/lit/ - Literature

>>21443841
He was thinking of the transcendental argument for God (TAG). It has nothing to do with Godel, who offered a modal proof of God.
Just what we've come to expect from Peterson.

>>21443841
I came to this board thinking we would discuss literature, not some schizo Zionist shill who od’d on benzos after his daughter got BLACKED

>>21443958
I just realized that I was too kind to him and assumed he was referring to Godel's proof of God, when he may actually be referring to the incompleteness theorems, in which case, his tweet would show even more terrible misunderstanding.

imagine having the hubris to think god needs you to prove his existence.

>>21443996
God did create the universe in order to know himself, God is his essence is unknowable even to himself.

>>21444002
imagine having the hubris to think you know the mind of god and can explain his intentions

Descartes would agree.

>>21443973
Evil rat. Find another board to sully.

Ah yes, a perfect discussion for /ArabJewishCult/

>>21444006
He gave us a pretty big book explaining His intentions, anon

>>21444002
Prove it.

Peterson is for retards

>>21444040
where in the bible does it say "he created the universe in order to know himself" and "god in his essence is unknowable even to himself"? must have missed those verses.

>>21444040
Journey to the West?

>>21443958
The incompleteness theorems are a transcendental argument, just not explicitly.

>>21444046
>>21444006
Eriugena explains why, but it's a straight forward consequence of God's essence being beyond all conceptual determinations. God's essence can not be the subject of any predicate, only God's effects, i.e. his powers and creations, can be the subject of predicates.

>>21444087
And further if God wants to obtain knowledge of his essence then he would need to create another God, which is not compossible with God's essence, or create something in his own image that bears an essential likeness to his own essence: man; which is what God did.

>>21444087
>>21444102
this has the distinct stench of gnosticism, friendo

>>21443841
How are people not blasting him here for such a ridiculous mangling of Gödel's implications?

>>21444105
No, not at all, it's standard Christian anthropology.

>>21443841
Goedel didn't prove anything. lol

>>21444035
What gets me is that God means Yahweh in Western culture which creates an endless amount of confusion. Because it's a philosophical position that is genereally applicable to anyone anywhere, but because the Bible was like "yep, that's me and ONLY me" it gets attached to a very specific mythology that happens to be founded on a pack of lies so it muddies the water in equal measure as it orders the conversation around itself.

>>21444087
>Eriugena explains why, but it's a straight forward consequence of God's essence being beyond all conceptual determinations
It’s really not actually a straightforward consequence whatsoever, unless you incorrectly assume that all knowledge is conceptually mediated and that there is no such thing as non-conceptual knowledge, this would leave God unable to know himself, there being no way *to* know except through concepts. But this is incorrect because our (and God’s) own immediate awareness of ourselves is not conceptually mediated.

>>21443841
Even if you accept his premise about Godel, doesn't his syllogism beg the question?
>syllogisms (and reason in general) requires god to be valid
>this argument is a syllogism
>therefore god is valid

For any rational argument to be valid God has to exist, therefore any argument, including an argument for God, presupposes rather than proves the existence of God.

The transcendental argument that "we need God to have faith in reason" would therefore only be a desideratum we use as a regulatory device to provide faith in reason (to justify axioms), that we can assume "as if God exists" merely so we can have confidence in the utility of reason, but no rational argument could establish God on a constitituve basis because any rational argument presupposes rather than proves God.

>>21444151
Knowledge is only conceptual, perhaps you're thinking of sensations re:self-knowledge, which requires body to provide sense-data to then form a conception from, something God lacks in his essence.

>>21444127
Coke means softdrink for similar market share reasons. Personally I want to finger fuck Guanyin's mouth. In her male incarnation of course.