God is necessary and must exist

True philosophy is true mysticism in the sense of mystery cults. There is an esoteric and exoteric layer. The metaphor of the cave is the best example of this mystery.

Modal proof of God:

Is it possible that it is necessary that god exists? If so, a possible necessary is necessary according to modal logic.

The cave metaphor is literally "look around and you'll find the source". Its a scooby doo tale. Nothing is unknowable, plato's contemporary aristotle proves that.

Why? Atheists misuse the term God WAY more than peterson. He's correcting their unsophisticated and frankly 4 yo tier criticisms.

No it's not, it's about the inability to explain phenomenological experience on a higher transcendent level to someone who has not had the experience.

>doesn't know about theoria
Read more Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Proclus.

you're just saying "atheists do it too so why does he have to stop", which is childish. also your last sentence is irrelevant to what I said.

No, you misunderstand me. He is shifting the mainstream theological debates into a level more fitting of adults. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with him, but this way atheists can actually debate against Christianity, not their strawman.

It was not irrelevant at all.

>Nothing is unknowable.

Hoo boy.

It's more to do with ideology. Plato was a snake and poison mixer.

nothing you said here has anything to do with my original post. I say he's redefining certain terms then you reply with stuff about him correcting atheist criticisms then you mention that he is shifting the debate. sure, he could be doing both of those things but he's still redefining the common terms

Poison is the cure.

IIRC plato uses the cave metaphor to emphasize his self proclaimed role as philosopher-king in republic
Not to say youre wrong in your interpretation but there are more accepted theories.

True.
How else does everything exist?
It sprang up from nothing? It always existed?
How did this eternal existence manifest itself?
Analyzing the arising of order, one comes to a divine ground as its origin.

What do you hope to gain by asking these questions?

Do you even philosophize bro?

It's just a mental exercise. It's human nature to wonder at what is going on.

You need to shoot off a few blanks before you get to a good question. Philosophy is all about just searching through that space until a valid association gets triggered.

True.
How else does God exist?
It sprang up from nothing? It always existed?
How did this eternal existence manifest itself?
Analyzing the arising of order, one comes to a divine ground as its origin.

One could maintain that God is pure existence itself, and that from sheer existence naturally arise the qualities of awareness and bliss.
A self-existent God could make more sense than a self-existent universe, and only one option is correct.

I assumed you were talking about the term God, my bad. What term are you referring to?

>One could maintain that God is pure existence itself

At that point why call it God and why would pure bliss etc be entailed by that fact even if it were so?

At that point you can substitute God for Energy or Substance or Essence or any vague identifier. "God" becomes an empty signifier.

Also any properties attributable to this entity are completely beyond any finite individual's scope.

>One could maintain that God is pure existence itself
One could kill himself too, the question is, why?

Peterson's God is totally impotent and unnecessary. It's a series of vague archetypal descriptions, it's even unclear whether he actually believes in it or just likes to talk about believing in it

Actually it's WAY more powerful than merely believing or not. His description acts out in our behaviour and psyche whether the believe or not, whether we are conscious of it or not. It's a pervasive ideal that has been gaining momentum in our species for millions of years. Much more potent than subscribing to one interpretation of a humanoid deity.

>Nothing is unknowable

"Everything" is unknowable.

How does god exist?
He sprang from nothing? He always existed?
...

He was created in the Big Bang.

I don't understand why he believes in the extremely pervasive dominance hierarchy but doesn't believe in the ultimate eye of the pyramid as a transcendent ruler of existence. He talks about how early humans evolved to elect a ruler, then evolved to elect a principle/ideal and then to believe in a god. He recognises Christ (the Word) as the most sophisticated of these gods. Now, I'm pretty sure he would agree with my interpretation of his theory, so my question is, why doesn't he believe in a creator God? If humans have slowly been building up to a higher and higher view of God, then why would you have such a low view? In my biased opinion his view should lead him to be a Calvinist. The most top-down, powerful, personal God.

Yes but there are only two options and when we speak of truth, there is only one deductive argument to be made, we are just nescient of the facts, but in my limited comprehension I believe the fact of God is clearer.
In truth, reality can't just spring out of chaos. Only an intelligent order can beget an intelligent order.

His last lecture on bible in a few words
>muh Jung
>dude lsd
>mushrooms
>Jung said this
>Jung did that

see you next week

Because, unironically, his framework is only based on what can be supported or at the very least in harmony with scientific evidence.

>God is necessary for my weak, spooked out psyche so he must exist in actuality even though the existence of things is in no way contingent on anything that goes on in my psyche

Great logic.