' here.

I know the concept I ... but I have never seen an I except as a letter in the alphabet. I do not know what or who I am and so I use this letter I as a reference to my not-knowing self, as a known self in this conception that is happening in the form of letters of the alphabet.

All I know is that the I appears to manifest as happening here in the image of itself as it appears as a letter of the alphabet.

So, what MAKES 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' can be ASSOCIATED WITH and/or SPEAK FOR 'I'. AFTER ALL there IS ONLY thee One and ONLY 'I', and if 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' ARE 'It', then 'you' ARE, SADLY, VERY, VERY MISTAKEN "dontaskme'.

The ONLY 'one' that 'you' can REALLY SPEAK FOR IS 'you', the LITTLE and conceptually separated individual 'i', ALONE.

Ok, I suppose I could use the other I then, the little i ... i can do that, i can be little i suppose, not that it matters, because it's all just letters strung together to make sentences and words that appear to tell a story, at the end of the day. A story that just happens to be happening and appearing out of silence and mystery and imagination and ???? I've just run out of words.....

All I know is it's happening,

'you' MEANT TO SAY and WRITE, 'All 'i' know is 'it' IS happening'.

Well not really, that i wasn't happening. The I was happening.

and that's all I can know.

ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong AGAIN. FOR two reasons:

1. 'you' ARE NOT 'I'.

You is not I ...you is you. So I agree.

2. 'I' CAN and ALREADY DO KNOW FAR, FAR MORE than JUST 'it' IS happening.

Yes, and that statement claim is also what's happening.