Jordan Peterson definition of God

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I think you’ll find that just about everything in the universe has a death and rebirth in some form or another. It’s called the cycle of life.

I disagree 🙂

Life is not a cure for death. When a person or animal or plant dies or a star expires they are not reborn. Their atoms are dispersed and are then reused to make other forms of matter. The original is gone for good. What the atoms now make is not what was alive before. It is something new that is born, not reborn and not even with the same atoms.

Something that is “eternal” does not die. That is an oxymoron.  If, as most theists assert when they introduce the Ontological Argument for their Gods’ existence that “God is that which no greater entity can be conceived of”, then why would God need to be “reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth”.  Theists have been claiming their god is “Perfect” for as long as I can recall. This is true all the way from Anselm to W.L. Craig. Yet JP comes up with his own definition and nobody spots this.

So you have no problems with JP’s explanation of what God is? It makes things as clear as mud for me.

Not everything in this world can be explained or defined objectively.

Unless like some apologists that define “God” as “Everything”.

You can’t define God objectively

I have been claiming that for years, to the point of boring people. Theists land on this site talking about their God. I ask them for a definition of what they mean by “god” and all I ever get is their subjective opinions. I keep telling them they have no evidence and no objective arguments, only their own subjective opinion. Are you now agreeing with me that it is all in their heads?

As God can only be defined subjectively and no two definitions are the same then God does not exist in reality, just as opinion does not exist in reality.

Edit: I changed (corrected) Cosmological Argument to Ontological Argument above as I was typing too fast….

• This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[Belle Rose]

I disagree 🙂

Life is not a cure for death. When a person or animal or plant dies or a star expires they are not reborn. Their atoms are dispersed and are then reused to make other forms of matter.

We’re talking about the same thing. That’s basically the cycle of life. But you can also consciously decide (for example) to die and be reborn as a different person. Anyone who has ever undergone any sort of shift in identity has done this (which is probably everyone)….And the results coming away from it is a better version of yourself. This is (I think) a lot of what JP talks about….

[Belle Rose]

As God can only be defined subjectively and no two definitions are the same then God does not exist in reality, just as opinion does not exist in reality.

This is where I have to disagree. Just because God can only be defined subjectively doesn’t mean (therefore) that God doesn’t exist.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

This is (I think) a lot of what JP talks about….

Yes, you can re-invent yourself as a person. But you do not become a different person, just a better (or worse) version of the original. Life is not a cycle. That is just a pleasant metaphor people use. There is birth, life, death and decay but not rebirth. The same thing is not reborn. There is only new life that is unique to itself.

Just because God can only be defined subjectively doesn’t mean (therefore) that God doesn’t exist.

Yes, but it is an unfalsifiable assertion so I do not believe it. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchen’s Razor). I have a very clear concept of a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars.  If you want a cup of tea from it climb aboard my ship and meet me on Guanilo’s Island. It is perfect there or “so I have been led to believe” by others 🙂

• This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: fixed typo: one of those "withouts" was a "with"

[PopeBeanie]

Depending on my daughters’ decisions, I may be reborn in earthworms.

If they take to my suggestion, I will be happily converted to ashes, sneakily dumped into a random construction site’s cement mixer, and reborn distributed widely in a concrete foundation.

I can also hope eternally for a widely publicized ribbon cutting ceremony or two.

Edit: That last sentence up there looks more appealing to me–or at least more noticeable in its own paragraph.

Add at least another half dozen or so undocumented edits.

Now this post is feeling like a self-administered manicure. Each sentence is a finger or a toe.

We humans are really good at metaphor, self-reflection, and diversionary word-smithing.

Thinking now how to add just one more sentence, to make ten.

OMG, what an accidentally awesome ambiguity (“aaa” next time for short): Whom, specifically, is/are the subject(s) of the adverb “happily” in the second clause of the second sentence?

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

We don’t get reborn. What makes us “us” dies, excepted in the memory of those left behind. Our physical remains get recycled into different forms.

[Belle Rose]

Yes, you can re-invent yourself as a person. But you do not become a different person, just a better (or worse) version of the original.

You were missing the point to my analogy….

Life is not a cycle. That is just a pleasant metaphor people use. There is birth, life, death and decay but not rebirth. The same thing is not reborn. There is only new life that is unique to itself.

It is a metaphor, but it’s also rooted in mythology and oral traditions (take for example the Zia symbol as one of many examples)….there is a cycle to life and a certain stage of development that people go through….and at the end, death and decay returns us to the stars (who was it that said we are all made of star stuff?)….c’mon now lol

[Belle Rose]

We don’t get reborn. What make us “us” dies, excepted in the memory of those left behind.

Exactly. Anyway I think you’re missing my original point lol…

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Exactly.

Except for JP’s version of God that is “eternally reborn”?

[Davis]

This is where I have to disagree. Just because God can only be defined subjectively doesn’t mean (therefore) that God doesn’t exist.

Yes you are right. God could exist despite the circus of many different bad definitions. But I think when people talk about the existence of God in that case, they are doing so “igtheistically” or “igostically”. They don’t claim that because defiintions are so varied and usually non-sensical, unverifiable and often absurd that God doesn’t exist. That isn’t a logical argument. They mean: God is a waste of time. A non-argument. We might as well dismiss it as not existing just as we reject the existence of yellow Octopusses dancing on the moon or the existence of unthinking-cosmic-consciousness. We can never say they certainly don’t exist but it is ridiculous to bother talking about God’s existence when it is an extraordinary claim, lacking coherence, evidence and a workable definition (exceptions being trying to refute a religious trouble maker who is making trouble which is  lot of the time).

[Belle Rose]

@Davis

We might as well dismiss it as not existing just as we reject the existence of yellow Octopusses dancing on the moon or the existence of unthinking-cosmic-consciousness

How do you get from point A to point B there just doesn’t make sense to me.

[Davis]

Ivy if someone in a serious way told you that there is a yellow octopus dancing on your roof. When you cannot see it you ask “what is this yellow octopus” and the response is incomprehensible and contradictory and mostly poetry, and even more, besides the absurdity of the claim, you don’t see any yellow octopus on your roof. As you ask for more clarification the answers become more and more convoluted and self referencing to the point where you can barely respond anymore. Do you dismiss this claim? To dismiss isn’t to say “no you are categorically wrong”. It says, in a polite way, “fuck off and stop wasting my time”. I know very few people who wouldn’t find dismissing such nonsense  as unreasonable. I know next to no one who would go “tell me more about this yellow invisible dancing octopus…let’s spend the afternoon trying to learn about it and confirm its existence”. It’s a crazy claim, no evidence, a definition that keeps changing and a definition that could not in any sense be verified…all done in a manner that becomes difficult to critique…and lies outside of the field of critical thinking or rational analysis.

God is something that is far far more incredible than a yellow dancing octopus. It is exponentially more incredible. It makes a dancing yellow octopus seem totally mundane and believable. The various definitions of God usually conflict with one another and change from person to place to time to whatever. People ultimately end up having different conversations about different things all badly defined under the term God. Such conversations are mostly time wasting. Most definitions are incredibly vague. I respect those few who say “God is a bearded man in the sky” because at least I understand what the hell they are talking about. If no verifiable or falsifiable definition is given, then it cannot be confirmed or critically denied. If the nature of the claim is not clear, then it cannot be rationally analysed. If someone engages in discourse that runs around in circles or evades clarification or uses poetry or fiddles with the use of common words, then you go no where unless you both agree. The yellow octopus is beyond a rational conversation. As is God.

If a group of people give a reasonably clear definition of God, one that could be investigated in a meaningful way, one where you can devise a logical way to confirm or deny it and they clarify what they mean when questioned. Then it’s sensible to argue with them if you have the time and will. However, those rare times someone does give proper definitions about supernatural things, where evidence can be found (or not found) and it can be verified…it is quickly and easily refuted in a logical way. There are only so many times you can argue about different definitions of God, even if most of them are those rare times when you have an actual definition and some ability to respond and eventually demonstrate the flaws in their argument. There are some who enjoy continuously taking on such challengers. A reasonable person wouldn’t spend much time arguing with multiple people about different dancing octopuses again and again. But for most cases, there isn’t even a clear definition and no reasonable means to rationally investigate or argue about it…what’s the point unless there are consequences to not refuting them? Why would you waste your time unless you have a good reason and time to argue with the unarguable and repeatedly set nonsense straight?

99.9% of God’s existence talk and their non-defined nature can reasonably be dismissed as nonsensical time wasting, just like vague invisible conceptual dancing yellow octopuses. I never say “no there is no God”. I say it is a non-conversation to be dismissed.

[Belle Rose]

@Davis – Yeah, I mean I understand the whole argument and concept behind comparing God to something like yellow octopuses are pink unicorns on the moon or whatever. But as I’ve really thought this argument through it just seems completely stupid to me.

[Davis]

So there is something special about God that rises above other spectacular and incredible claims? Because it’s older? Popular? More vague? More conceptual? Full of traditions? Embedded in our culture?

We use reason and logic and clarity to evaluate just about every claim we hear, especially claims that we use to base our laws and morality on…and yet the God one gets a special pass to evade reason, clarity and critical thought?

Forget the unicorns. What about the claim that there is a universal-unthinking-consciousness that karmically meddles with your life? The universe is a multiverse of 5.3 billion parallel ones connected somehow with some rules that kind of work some sort of way in a conceptual soup and you cannot wear denim…as a truth? Perhaps if your best friend tells you that the meaning of everyone’s life existed in a celestial seed before the big bang which materializes over time through quantum life and lighting candles helps open up insight into your soul? How about Allah? How about the universe rewarding you and paying you back for the things you do and it cares deeply about sexual partners and positions? Hell awaits us? Oh and VERY importantly: the claim is truth, they should fundamentally define us and guide us, there is no evidence, few agree on details or explanations and at some point next to no one can answer a straight question?

[Belle Rose]

We use reason and logic and clarity to evaluate just about every claim we hear, especially claims that we use to base our laws and morality on

Hahahaha!!! No we don’t lmfao!!

Very few people are real trained scientists that properly understand how to “evaluate claims” the way that you describe. And if there’s anybody on the planet to understand this process the least it is the politicians making the laws!

Did you see that interview with Mike Pence where he says about climate change, “We will always follow the science…”…

You think the laws being passed in Alabama right now that just basically made it legal for them to criminally charged a woman who got shot for the murder of her own baby is because we are so good at evaluating claims and uplifting morality as a society?

Most people are stupid Davis.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by Belle Rose.
• This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by Belle Rose.

[Author]

Posts