1
00:01:56,519 --> 00:02:00,239
Hey, everybody, to anyone debating
trinity versus talie. And we were starting

2
00:02:00,519 --> 00:02:05,719
right now with Jake Muslim metaphysician's opening
statement. Thanks so much for being with

3
00:02:05,799 --> 00:02:09,759
us. Jake, the floor is
all yours, all right, Are you

4
00:02:09,840 --> 00:02:17,800
able to see my screen there?
Yes? Okay, ready, all right?

5
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:30,240
Bis mile Roman raheem alhamdhi, So
i'm abad arakatu. Welcome everyone.

6
00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:36,240
So the debate before us tonight is
the Orthodox Trinity versus ethity Creed. To

7
00:02:36,319 --> 00:02:39,919
be clear, this is a debate
over polytheism and the belief in three gods

8
00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:44,159
on the one hand, and monotheism, or the belief in one God,

9
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:46,639
on the other hand. In the
first half of my opening statement, I

10
00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:51,520
will explain and offer a defensive ethnity
creed. In the second half of my

11
00:02:51,599 --> 00:02:54,840
statement, I will explain what the
Orthodox concept that the Trinity is and offer

12
00:02:54,960 --> 00:03:00,919
arguments against this position. First and
foremost, unlike Orthodox Christians, we Muslims

13
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:09,639
believe in one God, ahed Allah
who summoned le Ahed say he a law

14
00:03:09,759 --> 00:03:15,159
is one Allah, the eternal,
the self sufficient. He neither begets,

15
00:03:15,159 --> 00:03:19,240
nor is he begotten, nor is
there to him any equivalent. Allah is

16
00:03:19,319 --> 00:03:23,439
one God, does not rely on
anything other than himself, and everything in

17
00:03:23,520 --> 00:03:28,159
creation relies upon him. He does
not beget, nor is he begotten or

18
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,800
cause to exist, and there is
nothing equal to him. The great ethity

19
00:03:31,879 --> 00:03:38,000
scholar Ibn Koseima summarizes ethity creed,
saying, and I quote our doctrine or

20
00:03:38,039 --> 00:03:40,719
Medheb, as well as that of
all of our teachers, is as follows.

21
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:46,039
We ascribe to God everything that he
ascribes to himself. We acknowledge it

22
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:50,599
verbally and hold it to be true
through innerconviction within ourselves, though without thereby

23
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:54,080
comparing God's face to the face of
any creature or created entity. For our

24
00:03:54,240 --> 00:04:00,520
Lord is above being like onto creatures. So we affirm real attributes for Allah

25
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:03,680
based on the apparent meaning of the
texts, and ascribe to him what he

26
00:04:03,719 --> 00:04:08,879
ascribes to himself. We know the
meaning of his attributes, but we do

27
00:04:08,919 --> 00:04:12,960
not know the hakika or the kathia, or the precise reality of the attributes.

28
00:04:13,319 --> 00:04:15,399
Keep in mind that when we say
we affirm the apparent meaning of the

29
00:04:15,439 --> 00:04:20,399
text, this takes into account the
surrounding context of the verses mentioned, as

30
00:04:20,399 --> 00:04:25,759
well as the entire corpus of revelation. We do not deny his attributes,

31
00:04:26,079 --> 00:04:30,800
nor do we liken his attributes to
the creation. We reject divine simplicity or

32
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:34,360
the notion that God does not have
any real distinct attributes. However, his

33
00:04:34,519 --> 00:04:40,199
attributes are inseparable from his essence.
He is not composed or caused to exist

34
00:04:40,279 --> 00:04:44,879
by something outside of himself. We
also affirm that a law is an active,

35
00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:49,720
dynamic creator that is genuinely capable of
acting in succession. He creates different

36
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:55,160
things at different times and speaks to
his creation whatever he wills by his will

37
00:04:55,240 --> 00:04:59,319
and power. We believe his actions
can have a beginning in time, and

38
00:04:59,439 --> 00:05:04,240
yet are o created. The legendary
scholar of hadith Imame Albuchharti states, and

39
00:05:04,279 --> 00:05:11,399
I quote fulfit little Lahi syphithal Lahi
well merolu rero hum Menelchalki. So a

40
00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:15,639
Llaw's action is his attribute, and
that which is acted upon is distinct from

41
00:05:15,720 --> 00:05:20,800
him, being part of his creation. He also says his occurrences exalted be

42
00:05:20,879 --> 00:05:25,680
He are not similar to the occurrences
of creatures. According to the saying of

43
00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:29,680
a Law, most high lesa commit
hiche, there is nothing like him,

44
00:05:29,759 --> 00:05:33,600
and he is the hearing the scene. Lastly, Albukharti states that a law's

45
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:38,720
command, which has a beginning in
time, is uncreated. So as we

46
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:43,600
can see, Albuharti affirms that Allaw's
actions are his attributes, and they are

47
00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:46,839
distinct from creation. His actions also
can have a beginning in time, and

48
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:51,800
yet they are uncreated. Some may
argue that we ethites affirm that a law

49
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:57,000
has a hand and thereby liken him
to creation. They may claim that we

50
00:05:57,040 --> 00:06:01,399
cannot attribute the same name to God
in creation without ascribing the same ontology for

51
00:06:01,439 --> 00:06:06,639
God and Creation. This principle is
falsified if one affirms God and humans can

52
00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:13,120
possess an essence without being similar ontologically. The same bears true for every other

53
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:17,439
predicate given to God. Also looming
behind the charge of Teeshbee is an assumed

54
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:23,959
realism regarding universals. For example,
God and humans both have knowledge. This

55
00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:29,120
universal knowledge must be partially identical in
God and man, the objector assumes.

56
00:06:29,959 --> 00:06:33,399
However, if we reject the realist
notion, this argument assumes we cannot affirm

57
00:06:33,439 --> 00:06:39,839
the conclusion of Teeshbe. There is
no ontological sharing between God and Creation.

58
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:46,319
Because ontological sharing does not exist.
Every object, including its essence and attributes

59
00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:50,959
is particular and not universal. Universals
merely exist as concepts in the mind.

60
00:06:53,120 --> 00:07:00,120
The claim that Ethity traditionalists represent an
overtly anthropomorphic theology has been refuted countless times,

61
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:02,959
and most recently by Farid suli Man
when he states, and I quote

62
00:07:03,319 --> 00:07:08,959
Wesley Williams attempted in a two thousand
and two article to show that Ibin Hanbel's

63
00:07:08,959 --> 00:07:15,000
conception of God was blatantly anthropomorphic,
an untenable claim in my opinion close quote.

64
00:07:15,199 --> 00:07:19,680
Suleiman also cites numerous other academics who
have refuted this falsehood and goes into

65
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:25,920
more detail substantiating his claim. We
should also keep in mind that Jay and

66
00:07:25,959 --> 00:07:30,399
the Eastern Orthodox have no problem with
Teeshbe. In fact, they consider it

67
00:07:30,519 --> 00:07:34,639
necessary given their concept of theosis described
by maximistic Confessor as in I quote,

68
00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:40,920
A sure warrant for looking forward with
hope to deification of human nature is provided

69
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:45,560
by the incarnation of God, which
makes God, hence God, which makes

70
00:07:45,639 --> 00:07:49,879
man God to the same degree as
God himself became Man. Let us become

71
00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:56,240
the image of the whole one God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so

72
00:07:56,279 --> 00:08:01,560
that we may consort with God and
become God's receiving from God our existence as

73
00:08:01,639 --> 00:08:07,000
gods. Close quote. So,
as we can see, Orthodox Christians do

74
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:11,480
not have a problem likening God to
Creation or Creation to God. I now

75
00:08:11,519 --> 00:08:16,000
turn to my opponent's theology of the
trinity. I will argue that Jay believes

76
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:20,759
in three gods based on what is
known in the literature as the logical problem

77
00:08:20,759 --> 00:08:24,040
of the Trinity. To put it
simply, the Father, the Son,

78
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:26,600
and the Holy Spirit are each God, but are distinct from one another.

79
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:31,759
The normal method by which we would
count would mean that there are three gods.

80
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:35,200
Eastern Orthodox scholar Bo Branson states,
and I quote, the doctrine of

81
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:39,360
the trinity is central to mainstream Christianity, but in so far as it posits

82
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:43,159
three persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit who are one God,

83
00:08:43,200 --> 00:08:48,559
it appears as inconsistent as the claim
that one plus one plus one equals one.

84
00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:54,720
So the common so called Muslim meme
of one plus one plus one is

85
00:08:54,840 --> 00:08:58,039
right on target. I expect Jay
to attempt to reply to this argument,

86
00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:01,840
but as we will see later,
his responses will not help him and will

87
00:09:01,840 --> 00:09:07,799
only create further difficulties. My second
argument is that the Father, Son,

88
00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:11,399
and Holy Spirit cannot be one God
because they do not possess the same power

89
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:16,759
and knowledge. Orthodox Christians claim the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are

90
00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:20,799
one God because they possess the same
energies. However, power and knowledge are

91
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:24,840
energies, and they do not possess
the same power and knowledge. For any

92
00:09:24,919 --> 00:09:28,679
power or knowledge that they do not
share. They make an exception to this

93
00:09:28,799 --> 00:09:33,879
so called rule in an unprincipled manner. For example, the Father alone has

94
00:09:33,919 --> 00:09:39,039
the power or ability to produce or
cause another divine person to exist. According

95
00:09:39,039 --> 00:09:43,440
to Jay, the Father alone causes
the Son and Spirit. They cannot have

96
00:09:43,519 --> 00:09:48,519
the same power if one divine person
has a power that the other two lack.

97
00:09:48,919 --> 00:09:52,440
Therefore they cannot be the same God. If they do not have the

98
00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:56,200
same power. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit also do not have

99
00:09:56,240 --> 00:10:00,720
the same knowledge. The Father alone
knows that he has the power to cause

100
00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:03,879
the Sun and Spirit to exist.
The Son alone knows from a first person

101
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:07,720
perspective that he is the Word who
became flesh, was born, and died

102
00:10:07,759 --> 00:10:11,799
on the cross. Therefore, they
cannot have the same knowledge. If they

103
00:10:11,840 --> 00:10:16,120
do not have the same knowledge,
then they must be three gods according to

104
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:24,159
Jay's own standards. My third argument
is called the epistemological schizophrenia of Orthodoxy.

105
00:10:24,639 --> 00:10:30,720
Jay and the so called Orthobros make
a transcendental argument claiming that orthodox theology is

106
00:10:30,759 --> 00:10:37,159
a necessary precondition for knowledge logic,
argumentation, etc. What exactly is the

107
00:10:37,279 --> 00:10:43,320
argument or justification for this claim.
Now here's where the epistemological schizophrenia of Orthodoxy

108
00:10:43,559 --> 00:10:48,240
comes into focus. Jay's good friend
Anoniosaurum states, and I quote, obtaining

109
00:10:48,279 --> 00:10:56,600
the necessary conditions for the possibility of
knowledge cannot be logically or epistemically contingent upon

110
00:10:56,679 --> 00:11:01,879
logic or epistemological arguments, since this
would result than question begging an amount to

111
00:11:01,919 --> 00:11:07,120
epistemic bootstrapping. Neither would the veracity
of the claim that such and such conditions

112
00:11:07,159 --> 00:11:13,120
are necessary for the possibility of knowledge. The necessary conditions that would provide justification

113
00:11:13,279 --> 00:11:20,120
for our knowledge must be both metaphysically
and epistemically prior to epistemology and arguments close

114
00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:26,000
quote. It seems the response that
is that there is no argument or justification

115
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:31,840
for the claim that orthodox theology is
a necessary precondition. However, in the

116
00:11:31,879 --> 00:11:37,039
same article, Anoniosaurum contradicts himself,
stating, and I quote, therefore,

117
00:11:37,279 --> 00:11:41,799
the only condition that will satisfy the
possibility of knowledge and bridged a gulf between

118
00:11:41,879 --> 00:11:48,600
man and truth is the unique idea
of God coherently articulated in the theology of

119
00:11:48,639 --> 00:11:52,440
the Eastern Orthodox Church, who has
preserved the correct doctrine of God received in

120
00:11:52,519 --> 00:11:58,240
divine revelation from the Holy Trinity.
For only in the Orthodox doctrine of God

121
00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:03,240
will we see that God the necessary
condition is rational, omniscient, transcendent,

122
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:09,399
non contingent, or necessary, intentional
in his creation, as opposed to creation

123
00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:16,120
being accidental. A personal and communal
being having paracereesis within his trinity close quote.

124
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:20,080
And he continues on listing all of
the reasons why the Eastern Orthodox Church

125
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:26,080
alone can serve as the necessary precondition. He contradicts himself again just a few

126
00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:31,440
sentences later, saying, and I
quote. In presupposing God as the necessary

127
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:35,600
condition for the possibility of knowledge,
man surrenders his autonomy to the revelation of

128
00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:41,279
God, not as a conclusion that
has met the standards of his epistemological criterion

129
00:12:41,519 --> 00:12:46,480
itself close quote. So which one
is it? Does Jay and have an

130
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:52,159
argument and justification for the claim that
Orthodox theology is the necessary precondition for knowledge

131
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:58,080
and argumentation And if so, then
what exactly is the argument? If not,

132
00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:01,200
then the claim is equivalent to stay
eating that a banana is the necessary

133
00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:05,639
precondition for knowledge and argumentation. And
when you ask me to justify that,

134
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:11,039
I can simply say that you are
missing the whole point, as this argument

135
00:13:11,159 --> 00:13:16,320
is beyond justification. Let's see which
direction Jay goes and if he can remove

136
00:13:16,399 --> 00:13:22,279
himself from this state of epistemic schizophrenia. My final argument is what I call

137
00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:26,840
the problem of orthodoxy in Orthodoxy.
By this, I mean that early church

138
00:13:26,879 --> 00:13:31,679
Fathers and saints and Jay's tradition rejected
the doctrine of the Trinity. Jay denies

139
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:35,639
this and claims that not only were
the early church Father's trinitarians, but so

140
00:13:35,759 --> 00:13:39,480
were ancient Jews. He cites authors
like Alan Siegel, Daniel Boyoran, and

141
00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:43,399
others to support his claim. However, he does so either out of complete

142
00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:48,240
ignorance or does so dishonestly. These
scholars simply point out that there were intra

143
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:54,559
Jewish theological disputes regarding how one should
interpret certain texts. Some Jews interpreted passages

144
00:13:54,559 --> 00:14:00,360
in the Old Testament and support of
a theology similar to logos theology, where

145
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:05,120
the logos is a divine or semi
divine figure that serves as an intermediary between

146
00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:09,600
the Most High God and creation.
Boy or In quotes Daniel Abrams saying,

147
00:14:09,639 --> 00:14:13,720
and I quote, no one view
dominated the spectrum of Jewish interpretations, since

148
00:14:13,759 --> 00:14:18,440
the Biblical text is the only common
frame for the wide variety of speculations close

149
00:14:18,519 --> 00:14:22,840
quote. So logos theology was not
the only view, or even the dominant

150
00:14:22,879 --> 00:14:28,360
view in early Judaism. Also,
these same sources Jay loves to quote represent

151
00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:33,799
Justin Martyr as a proponent of logos
theology and not trinitarianism. Boy Orin against

152
00:14:33,799 --> 00:14:39,519
states, and I quote many of
these passages served as the origin and proof

153
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:46,919
text for logos theology, as manifested
in Justin Martyr's Dialogue on nearly every page.

154
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:52,320
Close quote. Alan Siegel states,
and I quote both Christianity and Gnosticism

155
00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:58,559
arose out of Hellenistic and apocalyptic Judaism
by sharing heretical traditions of scripture interpretation,

156
00:14:58,759 --> 00:15:05,080
which speculated on a principal angelic mediator
of God. Close quote. This is

157
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:11,399
exactly what I've always claimed, Leslie. Boy Orin acknowledges the stark difference between

158
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:18,080
logos theology and trinitarianism. Saying,
and I quote. Nicene Orthodoxy also effectively

159
00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:22,759
crucifies the logos, while not ceasing
to be to speak of the logos.

160
00:15:22,960 --> 00:15:28,000
In the move to a Trinitarian theology, within which the entire Trinity is both

161
00:15:28,039 --> 00:15:33,360
self contained and fully transcendent, Athanasius
and his fellows insist that God alone,

162
00:15:33,639 --> 00:15:37,879
without a mediator, without an angel, without a logos, is the creator.

163
00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:45,960
Logos theology is ultimately as thoroughly rejected
within Nicene Christianity as within Orthodox Ribbinism.

164
00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:52,039
Quotes quote so logos theology. So
some Jews were Logosterists and others were

165
00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:56,360
not. However none of them were
Trinitarians. Also, some early Christians were

166
00:15:56,360 --> 00:16:02,320
Logosterists and some were not. Justin
Martyr and other church fathers were logos theorists,

167
00:16:02,559 --> 00:16:07,720
but logos theory is deemed heretical by
Orthodox Trinitarians. Jay and his Orthodox

168
00:16:07,799 --> 00:16:12,600
friends pray to dead saints who held
heretical positions and did not believe Jesus was

169
00:16:12,639 --> 00:16:18,039
the most high God. It seems
like Orthodoxy has a problem with Orthodoxy.

170
00:16:18,559 --> 00:16:22,759
In conclusion, Ethitic creed is the
belief in one God who is the creator

171
00:16:22,799 --> 00:16:26,039
of all. As for Jay and
the Orthodox Christians, who suffer from epistemic

172
00:16:26,120 --> 00:16:32,080
schizophrenia. I argue that they believe
in three gods, the fathers, the

173
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:36,240
Father, Son and Spirit do not
have the same power or knowledge, rendering

174
00:16:36,320 --> 00:16:41,080
them three gods. And lastly,
they have a problem with Orthodoxy, as

175
00:16:41,120 --> 00:16:47,080
their early church fathers held to a
heretical theology by their own standards. Be

176
00:16:47,399 --> 00:16:57,360
nakailht wellmulwelutosifun. Thank you very much, and I look forward to Jay's presentation.

177
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,279
Thank you very much for that opening. And folks, if it's your

178
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:06,960
first time here at Modern Day Debate, want to let you know we're thrilled

179
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:10,359
to have you here. We hope
you feel welcome, and don't forget to

180
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:14,240
hit that subscribe button as we have
many debates coming up. You don't want

181
00:17:14,279 --> 00:17:17,440
to miss them, so hit subscribe
right now. We're gonna kick it over

182
00:17:17,440 --> 00:17:19,599
to j for his opening as well. Thanks for being with us. Jay,

183
00:17:19,599 --> 00:17:23,920
the floors all yours for your opening
statement. All right, can we

184
00:17:23,960 --> 00:17:29,359
see the screen? Yes, all
right, let's get into it. So

185
00:17:30,319 --> 00:17:33,720
I I'm glad for Jake. They're
basically doing everything I wanted him to do

186
00:17:34,319 --> 00:17:37,640
in his opening statement. So he's
handing me a lot of gems, and

187
00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:41,599
it's going to jie perfectly with what
I put in my opening statement as to

188
00:17:41,799 --> 00:17:47,519
exactly where I knew he would go. So let's talk about Salafi Islamic absurdity.

189
00:17:47,559 --> 00:17:51,960
And that's of course the position that
Jake represents here. And uh,

190
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:59,039
we're going to look first at how
one of his representative theologians that he said

191
00:17:59,079 --> 00:18:03,880
represents the powers of Islam. Even
to me, particularly in his book on

192
00:18:03,920 --> 00:18:07,519
the Oneness of God, we're going
to know that it's a massive Christian fail

193
00:18:07,559 --> 00:18:11,200
and we're going to see the similar
fails that even to mea makes an understanding

194
00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:15,359
Christian theology basics the Jake himself made
when it came to the triad, by

195
00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:19,839
example, for example, by reducing
the idea of begetting to being an energy.

196
00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:23,440
Begetting is not an energy. So
for Jake's argument to hold that he

197
00:18:23,480 --> 00:18:26,720
made earlier about the Triad, begetting
would have to be a common energy.

198
00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:30,000
And it's not, first of all, even to me a pousitis at the

199
00:18:30,039 --> 00:18:37,359
outset of his book an eternal world
existing eternally separate from God based on an

200
00:18:37,440 --> 00:18:41,640
infinite regress of worlds now, Jake
has made many critiques of this view and

201
00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:45,279
others. So it'd be interesting to
see if he rejects a basic idea in

202
00:18:45,319 --> 00:18:51,480
one of his basic palamas like theologians
of the Islami tradition. Second is,

203
00:18:51,759 --> 00:18:56,039
even to mea pauses the Trinity as
contradicting natural reason. This is a problem

204
00:18:56,079 --> 00:18:59,279
they're going to notice later on in
even to me as well as Jake,

205
00:18:59,400 --> 00:19:02,880
given the that he doesn't understand the
transcental argument, as he made clear in

206
00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:04,319
his opening statement, that's going to
be very relevant for where we go here

207
00:19:04,319 --> 00:19:08,400
in a minute. Arguing that the
Trinity makes energies and attributes persons is a

208
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:12,119
move that Ibantimia makes, which is
false. He attributes to us the Nestorian

209
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:17,079
view of christ Us to Hypostaces,
which is false. And he attributes to

210
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:19,680
us an Arian motalist view of the
Trinity collapsing person and nature and God on

211
00:19:19,759 --> 00:19:25,559
pages twenty two to twenty four.
Now, he may not believe those things,

212
00:19:25,720 --> 00:19:27,960
and you may not believe those things, but that's not our position as

213
00:19:29,079 --> 00:19:30,960
Orthodox. So if we're going to
be arguing against the Orthodox position, you

214
00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:36,519
can't set up a strong man and
say that you're knocking down the Orthodox position

215
00:19:36,559 --> 00:19:41,480
when it's the Aryan or historian position
no s if Antonia, Clint and Islam

216
00:19:41,519 --> 00:19:45,960
in general fail to understand, typically
speaking, the Orthodox trinitarian dogma, and

217
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:51,880
they create a strong man as a
formula as formulating in our councils, which

218
00:19:51,920 --> 00:19:56,000
reject arianism and Nestorianism. This would
be like me basically calling Jacob sufi,

219
00:19:56,079 --> 00:20:00,720
and then we're proceeding to refute that
position Jakes failed to ca out of unity

220
00:20:00,759 --> 00:20:03,559
and multiplicity in Allah. This has
come up in a few debates now with

221
00:20:03,759 --> 00:20:07,079
Jake. But what is being debated
here between us is not actually a pure

222
00:20:07,160 --> 00:20:12,440
unitarian position of Jake versus the freeness
position that I have, but rather two

223
00:20:12,519 --> 00:20:18,599
different ways of accounting for unity and
distinction in God. Jake would like to

224
00:20:18,599 --> 00:20:26,119
give the impression that his position is
free from all issues that relate to multiplicity,

225
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:29,039
but in passion debates we will see
that this fails. Jake believes that

226
00:20:29,599 --> 00:20:33,279
the attributes of God are according to
even to me, as two principles really

227
00:20:33,279 --> 00:20:37,359
distinct amongst themselves from God's essence.
What applies to one attribute also applies to

228
00:20:37,400 --> 00:20:41,440
all the others, and equally to
God's essence. This includes affirmation and negation

229
00:20:41,839 --> 00:20:45,000
true whether we know the meaning or
not accept the plain meaning. As Jake

230
00:20:45,079 --> 00:20:49,319
said in his opening statement, attributes
are comparable to creatures in terms of perfections,

231
00:20:51,079 --> 00:20:55,599
which creatures partially have, while God
maximally has this perfection in a way

232
00:20:55,640 --> 00:21:00,920
befitting him. Thus likeness in these
cases is quote in name only. According

233
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:04,519
to Eman, to me Ergo,
it tells us nothing, especially with Jake's

234
00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:08,480
nominalist Imperis's position, which he admitted. We will look at this in a

235
00:21:08,480 --> 00:21:11,680
second, so keep that in mind. True for thee, not for me

236
00:21:11,799 --> 00:21:15,799
the Jake brand. Jake believes that
the attributes are really distinct and inseparable.

237
00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:19,119
Did you hear him say that in
his opening statement? That means counting by

238
00:21:19,279 --> 00:21:27,200
division, But he also distinctly identifies
the attributes is really distinct from each other

239
00:21:27,240 --> 00:21:32,960
and from the essence that's counting by
identity, which in the same boat places

240
00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:37,319
him in the same boat as trinitarians
when accounting for the distinction of hypostaces counted

241
00:21:37,359 --> 00:21:41,319
by identity and the divine essence counted
by division. No, I did not

242
00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:47,319
say that Jake thinks that allahs attributes
are persons, or that we think attributes

243
00:21:47,400 --> 00:21:52,039
our persons. That is Jake's strong
man that he often uses in many discussions

244
00:21:52,039 --> 00:21:56,519
and live streams when he attempts to
rebut this argument. But rather Jake makes

245
00:21:56,559 --> 00:22:00,720
the same move when accounting for unity
and distinction in God that we yet he

246
00:22:00,799 --> 00:22:03,880
calls us out on it. This
is in fact Jake's guilty double standard.

247
00:22:06,119 --> 00:22:10,119
Furthermore, Jake and even to me
are allowed to engage in affirmation claims about

248
00:22:10,119 --> 00:22:14,079
Allah, which we call catafatic theology
that he would call idolatry in Christianity.

249
00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:18,599
Jake often states the trinity incarnation's pagan
we look at examples in a moment.

250
00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:21,880
But this illustrates another double center,
where all of his body parts are considered

251
00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:26,359
real but not created, foot,
hand, eyes, et cetera. What

252
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:30,960
is an uncreated foot that is nothing
like a human foot? What, by

253
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:34,559
the way, is a more perfect
foot? Does the godfoot have toenails?

254
00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:40,400
Isn't a foot with toenails more perfect
than a toenail deficient foot? In other

255
00:22:40,400 --> 00:22:44,119
words, it tells us absolutely nothing, and it reduces to absurdity. Also,

256
00:22:44,200 --> 00:22:47,880
even to me, it argues that
God laughing is somehow more perfect than

257
00:22:47,960 --> 00:22:51,519
him not laughing. I'm interested to
see how Jake accounts for this. It

258
00:22:51,519 --> 00:22:56,240
would then follow the eternally laughing is
better than laughing once. So God is

259
00:22:56,319 --> 00:22:59,839
eternally lolling, In other words,
a clown God. Remember what applies to

260
00:23:00,000 --> 00:23:03,359
an attribute to me, as rules
applies to all the others. If there's

261
00:23:03,359 --> 00:23:07,400
an infinite series of created worlds and
causes, then why would we ever need

262
00:23:07,440 --> 00:23:12,400
a single being? Also a position
of even to meum contingent means dependent upon

263
00:23:12,519 --> 00:23:17,599
something else. But it's begging the
question to say that it's a single necessary

264
00:23:17,640 --> 00:23:19,680
being. So even to me,
I might catch this out or jake in

265
00:23:19,680 --> 00:23:23,880
two different ways. If it's a
causal relation, then he's engaged in the

266
00:23:23,920 --> 00:23:27,519
quantifier shift fallacy that every event has
a cause, and so that every event

267
00:23:27,599 --> 00:23:32,880
has one cause. If every event
is contingent such that there's a transference to

268
00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:36,200
the whole, that's the part's whole
fallacy, because if everything is contingent,

269
00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:38,680
therefore the whole is contingent is a
non sequitor. For example, my room

270
00:23:38,720 --> 00:23:42,119
is made up of atoms. Atoms
are invisible, therefore my room is invisible.

271
00:23:42,119 --> 00:23:45,319
This is a non sequitor. And
this relates to the two types of

272
00:23:45,400 --> 00:23:52,680
argumentation that even to me thinks is
rational argumentation for the existence of God created

273
00:23:52,720 --> 00:23:56,720
acts in God's essence. Jake is
quick to claim idolatry in our position,

274
00:23:56,759 --> 00:24:00,599
but holds actual idolatrists used by positing
actions in the essence of God unless he

275
00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:06,720
again departs from the guy that he
says is his palamox. So in Suleiman

276
00:24:06,759 --> 00:24:07,759
two forty one, they have been
to me in the attributes of God.

277
00:24:08,319 --> 00:24:11,799
We have this pointed out that,
in other words, temporal acts are contrasted

278
00:24:11,839 --> 00:24:15,519
with eternal acts. Jake makes this
argument himself and Jake make a character that

279
00:24:15,559 --> 00:24:21,039
creator acts are now eternal. That
is a contradiction and also creates an attribute

280
00:24:21,039 --> 00:24:25,640
that contradicts even to me as principal
number one of what is applied to one

281
00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:29,319
attribute that applies to all, meaning
that all the attributes are now created and

282
00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:33,759
temporal or timborrel acts are eternal.
It also violates it in principle having his

283
00:24:33,759 --> 00:24:40,559
principle number two, which applies to
the attributes in God's which applies which applies

284
00:24:40,680 --> 00:24:44,920
to the attributes applicable to God's essence, meaning that God's essence is now temporal.

285
00:24:45,319 --> 00:24:48,799
Idolatry will remind you of ascribing to
creatures of divine nature or worshiping creatures

286
00:24:48,839 --> 00:24:55,079
as God. This may also be
why Jake thinks God's knowledge has had through

287
00:24:55,079 --> 00:25:00,720
discursive propositions, and that's precisely why
he thinks the indexical's argument in debate from

288
00:25:00,799 --> 00:25:07,079
modern philosophy applies to his ideas of
God. I can simply reply that God's

289
00:25:07,519 --> 00:25:11,279
mode of knowledge is not equivalent to
creaturly modes of knowledge. And since Jake

290
00:25:11,920 --> 00:25:15,640
at will invoke the idea of we
don't know the modality, well, we

291
00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:21,079
don't know the modality of God's knowledge. But I also might just simply deny

292
00:25:21,119 --> 00:25:26,960
that God's knowledge is discursive or indexical. More problems for Jake, perfectly laughing.

293
00:25:27,119 --> 00:25:32,480
The attributes of all law considered in
themselves possess a sayety. This has

294
00:25:32,519 --> 00:25:36,039
been asked to Jake in the past, and of course Jake has not had

295
00:25:36,079 --> 00:25:38,839
an answer to it. Is one
answer, one attribute considered in itself less

296
00:25:38,839 --> 00:25:45,160
perfect than all of them compiled together, or all of them plus the essence.

297
00:25:45,839 --> 00:25:49,079
Remember, a lot of this theology
going to be built on perfect and

298
00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:52,559
less perfect metaphysical assumptions, and we're
going to see in a moment that he

299
00:25:52,599 --> 00:25:57,960
doesn't even have the ability to get
to predicating metaphysical claims at all. Why

300
00:25:59,079 --> 00:26:02,880
is laughing and turning his face quote
more perfect than not? And this is

301
00:26:02,920 --> 00:26:07,000
it's actually argued by ibn to Mea
in the book the Suliman Book. We

302
00:26:07,119 --> 00:26:11,559
might ask what is a more perfect
laugh? Was it a perfect laugh?

303
00:26:11,799 --> 00:26:15,799
Was it merely a snicker? Why
must we arbitrarily stop and inquiring about this

304
00:26:15,039 --> 00:26:18,359
meaning? If it's a they will
typically say, well, it's a laugh

305
00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:22,480
that befits the majesty of all law. This again tells us absolutely nothing,

306
00:26:22,920 --> 00:26:27,079
and in fact it's circular because it's
not telling us anything. It's just another

307
00:26:27,240 --> 00:26:32,599
supposed attribute that tells us that a
law is more perfect. So that's a

308
00:26:32,640 --> 00:26:37,640
circular claim, which even I to
me rejects circularity. If being is part

309
00:26:37,720 --> 00:26:41,200
of what it is seen, what
it is to be perfect, then God

310
00:26:41,279 --> 00:26:47,200
must be seen to be perfect.
Yet Tama says that God cannot be seen.

311
00:26:47,559 --> 00:26:51,039
Even Suleiman notes in the book on
even to Mea, page two fifty

312
00:26:51,039 --> 00:26:53,400
two, this is a flat out
contradiction. And again we're going to see

313
00:26:53,400 --> 00:26:59,599
tons and tons of contradictions when it
comes to basic ideas about predicating about God.

314
00:27:00,079 --> 00:27:04,680
What is the priori idea, by
the way, a metaphysical perfection?

315
00:27:04,720 --> 00:27:07,039
Here? Where does Jake derive it. How do we know this? Well?

316
00:27:07,079 --> 00:27:10,880
It turns out it gets even worse
because Jake, even to me,

317
00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:15,839
is epistemology, as he noted,
is an empiricist nominalist epistemology. Jake's position

318
00:27:15,839 --> 00:27:18,960
cannot get off the ground terms of
predication at all, and if this argument

319
00:27:18,039 --> 00:27:21,759
holds, all of his argumentation about
how he will then fail. This is

320
00:27:21,759 --> 00:27:25,920
because Jake has put his metaphysical cart
before his epistemic course and is engaging in

321
00:27:25,960 --> 00:27:30,480
a host of unjustified, arbitrary,
and contradictory claims. Empiricism is the view

322
00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:33,680
that knowledge arises from sense data or
relations of ideas. Nominalism is the view

323
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:37,240
that universals have no real existence,
and for even to me and for Jake,

324
00:27:37,279 --> 00:27:42,359
they're purely mental and solely particular.
I Committed nominalists, however, must

325
00:27:42,400 --> 00:27:48,400
grapple with the following problems. There
is no empirical perception of quote necessity being

326
00:27:48,559 --> 00:27:52,119
caused, or any other metaphysical claim. This then undercuts all histeology and theology

327
00:27:52,119 --> 00:27:56,359
claims. There's no empirical perception of
the parapeticut axiom, the idea that what's

328
00:27:56,400 --> 00:28:00,279
in the mind derives from sense data. This is a position, and they've

329
00:28:00,279 --> 00:28:03,880
been to me a hold. There's
no empirical perception of quote reason or quote

330
00:28:03,880 --> 00:28:07,400
self evident truth. We note that
even to me affirms self evident truth as

331
00:28:07,440 --> 00:28:11,160
most as soon you do as well, and I assume Jake knows as well.

332
00:28:11,319 --> 00:28:15,480
There's no empirical perception of the universal
that is abstracted by the intellect through

333
00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:19,599
the phantasm. Some of the crib
from Aristotle also present in it. To

334
00:28:19,640 --> 00:28:25,519
me, the universal is thus not
a universal if it's only merely particulars.

335
00:28:25,519 --> 00:28:27,000
I forgot to put the footnote there, but I can add it. There's

336
00:28:27,039 --> 00:28:33,559
no empirical perception of quote perfection any
All the arguments that Hinge alice perfection on

337
00:28:33,279 --> 00:28:40,319
maximally creature like perfections also then fail. There's no empirical perception of identity over

338
00:28:40,359 --> 00:28:44,279
time. If you're an empiricist,
these arguments are arguing, and by extension,

339
00:28:44,279 --> 00:28:47,400
no perception then of meaning over time. In other words, I can

340
00:28:47,440 --> 00:28:51,839
just take human's critiques of identity over
time and apply them to Jake's position,

341
00:28:51,920 --> 00:28:56,720
which is a not consistent empiricism.
It turns out, actually David Hume's empiricism

342
00:28:56,799 --> 00:29:00,960
is way more consistent, and that's
why we can use these arguments. In

343
00:29:00,960 --> 00:29:06,079
fact, Jake might think this isn't
fair since this is a debate about talet

344
00:29:06,160 --> 00:29:08,119
and trinity. But again he brought
up a transcend augumentation, so I don't

345
00:29:08,119 --> 00:29:12,759
feel unfair now. But if all
this about predicating by the attributes is based

346
00:29:12,799 --> 00:29:17,839
on a faulty epistemology of not eve
empiricism and a faulty metaphysic of nominalism,

347
00:29:17,920 --> 00:29:22,160
then every sentagent Jake makes fails to
be justifiable or even coherent, as all

348
00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:29,160
predication itself is now impossible, much
less divine predication. Indeed, the Oxford

349
00:29:29,200 --> 00:29:33,519
hand Book of Islam even notes that
even to me is a Hume and a

350
00:29:33,559 --> 00:29:37,839
Locke before human luck. Thus,
as such he will be subjected to the

351
00:29:37,880 --> 00:29:41,240
exact same critiques that we make of
human lack. Even to me, a

352
00:29:41,279 --> 00:29:45,599
principles of reason are self evident.
On page one ninety six we're told it's

353
00:29:45,640 --> 00:29:48,079
even to me his view, and
I assume Jake's as well. It's a

354
00:29:48,119 --> 00:29:52,359
form of classical foundationalism, where the
first principles in terms of reasoning are self

355
00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:56,640
evident, of course evid to me, they require no justification. If this

356
00:29:56,720 --> 00:29:59,920
is the basis of his reasoning in
general and by extension of the theological reason

357
00:30:00,759 --> 00:30:04,279
of Quranic explanations. Then we see
no basis for this assertion. If Jake

358
00:30:04,279 --> 00:30:07,680
can be arbitrary, so can I. Jake. I can just claim that

359
00:30:07,759 --> 00:30:12,160
the transcendental argument requires no justification.
It just is the case. Now,

360
00:30:12,200 --> 00:30:17,599
I don't actually think that, and
I'm going to address your misunderstanding of the

361
00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:22,000
category error that you made between logical
and metalllogical argumentation, but that'll come later.

362
00:30:22,799 --> 00:30:27,240
What is the non self referential,
non circular basis for you, as

363
00:30:27,279 --> 00:30:30,759
a kind of foundationalist for thinking that
the principles of reasoning are self evident?

364
00:30:32,119 --> 00:30:36,240
What determines self evidence? If it's
based on something else else, then it's

365
00:30:36,240 --> 00:30:38,279
no longer self evident. If it's
not based on something else, then there's

366
00:30:38,359 --> 00:30:42,519
the problem of arbitrariness. Furthermore,
there's the criteria problem. What is the

367
00:30:42,519 --> 00:30:49,480
more fundamental principle by which you classify
self evidence from non self evident truth example,

368
00:30:51,200 --> 00:30:53,519
For example, it admits so many
passages that are disputed in the Koran

369
00:30:55,720 --> 00:30:59,319
in terms of their meaning. Yet
we're told that the plain simple meaning is

370
00:30:59,359 --> 00:31:03,319
accessible to all and becomes extremely complex. However, when we see even Temia

371
00:31:03,400 --> 00:31:08,720
layout four rules for knowing when it's
figured versus the plain meaning. Now,

372
00:31:08,839 --> 00:31:14,079
this you can see, was a
huge source of dispute between him and doctor

373
00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:18,799
Khalil in their debate where they were
trying to figure out between various chronic texts

374
00:31:18,799 --> 00:31:21,119
the pen, the tablet, this
that, the hand, the foot,

375
00:31:21,480 --> 00:31:25,799
what's literal, what's figurative? And
well, Jake says, look, we're

376
00:31:25,799 --> 00:31:29,400
going to go to the rules laid
out by my scholars. How do we

377
00:31:29,440 --> 00:31:32,359
know that those rules are the correct
rules? In other words, it's just

378
00:31:32,599 --> 00:31:36,200
moving the problem back a step.
Given that Jake rejects the incarnation as a

379
00:31:36,240 --> 00:31:38,519
pagan contradiction, we can return to
the body parts, which are clin clearly

380
00:31:38,559 --> 00:31:45,920
anthropomorphic attributes are claimed to have a
practical teaching of value that would be useful

381
00:31:45,920 --> 00:31:49,720
for seventh century Arabs and Jews,
or even Christians hearing the text. Yet

382
00:31:49,759 --> 00:31:55,480
the plain meaning is championed by Imantemia
and the Salafi. It's based on analogy

383
00:31:55,559 --> 00:32:00,359
or likeness. It's immediately divested of
all the meaning, making the statement empty

384
00:32:00,400 --> 00:32:04,319
and contradictor handfoot, face, laughter, above the throne, descent to lowis

385
00:32:04,319 --> 00:32:07,960
heavens are all quote affirmed and then
stated to be unknown in modality. In

386
00:32:08,000 --> 00:32:13,160
other words, the godfoot is a
foot that befits a llah, but it's

387
00:32:13,200 --> 00:32:16,839
nothing like a human foot. Even
Suleiman notes of even to me that he

388
00:32:16,960 --> 00:32:21,799
plainly contradicts himself here on body parts
on page three thirty one, as well

389
00:32:21,839 --> 00:32:24,519
as on the notion of creaturely and
divine perfections on page two fifty two.

390
00:32:24,839 --> 00:32:29,720
It is a hand that's unlike empirically
known hands, is basically what we're saying

391
00:32:29,759 --> 00:32:34,559
here. Yet we're expecting every person
in this century to just simply know that.

392
00:32:34,599 --> 00:32:37,559
Well, clearly it's not talking about
a creaturely hand, even though we

393
00:32:37,559 --> 00:32:43,119
are inmpiricists. So lastly, I
would note that the trinity is a doctrine

394
00:32:43,119 --> 00:32:45,440
that is not far fetched. Basil
and Letter two thirty four says the energies

395
00:32:45,440 --> 00:32:50,000
come down to us, and then
monarchicalternatarianism, which I think we'll get into.

396
00:32:50,119 --> 00:32:58,079
My time is running out, is
a combination of counting unity by division

397
00:32:58,079 --> 00:33:02,200
and identity. With that, I
want to say first thank you to both

398
00:33:02,240 --> 00:33:06,279
of our guests for those opening statements. Folks, you can find our guests

399
00:33:06,359 --> 00:33:09,039
link below. I have encourage even
if you don't agree with them. This

400
00:33:09,119 --> 00:33:15,400
is a great opportunity you can learn
their positions firsthand by checking out their links

401
00:33:15,440 --> 00:33:17,480
in the description box. Also,
I want to let you know for tonight

402
00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:21,440
we have a limited Q and A
as this debate is gonna be a pretty

403
00:33:21,480 --> 00:33:23,400
long one, so I want to
let you know for the Q and A,

404
00:33:23,480 --> 00:33:29,079
we won't get to every single question. We do want to ask one

405
00:33:29,359 --> 00:33:31,160
if you do a super chat,
we're going to read superchests that are five

406
00:33:31,200 --> 00:33:37,240
dollars or more. And if you
submit a question where it's not a superchat,

407
00:33:37,440 --> 00:33:38,680
just to standard question, we're gonna
try to get to those. But

408
00:33:38,759 --> 00:33:43,160
no promises because we do want to
let these guys out by a decent time

409
00:33:43,200 --> 00:33:45,920
tonight. But with that we're gonna
jump right into the rebuttals. Thank you

410
00:33:45,000 --> 00:33:50,599
very much for those openings, gentlemen, and Jake, the floor is all

411
00:33:50,640 --> 00:33:55,319
yours for your first ten minute rebuttal
okay, thank you very much. I

412
00:33:55,440 --> 00:34:00,240
just want to say at the outset, you know, Jay's opening statement was

413
00:34:00,359 --> 00:34:06,079
very interesting. He spent the entire
fifteen minutes attempting to attack my position,

414
00:34:06,279 --> 00:34:07,920
which I'm going to show in just
a second that he did a very poor

415
00:34:08,000 --> 00:34:13,440
job because he's so ignorant of our
position. He doesn't understand what we actually

416
00:34:13,480 --> 00:34:17,960
believe. Nevertheless, he barely went
through any detail during the fifteen minutes of

417
00:34:19,079 --> 00:34:23,760
explaining what orthodox theology is and what
that actually teaches. So the audience in

418
00:34:23,840 --> 00:34:28,239
myself, if I don't didn't have
these, you know, about fifty books

419
00:34:28,280 --> 00:34:31,639
of Orthodox theology, I wouldn't know
what the hell Jay's position actually is because

420
00:34:31,679 --> 00:34:37,199
he didn't go into any significant detail
to talk about his own position, whereas

421
00:34:37,280 --> 00:34:40,159
I did. I try to manage
my time to speak about half the time

422
00:34:40,239 --> 00:34:45,559
about my own position and half the
time about my opponents and critiquing his position.

423
00:34:46,320 --> 00:34:50,679
So I wish Jay would have spent
more time on his own position,

424
00:34:50,760 --> 00:34:54,360
but of course, as we'll see, it's very difficult to do so because

425
00:34:54,360 --> 00:34:59,239
he can't defend his own position.
And I just want to point out that

426
00:34:59,400 --> 00:35:05,039
Jay made make so many mistakes about
what he thinks Ivantamia's position is, what

427
00:35:05,119 --> 00:35:08,920
he thinks Ethity or Celefie Alqueda or
Creed is, And I'm going to try

428
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:13,039
to point that at out as we
go along and when we get to cross

429
00:35:13,079 --> 00:35:16,280
examination section one by one, and
I just want to explain this to the

430
00:35:16,360 --> 00:35:22,800
audience. It should really be of
no surprise because Jay himself and people were

431
00:35:22,800 --> 00:35:27,320
wondering why did he delay this debate? Well, he delayed the debate because

432
00:35:27,320 --> 00:35:30,760
he told me that he was incapable
of having the debate unless he was able

433
00:35:30,800 --> 00:35:36,360
to read one text that was an
unreleased text in English. Okay, So

434
00:35:36,440 --> 00:35:39,840
this is a guy who just started
reading about Infantamia and Ethity Creed two weeks

435
00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:44,119
ago, and he thinks he's now
an expert. Isn't going to tell the

436
00:35:44,199 --> 00:35:47,599
audience all about it. It's honestly
a complete joke. Okay. So now

437
00:35:47,639 --> 00:35:52,119
let's get to some of what Jay
actually had to say here. He says

438
00:35:52,360 --> 00:35:58,440
that Ivantamia doesn't understand Orthodox trinitarianism.
Well, nobody would at this point because

439
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:04,280
you didn't really explain it. But
nevertheless, what Mea says about Orthodox trinitarianism

440
00:36:04,599 --> 00:36:08,760
is irrelevant to this debate. I
didn't cite Itbenttainedia as an argument against Orthodox

441
00:36:08,800 --> 00:36:14,119
trinitarianism. I gave arguments in which
I've made numerous times, and you haven't

442
00:36:14,199 --> 00:36:16,840
responded to any of them, in
which you should have been able to preempt

443
00:36:16,840 --> 00:36:21,320
in your opening statement, because I've
been repeating them for five plus years.

444
00:36:21,639 --> 00:36:24,480
So that's the first thing. The
second thing is Jay makes a big to

445
00:36:24,519 --> 00:36:29,440
do about nominalism. Now I actually
appreciate that, Jay, and that's why

446
00:36:29,480 --> 00:36:35,159
I spent a significant portion of my
time speaking about our position of nominalism,

447
00:36:35,320 --> 00:36:39,960
because I think it's a clear difference
between the two views. If nominalism is

448
00:36:40,000 --> 00:36:45,920
true, then orthodox trinitarianism is necessarily
false. And I think even Jay Dyer

449
00:36:46,119 --> 00:36:52,280
would have to agree with this.
Why because they conceive of the universal that

450
00:36:52,400 --> 00:36:55,960
the three persons share, or the
essence as a universal that the three persons

451
00:36:55,960 --> 00:37:00,239
share. Well, if there are
no such things as emine universals, then

452
00:37:00,320 --> 00:37:06,360
quite literally, the trinity cannot exist. Now, Jay makes it seem so

453
00:37:06,599 --> 00:37:13,159
obvious as if these things such as
universals, these entities, and so if

454
00:37:13,199 --> 00:37:15,440
people don't know what they are,
right, you know, you can see

455
00:37:15,440 --> 00:37:20,199
this piece of paper here, this
white piece of paper. The idea that

456
00:37:20,320 --> 00:37:22,800
Jay Dyer wants us to believe,
that he thinks is so obvious, is

457
00:37:22,840 --> 00:37:27,920
that there is something can you picture, people, there's something in this piece

458
00:37:27,920 --> 00:37:34,280
of paper that is actually identical to
the white stripes and the whiteness in my

459
00:37:34,599 --> 00:37:38,199
color and my skin complexion. That's
what Jay Dyer wants us to believe is

460
00:37:38,239 --> 00:37:44,840
that there's this thing, there's this
thing that's universal whiteness which exists that is

461
00:37:44,920 --> 00:37:49,760
partially at least identical in the paper
and also in Jay's forehead. Well,

462
00:37:49,920 --> 00:37:52,639
if he thinks that that's so obvious, I'd like him to give an argument

463
00:37:52,719 --> 00:37:57,920
for that, because, based upon
Accham's razor, we should not be postulating

464
00:37:58,119 --> 00:38:02,480
entities beyond necessity. Jay Dyer has
given no argument for the existence of these

465
00:38:02,519 --> 00:38:07,840
so called Aristotelian imminent universals, and
this is going to be a big difference

466
00:38:07,880 --> 00:38:13,199
between us going up. So I
at least appreciate Jay having enough sense to

467
00:38:13,559 --> 00:38:17,679
know and understand that. Now he
makes a big to do about nominalist predication.

468
00:38:19,639 --> 00:38:22,280
I don't know if Jay has done
any reading on nominalism. I assume

469
00:38:22,360 --> 00:38:25,360
that he has, with all those
books behind him, But I'd like him

470
00:38:25,400 --> 00:38:31,559
to show me an argument from an
actually scholarly source that says that nominalist predication

471
00:38:31,800 --> 00:38:37,760
is meaningless, that unless there is
this weird thing, which is a universal

472
00:38:37,960 --> 00:38:43,840
that is partially identical in this white
piece of paper and in Jay's beautiful forehead

473
00:38:43,840 --> 00:38:46,920
over there, at least there is
something partially identical in them. It makes

474
00:38:47,039 --> 00:38:52,760
no sense to say that Jay's forehead
is white and this paper is white.

475
00:38:52,440 --> 00:38:57,679
Now does the public and the people
watching think that that's a convincing argument.

476
00:38:58,119 --> 00:39:00,880
No, Jay needs to give an
argus for his position. He has not

477
00:39:01,039 --> 00:39:05,840
given any argument for his position.
So until he can give an argument for

478
00:39:05,880 --> 00:39:10,280
the necessity of these types of universals, we can simply dismiss it. Now

479
00:39:10,920 --> 00:39:15,079
that ties into everything that he was
saying about a luss of Panothala, and

480
00:39:15,119 --> 00:39:21,760
he's mocking about God having so called
body parts pule if he's actually read the

481
00:39:21,800 --> 00:39:28,119
Fared Suliman source that he desperately needed
to delay the debate in order to read

482
00:39:28,239 --> 00:39:32,800
that, he would actually see that. Fared Suleiman explicitly says, as I

483
00:39:32,880 --> 00:39:37,920
quoted in my opening statement, that
the idea that Ivantamia's conception of God is

484
00:39:38,079 --> 00:39:45,119
overtly anthropomorphic is completely untenable, and
he cites numerous sources and gives arguments for

485
00:39:45,199 --> 00:39:49,000
that throughout the book. So Jake
can say he disagrees with that, and

486
00:39:49,039 --> 00:39:52,559
it's fine. But on the one
hand, you can't claim that Jake and

487
00:39:52,639 --> 00:39:57,679
the ethity saying that a loss of
Panotala has a hand is completely meaningless and

488
00:39:57,719 --> 00:40:01,119
on the other hand, say that
it's tesh or it's likening God to creation

489
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:05,960
and having body parts. So you
cannot have it both ways. Jay,

490
00:40:06,320 --> 00:40:10,440
is the nominalist predication completely meaningless and
devoid of any content, or is it

491
00:40:10,519 --> 00:40:15,000
meaningful? And therefore we're likening God
to creation? And if you do think

492
00:40:15,039 --> 00:40:20,920
we're likening God to creation, then
what is your problem with that? Because

493
00:40:21,000 --> 00:40:25,840
you believe in the necessity of likening
God to creation in your concept of theosis,

494
00:40:25,840 --> 00:40:30,960
which I quoted from Saint Maximus to
Confessor in my opening statement. So

495
00:40:30,079 --> 00:40:32,320
even if let's say, for the
sake of argument, oh my god,

496
00:40:32,360 --> 00:40:37,599
this is terrible anthropomorphic, Jake is
likening God to creation. Okay, what

497
00:40:37,760 --> 00:40:39,880
is your problem with that? You
can't. You don't have an argument about

498
00:40:39,920 --> 00:40:45,280
that. You have no argument about
that whatsoever. So Jay needs to deal

499
00:40:45,320 --> 00:40:51,880
with those points. He mentions about
indexicals and God's knowledge. Well, actually,

500
00:40:51,920 --> 00:40:55,400
before I get to this, since
there's another important point here, let

501
00:40:55,480 --> 00:41:00,480
me see, there's so much nonsense
he mentioned, he said, Oh,

502
00:41:00,519 --> 00:41:06,280
he said, even Jake believes in
two ways of counting. He believes in

503
00:41:06,639 --> 00:41:10,280
accounting by identity, and then he
also believes in counting by division. When

504
00:41:10,320 --> 00:41:14,119
it comes to a law, and
he said, you see, he mentioned

505
00:41:14,119 --> 00:41:17,079
that a law's attributes are inseparable from
each other. I mean, honestly,

506
00:41:17,199 --> 00:41:22,159
Jay, where did you get this
from. This is the most ridiculous thing

507
00:41:22,199 --> 00:41:24,960
I've ever heard. That we're counting
by division. No, in fact,

508
00:41:25,239 --> 00:41:30,039
by the fact that they're inseparable from
one another and inseparable from the essence,

509
00:41:30,559 --> 00:41:36,199
means that we are counting them by
identity. Because if we were counting them

510
00:41:36,239 --> 00:41:39,199
by division, then we would say
that a loss of panal data only has

511
00:41:39,320 --> 00:41:44,400
one attribute. But we say that
he has many attributes, and yet they

512
00:41:44,440 --> 00:41:47,440
are not divided by time and space. So how do we say that there

513
00:41:47,480 --> 00:41:53,360
are many attributes and yet they're not
divided by time and space are separable because

514
00:41:53,400 --> 00:41:59,280
we're counting them by identity. Wow, I don't know how you made such

515
00:41:59,320 --> 00:42:02,760
a big blunt there. So you
need to show how I'm counting by a

516
00:42:02,920 --> 00:42:07,960
division or separability when it comes to
attributes or the essence. That was a

517
00:42:07,519 --> 00:42:14,199
big blunder. Okay, So here
we go the next part. Here where

518
00:42:14,599 --> 00:42:19,960
Jay mentioned about the indexicles, I
want to read a quote from one of

519
00:42:20,000 --> 00:42:24,000
his authors that he appeals to.
Let me just bring it up here.

520
00:42:25,480 --> 00:42:30,760
Okay, So on indexicals, he
says, well, Jake has a strange

521
00:42:30,840 --> 00:42:36,559
understanding of God's knowledge. Well,
that's let's see if that's the case when

522
00:42:36,599 --> 00:42:39,320
it comes to these indexicles or the
eye. Well, I'm going to show

523
00:42:39,360 --> 00:42:45,159
you in a source here from Jay's
own people, that that is exactly the

524
00:42:45,199 --> 00:42:49,039
case. If I can ever find
a damn quote, let me see here.

525
00:42:49,880 --> 00:42:55,719
Okay, fifteen seconds. Okay,
I'll get to that quote in my

526
00:42:57,519 --> 00:43:01,760
next rebuttal, but I'll show you
that Jay his own church writers explicitly use

527
00:43:01,880 --> 00:43:07,800
the indexical eye and appealing to God's
knowledge. With that, we'll kick it

528
00:43:07,840 --> 00:43:10,119
over to Jay for his ten minute
rebuttal as well. If you haven't yet,

529
00:43:10,119 --> 00:43:14,440
folks, hit that like button,
not for me, but for you

530
00:43:14,639 --> 00:43:17,639
so that YouTube knows what to serve
you more of where that things? Very

531
00:43:17,719 --> 00:43:22,239
much, Jay, The floor is
all yours. Yeah again. I think

532
00:43:22,320 --> 00:43:29,280
Jake missed a lot of the classes
that dealt with basics of epistemology and metaphysics

533
00:43:29,320 --> 00:43:32,360
because Jake misunderstood a lot of points
that I made made some pretty rooky mistakes.

534
00:43:32,679 --> 00:43:39,800
For example, he appealed to my
argumentation about realist notions of universals on

535
00:43:39,840 --> 00:43:43,679
the basis of saying that, well, because we know this because of Okham's

536
00:43:43,760 --> 00:43:45,880
razor, Well, how do we
know Aukham's razor is true in all cases

537
00:43:45,880 --> 00:43:50,199
are true? In this case,
that's just an arbitrary appeal. It's just

538
00:43:50,199 --> 00:43:53,840
an appeal to some other thing that
we don't actually know really grounds and disproves

539
00:43:53,880 --> 00:43:58,440
the reality of universals. He says, I didn't give arguments about universals.

540
00:43:58,679 --> 00:44:06,280
I gave multiple arguments about how there's
no empirical verification or observation of metaphysical objects

541
00:44:06,320 --> 00:44:10,360
that Jake believes in. That is
itself the undercutting and the disproof of his

542
00:44:10,480 --> 00:44:17,239
nominalism. Jake doesn't appear to be
aware of classic critiques and reputations and questions

543
00:44:17,239 --> 00:44:23,000
for the nominalist empiricist tradition which he's
aligned himself with. Further, I would

544
00:44:23,039 --> 00:44:27,840
add to I didn't delay the debate
just because I needed to read one book.

545
00:44:28,079 --> 00:44:30,559
I asked him if he was willing
to delay debate because it's relevant for

546
00:44:30,800 --> 00:44:36,719
the debate that we're having, and
it's a newly published book about the school

547
00:44:36,760 --> 00:44:38,679
of theology that he believes in,
So that was the real reason for that.

548
00:44:38,760 --> 00:44:42,320
He knows that, but he just
is looking for anything to grasp that

549
00:44:42,440 --> 00:44:45,599
at this point. So again,
let's get back to this point about what

550
00:44:46,719 --> 00:44:52,960
empiricism anomalism says. Empiricism says that
we begin our theology from sense data.

551
00:44:52,039 --> 00:44:58,639
I made the argument that we can't
even know that the peripatetic axiom is true

552
00:44:59,079 --> 00:45:02,199
on the basis of s there's nothing
in sense data that tells you that knowledge

553
00:45:02,199 --> 00:45:06,320
comes from sense data. And if
that's the case, then all of the

554
00:45:06,440 --> 00:45:09,639
arguments that David Hume makes about identity
over time meaning over time, those are

555
00:45:09,679 --> 00:45:14,880
all arguments. And you notice that
if you paid attention to my slides and

556
00:45:14,920 --> 00:45:17,960
my talk, I did give arguments. I listed many many arguments, And

557
00:45:17,960 --> 00:45:21,599
it's true I did focus on Jake's
position because I knew we would get to

558
00:45:21,639 --> 00:45:24,480
the trinity in later discussions in the
debate. I'm happy to defend any of

559
00:45:24,480 --> 00:45:28,800
the arguments that Jake has against the
trinity, but I want to know that

560
00:45:29,440 --> 00:45:32,920
how he'd actually makes sense. And
you know, Jake said that he made

561
00:45:32,920 --> 00:45:37,199
all of these arguments that I didn't
address. I didn't actually hear an argument.

562
00:45:37,239 --> 00:45:40,440
I heard a bunch of assertions as
to what his position is about the

563
00:45:40,519 --> 00:45:45,800
creed, what his position is about
unity. I didn't actually hear an argument,

564
00:45:45,880 --> 00:45:50,440
so I don't think Jake understands the
difference between asserting something and actually claiming

565
00:45:50,480 --> 00:45:53,800
something. I actually went into multiple
texts, multiple scholars. I didn't just

566
00:45:53,840 --> 00:45:55,760
rely on one. And by the
way, I want to address that he's

567
00:45:55,760 --> 00:46:00,079
wrong about what he says about First
of all, Boyarin, I didn't claim

568
00:46:00,159 --> 00:46:07,639
that those Jewish theologians taught the Trinity. That's false, so Jake's incorrect.

569
00:46:07,639 --> 00:46:09,480
I didn't say that they taught the
Trinity. I said that they talked about

570
00:46:09,519 --> 00:46:15,079
the reality of multiple hypostases. That
could be Minitarianism, that could be a

571
00:46:15,079 --> 00:46:19,599
form of Trinitarianism, and certain cabalists, it could be the other schools that

572
00:46:19,639 --> 00:46:24,159
were strictly unitarian. I just simply
pointed out that early Judaism was not monolithic,

573
00:46:24,400 --> 00:46:29,239
and that was enough to demonstrate that
you couldn't use the argument that Daniel

574
00:46:29,280 --> 00:46:34,639
Hikikichu used that the Old Testament was
quote unitarian, or that the prophets taught

575
00:46:34,719 --> 00:46:37,840
Unitarianism and that this is a corruption. It was just simply demonstrating that there

576
00:46:37,840 --> 00:46:45,039
were Jews in the first first two
centuries that were not believers in strict Unitarianism,

577
00:46:45,159 --> 00:46:50,079
and beyond that, there were actually
Jews who were Trinitarians, and they

578
00:46:50,119 --> 00:46:58,320
were called Christians. And that's why
Barren says that Christianity is a conservative form

579
00:46:58,360 --> 00:47:02,119
of Judaism. So all all I
was doing was demonstrating that Daniel's arguments that

580
00:47:02,280 --> 00:47:07,960
Judaism is somehow inherently unitarian are not
true. That's all I needed to demonstrate.

581
00:47:07,280 --> 00:47:12,039
So he's setting up a strong man
about something I didn't argue. Next,

582
00:47:12,079 --> 00:47:16,920
I'll address the fact that the logos
theology that he talked about, there's

583
00:47:16,920 --> 00:47:22,000
not one logos theology that one guy
had, and everybody got this from Filo

584
00:47:22,159 --> 00:47:28,039
or someone else and then it got
rejected. Jake is completely ignorant of Athanasius,

585
00:47:28,280 --> 00:47:32,079
who engages in consistent logos theology argumentation, is the foremost theologian at the

586
00:47:32,079 --> 00:47:36,960
Council of Nicea. So this idea
that logos theology is not used post nice

587
00:47:37,159 --> 00:47:40,519
or whatever dumb argument he made,
is totally not true. Clement of Alexandria,

588
00:47:40,599 --> 00:47:45,880
all the Alexandrian fathers in tradition often
used this logos argumentation. Some of

589
00:47:45,920 --> 00:47:52,199
the logos apologists of the first and
second century eventually did go into weird deviations.

590
00:47:52,480 --> 00:47:55,480
But that doesn't mean that all logos
theology is false. Logos theology is

591
00:47:55,519 --> 00:47:59,719
in John one, and it's in
the Wisdom text of the Old Testament.

592
00:48:00,199 --> 00:48:04,280
It didn't come out of Plato.
There's a plenty of scholarship that will note,

593
00:48:04,800 --> 00:48:06,960
as even some of these Jewish scholars
do, that it goes back to

594
00:48:07,400 --> 00:48:10,920
the Wisdom, dex Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and so forth. How that's cashed

595
00:48:10,960 --> 00:48:15,719
out by different theologians is a different
question. So Jake doesn't understand what logos

596
00:48:15,719 --> 00:48:20,920
theology is, and he doesn't understand
uh, the first three centuries of Christianity.

597
00:48:22,239 --> 00:48:27,679
I would add as well that Jake
doesn't understand what an internal critique is.

598
00:48:28,960 --> 00:48:31,559
He thinks that when I make an
internal critique that I have to then

599
00:48:31,719 --> 00:48:36,239
agree with the thing that I'm critiquing. So if I say that his position

600
00:48:36,880 --> 00:48:39,920
is anthropomorphic, I shouldn't have a
problem with it because I'm a well I

601
00:48:40,000 --> 00:48:46,320
believe in But dude, I'm not
saying that I'm I'm critiquing your position.

602
00:48:46,639 --> 00:48:52,480
So Jake doesn't literally doesn't grasp what
an internal critique is. That's also why

603
00:48:52,480 --> 00:48:54,679
he doesn't understand what tag is.
Jake, as we said, is a

604
00:48:54,760 --> 00:48:59,960
foundationalist. He's a very one dimensional, one layer thinker, so he doesn't

605
00:49:00,159 --> 00:49:05,400
understand meta level questions, even though
ironically he's called the Muslim meta position.

606
00:49:05,760 --> 00:49:08,159
So he ought to be at least
aware of what metallogical issues are. That's

607
00:49:08,199 --> 00:49:13,960
what the transcendental argument is. You
ought to be aware of metaphysical issues.

608
00:49:14,119 --> 00:49:16,360
I don't think he actually is.
I think he copies and paste out of

609
00:49:16,440 --> 00:49:20,920
various scholars that fit his need.
For example, he uses us when he's

610
00:49:21,000 --> 00:49:24,639
arguing with Anthony Rodgers, he uses
you know, analytical you know, William

611
00:49:24,679 --> 00:49:29,719
Lane Craig. So he's just picking
and choosing when it fits the case.

612
00:49:29,760 --> 00:49:32,079
And he also seems to sort of
move his positions in the midst of various

613
00:49:32,079 --> 00:49:37,039
debates. He has a history of
that, so I'm interested to see where

614
00:49:37,079 --> 00:49:38,800
he's going to go. When we
ask him about the attributes, whether they

615
00:49:38,920 --> 00:49:44,800
possess a saiety considered in themselves or
not, he said that inseparability is not

616
00:49:44,880 --> 00:49:49,360
counting by division, is counting by
identity, and then he proceeded to say

617
00:49:49,360 --> 00:49:53,480
that because we identify Allah's essence as
one, he totally missed the point that

618
00:49:53,519 --> 00:49:57,800
I said. I said that he
does both that was the argument I made.

619
00:49:57,800 --> 00:50:01,159
I didn't say that he only counts
by division by using the word inseparability.

620
00:50:01,519 --> 00:50:05,760
But he doesn't even seem to realize
that. In the ancient medieval world,

621
00:50:06,159 --> 00:50:09,800
whether it's al Gazali, whether it's
aristotl in category six, whether it's

622
00:50:09,840 --> 00:50:14,519
the Cappadocians, whether it's Maximus,
whether it's the Nice in Creed, the

623
00:50:14,599 --> 00:50:20,559
ancient world consistently and commonly thought about
counting by division. We use this argument

624
00:50:20,599 --> 00:50:22,880
all the time, especially when we
refer to Maximus in the Ambiguous. I

625
00:50:22,880 --> 00:50:28,639
think it's question one where Maximus talks
about unity being a single monad, and

626
00:50:28,679 --> 00:50:32,039
then division being the separability that gives
us two, and then another form of

627
00:50:32,039 --> 00:50:36,159
separability which gives us the triad or
gives us three. I'm not talking about

628
00:50:36,159 --> 00:50:37,800
the trinity. I'm just talking about
counting. That's how they thought, That's

629
00:50:37,800 --> 00:50:43,000
how they counted, right in moderation
and belief. This is how al Ghazali

630
00:50:43,119 --> 00:50:45,159
counts, for example. So it
was common in the ancient world. Jake

631
00:50:45,199 --> 00:50:47,920
doesn't even know this. He thinks
that it's something that was made up,

632
00:50:49,239 --> 00:50:52,480
and then he thinks that everybody just
quote counts by identity. He says in

633
00:50:52,519 --> 00:50:55,800
one of his debates. This is
just how he count today, like we

634
00:50:55,920 --> 00:51:00,599
count today like this, Hakoma,
Oh, don't even count like that,

635
00:51:00,800 --> 00:51:06,079
not even aware that this is how
people counted in his own Islamic schools.

636
00:51:06,119 --> 00:51:08,480
Maybe not his school per se,
because this wasn't an issue of debate.

637
00:51:08,800 --> 00:51:13,239
But al Gazali counts this way.
I can show you in moderation and believe

638
00:51:13,239 --> 00:51:16,119
where he counts this way. For
example, it's the tenth proposition. Here

639
00:51:16,199 --> 00:51:20,239
we go, Oh, he ain't
gotten no Islamic books, he ain't gonna

640
00:51:20,239 --> 00:51:22,039
no reading. Oh really, how
about this right here where Algazoli in the

641
00:51:22,039 --> 00:51:28,280
tenth proposition is counting by the de
jen So Jake doesn't know what he's talking

642
00:51:28,320 --> 00:51:30,800
about. When we came to the
body parts, however, I didn't say

643
00:51:30,960 --> 00:51:37,719
that even to me, what gave
no catafatic meaning? I said he contradicted.

644
00:51:38,559 --> 00:51:42,119
So Jake said, well, there's
a place in the Soul Mom book

645
00:51:42,119 --> 00:51:45,440
where he says that that it's perfectly
fine to speak this way. I didn't

646
00:51:45,440 --> 00:51:50,960
say that. I never claimed that. I claimed that he contradicts by saying

647
00:51:51,000 --> 00:51:53,760
two different things. So again Jake
didn't even understand the argument, or it

648
00:51:53,800 --> 00:51:57,639
went over his head, or he
just didn't want to address it. And

649
00:51:57,760 --> 00:52:04,480
Jake, again has a notorious history
of in debates not addressing any actual arguments.

650
00:52:04,559 --> 00:52:07,760
He blows past them, and he
literally thinks that asserting something is an

651
00:52:07,840 --> 00:52:12,480
argument, And you can see that
when he came to the treatment of tag.

652
00:52:13,400 --> 00:52:17,199
Tag is a metal level argument about
arguing in logic itself, and Jake

653
00:52:17,239 --> 00:52:21,840
says, well, what's the argument
of the logic for that? Yeah,

654
00:52:21,880 --> 00:52:25,880
exactly, it's a preconceptual, preconditioned
type of argument. Now, Jake is

655
00:52:25,880 --> 00:52:30,440
in the tradition of the empiricists,
so I would think he would be pretty

656
00:52:30,440 --> 00:52:35,880
familiar with the ideas of analytic and
synthetic truths and law priori truths how much

657
00:52:36,400 --> 00:52:39,039
one minute left one minute, But
he doesn't seem to be aware of those

658
00:52:39,039 --> 00:52:44,599
things at all, because his treatment
of empiricism is naive empiricism. And again,

659
00:52:44,639 --> 00:52:47,760
when we get into cross examination,
we're gonna see that does he believe

660
00:52:47,760 --> 00:52:52,639
in self evident truths like his masters
and his teachers do? And he says

661
00:52:52,639 --> 00:52:58,199
that even to me, a book's
not even relevant for this for this debate.

662
00:52:58,679 --> 00:53:01,960
Yeah, you said it is,
because you said that he's your palamos,

663
00:53:02,039 --> 00:53:05,880
So why would he not be relevant, relevant for the debate when he's

664
00:53:06,280 --> 00:53:08,679
for us, he's a Palomas,
is a pillar of Orthodoxy. You know

665
00:53:08,760 --> 00:53:14,079
that I have the DM where you
told me that he represents the Palamas for

666
00:53:14,159 --> 00:53:17,360
your tradition. So is so the
pillar of your tradition isn't relevant for this

667
00:53:17,400 --> 00:53:21,880
debate? No, you just don't
want to go to that because you know

668
00:53:21,960 --> 00:53:24,000
I did read it, and you
want to stick to some other things,

669
00:53:24,000 --> 00:53:28,960
some other text when you know good
and well that he's perfectly a representative of

670
00:53:28,960 --> 00:53:35,280
your tradition, if he's the palaboss
of your tradition. Time this one I

671
00:53:35,519 --> 00:53:37,719
just realized. So on, So
thank you very much, gentlemen, for

672
00:53:37,760 --> 00:53:42,679
those rebuttals. Jake, I am
sorry. I accidentally are you. When

673
00:53:42,719 --> 00:53:46,320
you guys ask for the one minute
warnings, I screwed up mentally and when

674
00:53:46,320 --> 00:53:50,280
I was supposed to give you your
one minute warning, I accidentally gave it

675
00:53:50,280 --> 00:53:53,840
to you, where basically I accidentally
gave you one less minute. So what

676
00:53:53,840 --> 00:53:57,880
I'm going to do is for these
next rebuttals, which are supposed to be

677
00:53:57,920 --> 00:54:00,119
five and five minutes, I'm going
to tack on that minute back on to

678
00:54:00,199 --> 00:54:02,119
yours, Jake, just to keep
it fair. I'm sorry about that,

679
00:54:02,199 --> 00:54:07,159
my mistake, and so we'll have
these second rebuttals. Uh, just to

680
00:54:07,199 --> 00:54:12,079
understand what you're saying. So I
only spoke, I spoke for nine minutes

681
00:54:12,119 --> 00:54:15,079
instead of ten, so I'll be
getting six minutes instead of five this time.

682
00:54:15,159 --> 00:54:17,440
Is that it exactly basically moving the
because there was my mistake. I

683
00:54:17,519 --> 00:54:22,320
cut you off a minute early.
So taking that to keep it equal,

684
00:54:22,480 --> 00:54:24,480
so you have equal time in the
debate, I'm gonna take that missed minute.

685
00:54:24,599 --> 00:54:27,559
I'll let you. I'll let you, I'll let you slide. But

686
00:54:27,639 --> 00:54:30,639
it's gonna come out of your pay. But that's fine, you got it.

687
00:54:30,840 --> 00:54:31,960
I'll still give you six if you
want it. You don't have to.

688
00:54:31,960 --> 00:54:34,760
If you want to use five,
that's fine. But with that,

689
00:54:35,199 --> 00:54:37,599
thank you very much, gentlemen.
The floor is all yours. Jake.

690
00:54:37,119 --> 00:54:39,960
I've got it set for six minutes. I'll give you the warning at one

691
00:54:40,039 --> 00:54:45,199
minute until that's done. Okay,
here we go six minutes. So Jay,

692
00:54:46,119 --> 00:54:52,159
you know, it's so funny to
me that you say that I didn't

693
00:54:52,639 --> 00:54:55,920
that I'm just making assertions the whole
time. Jake is only making assertions.

694
00:54:55,920 --> 00:55:00,639
He didn't hear any arguments. Well, I'll just repeat my argument because Jay,

695
00:55:00,760 --> 00:55:04,159
maybe he honestly didn't hear them.
I have no idea, because you

696
00:55:04,239 --> 00:55:08,360
didn't respond to a single argument that
I gave. I actually engaged with your

697
00:55:08,599 --> 00:55:13,679
fifteen minutes of nonsense. To the
best of my ability. You didn't engage

698
00:55:13,679 --> 00:55:16,639
with a single one of my arguments. You didn't respond to my arguments asserting

699
00:55:16,679 --> 00:55:22,239
that you guys are polytheists based on
the LPT. You didn't respond to my

700
00:55:22,400 --> 00:55:28,000
argument about them not having the same
power or knowledge other than assuming that I

701
00:55:28,039 --> 00:55:34,119
said that these must be energies.
No, my entire critique is that the

702
00:55:34,280 --> 00:55:39,599
Orthodox say that they're not energies.
They make an exception between the begetting and

703
00:55:39,639 --> 00:55:45,440
the spir rating and God's knowledge and
these other things when they're not shared.

704
00:55:45,840 --> 00:55:51,719
And that's the whole problem with your
universalist perspective, is that you don't have

705
00:55:51,800 --> 00:55:57,519
the necessary and sufficient conditions for what
an essence is. You make exceptions,

706
00:55:57,559 --> 00:56:02,960
And maybe you're not familiar with the
classical critique of the Aristotelian position regarding universals,

707
00:56:02,960 --> 00:56:07,360
which you basically hold to. That
we can come up with all sorts

708
00:56:07,360 --> 00:56:10,599
of exception cases that you don't have
answers to, And that's the point.

709
00:56:10,760 --> 00:56:15,079
You make an exception. You say, oh, they still have the same

710
00:56:15,159 --> 00:56:19,119
power, even though the Father alone
has the power to beget the son in

711
00:56:19,159 --> 00:56:22,960
a holy spirit. And by the
way, the Catholics actually disagree on this

712
00:56:22,119 --> 00:56:29,239
point, and they make that very
same argument that the Orthodox are guilty of,

713
00:56:29,280 --> 00:56:32,559
saying that the Father alone has the
power to cause another divine person and

714
00:56:32,639 --> 00:56:37,280
because of that, they don't have
equal power. So don't act like I

715
00:56:37,440 --> 00:56:42,199
just pulled this argument out of my
backside. I didn't. Let's go further

716
00:56:42,280 --> 00:56:45,400
here again, he keeps saying,
I'm just making assertions. No, I've

717
00:56:45,440 --> 00:56:49,840
made arguments. I gave my argument
on the LPT, whether you think it's

718
00:56:49,920 --> 00:56:52,039
ridiculous or not. I made the
argument that they can't be the same God

719
00:56:52,079 --> 00:56:55,199
because they don't have the same power
and knowledge. Now let's get to this

720
00:56:55,280 --> 00:57:01,360
point that you made about knowledge.
Okay. I have the quote here ready,

721
00:57:01,679 --> 00:57:07,000
all right, which is from Dimitri
stan Eloy, and he says in

722
00:57:07,199 --> 00:57:12,159
the Experience of God Value one,
page one fifty two, I'd love to

723
00:57:12,199 --> 00:57:14,719
see what you think of this,
Jay. He says that, I quote,

724
00:57:15,039 --> 00:57:19,760
the life of the eternal subjectivity must
be a fullness, which in all

725
00:57:19,800 --> 00:57:23,199
respects is not a transitory one.
It must consist in a love for another

726
00:57:23,280 --> 00:57:29,320
subjectivity, and in the perfect union
between itself and that subjectivity, which has

727
00:57:29,320 --> 00:57:34,159
the same fullness, so as to
be simultaneously unfailing life. The life of

728
00:57:34,199 --> 00:57:40,360
the eternal subjectivity is an infinite reference
to its subjectivity, contemplated within another eye,

729
00:57:40,840 --> 00:57:45,159
within another quote unquote I, so
as to be true love, eternal

730
00:57:45,280 --> 00:57:51,719
unfailing love. It is reference to
another I, who is himself also the

731
00:57:51,719 --> 00:57:57,679
bearer of his own infinite subjectivity,
and responds within that same eternal, unfailing

732
00:57:57,719 --> 00:58:01,440
love, a divine I love with
an eternal, inexhaustible love, a thing

733
00:58:01,519 --> 00:58:07,440
proper to the divine or with its
fullness which is like that of another eye.

734
00:58:07,719 --> 00:58:12,800
And this occurs in reciprocity. This
is divine life, this divine love.

735
00:58:13,239 --> 00:58:15,880
Sorry, this is divine life,
and it exists together with immutable fullness.

736
00:58:15,960 --> 00:58:20,440
It is the same infinite existence of
love, the love of an infinite

737
00:58:20,440 --> 00:58:24,480
person directed towards another person worthy of
infinite love, and vice versa, but

738
00:58:24,559 --> 00:58:31,360
within the inferiority interiority of the same
subjectivity. In other circumstances, eternally would

739
00:58:31,400 --> 00:58:37,360
either be an unbearable boredom if it
were the prerogative of a single consciousness.

740
00:58:37,599 --> 00:58:44,880
Thereby he's saying there are three consciousnesses
within the trinity or three minds. Well,

741
00:58:44,920 --> 00:58:47,840
if three consciousness or three minds in
the Trinity isn't polytheism, then I

742
00:58:47,840 --> 00:58:52,159
don't know what the hell is?
What is the standard? And he's saying

743
00:58:52,239 --> 00:58:57,800
that that is the contemplation of another
consciousness or else an absurdity. If it

744
00:58:57,840 --> 00:59:00,920
were prerogative of a substance of law
that was aimless. He's basically saying,

745
00:59:01,039 --> 00:59:06,039
oh, my god, God would
be bored if he didn't have another God

746
00:59:06,079 --> 00:59:08,320
to sit there and talk to.
Okay, So don't make it seem like,

747
00:59:08,400 --> 00:59:13,000
oh, Jake has no idea.
The Orthodox don't have this concept of

748
00:59:13,079 --> 00:59:16,199
knowledge. Well, what is he
talking about here? In the subjectivity of

749
00:59:16,239 --> 00:59:22,280
the different divine persons, they have
a self referential eye which accounts for the

750
00:59:22,400 --> 00:59:27,440
mutual love. Otherwise they would all
be bored. And he says that if

751
00:59:27,480 --> 00:59:31,480
it were the prerogative of a single
consciousness, meaning there are three consciousnesses in

752
00:59:31,519 --> 00:59:36,000
the trinity, Jay, So how
do you defend that three consciousnesses in the

753
00:59:36,039 --> 00:59:40,719
trinity is not polytheism? One minute
left? Now back to the whole issue

754
00:59:40,840 --> 00:59:46,239
of epistemology. Jay thinks that I
don't understand. I do understand the criticisms,

755
00:59:46,559 --> 00:59:51,320
and I knew that he was going
to bring this critique because he doesn't

756
00:59:51,320 --> 00:59:55,199
want to talk about Trinity versus Taalheed. He wants to talk about epistemology because

757
00:59:55,239 --> 00:59:59,880
he knows that he can't respond to
my actual arguments. So he's spending the

758
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:05,239
the entire time trying to criticize my
position without a defense of his own position

759
01:00:05,320 --> 01:00:08,320
in response to my arguments, And
he wants to make the debate about epistemology.

760
01:00:08,519 --> 01:00:10,960
But I knew he was gonna do
that. That's why I included that

761
01:00:12,000 --> 01:00:15,639
in my opening statement. But I'd
be happy to have an entirely separate debate

762
01:00:15,800 --> 01:00:20,920
about epistemology. But Jay wants to
make it only about that in this debate

763
01:00:21,079 --> 01:00:23,320
because you know he can't defend his
actual position. But I'd be happy to

764
01:00:23,320 --> 01:00:25,639
go through that. And if you
want to talk about self evident truth,

765
01:00:27,320 --> 01:00:30,840
I'd be happy to talk about that. But whatever your critiques are of them,

766
01:00:30,079 --> 01:00:35,880
as you've already admitted, you can't
give a justification to something that is

767
01:00:36,199 --> 01:00:39,000
metallogical, and therefore I can tell
you the same exact thing. And we're

768
01:00:39,119 --> 01:00:44,719
at an intellectual stalemate and times.
With that, we're gonna kick it over

769
01:00:44,800 --> 01:00:46,840
to Jay for his five minute REBUTTAL
want to let you know, folks,

770
01:00:46,920 --> 01:00:50,679
at the very end, they'll have
their closing statements, or I should say

771
01:00:50,719 --> 01:00:54,039
second to the end, which will
be flipped in other words, different from

772
01:00:54,119 --> 01:00:59,519
usual. It'll actually be instead of
Jake going first and then Jay, it'll

773
01:00:59,519 --> 01:01:04,880
be flipped where it'll instead we'll explain
when we get there with that. Hold

774
01:01:04,960 --> 01:01:07,639
on a second, I didn't understand
what you just said. I'll like,

775
01:01:08,000 --> 01:01:10,719
I'm putting the cart before the horse. I'll explain that once we get there.

776
01:01:10,960 --> 01:01:14,960
But you had mentioned it earlier in
our discussion on how you guys wanted

777
01:01:14,960 --> 01:01:17,199
it, so I'll bring it up
later though. But Jay, thank you

778
01:01:17,280 --> 01:01:23,639
very much. The floor it's all
yours. Yeah. So I just wanted

779
01:01:23,639 --> 01:01:28,840
to point out here that one of
the things that would definitely help Jake in

780
01:01:28,880 --> 01:01:32,440
the future if he wants to understand
the history of Christian metaphysics and the distinctions

781
01:01:32,480 --> 01:01:37,760
that he's not able to actually make, is this great book here, Christian

782
01:01:37,760 --> 01:01:42,840
Theology in the End of Ancient Metaphysics. And this is a new recent book

783
01:01:42,880 --> 01:01:46,159
in the scholarship. It's by Johann
zach Kuber, and it's really good for

784
01:01:46,239 --> 01:01:51,360
pointing out that we don't, for
example, think that the essence of God

785
01:01:51,519 --> 01:01:53,400
is a universal. This is a
fundamental mistake. I don't know where you

786
01:01:53,440 --> 01:01:59,119
got this. I think he misunderstood
the idea of the comparison between the capped

787
01:01:59,159 --> 01:02:02,599
Doocians, saying that the essence of
God is common and therefore it's like the

788
01:02:02,679 --> 01:02:07,199
relationship between a universal in a particular. But the essence of God itself is

789
01:02:07,239 --> 01:02:12,239
not actually a universal in the sense
of the way that we understand universal.

790
01:02:12,280 --> 01:02:15,440
Same Maximus, So the Confessor famously
that teaches, as does John Mascus,

791
01:02:15,480 --> 01:02:21,079
that universals are created. God is
not created, and so universals cannot be

792
01:02:21,159 --> 01:02:27,679
the essence of God. So Jake
misunderstood in an analogy comparing the universal relationship

793
01:02:27,719 --> 01:02:32,159
between creatures and the participation that they
have in the one in regard to the

794
01:02:32,159 --> 01:02:37,159
many versus the relationship of the one
and the many in God. It's just

795
01:02:37,199 --> 01:02:42,519
an analogy that cappedditions make, and
so Jake misunderstood. They're very fundamental misunderstanding.

796
01:02:42,880 --> 01:02:49,679
Jake equivocated on the term power.
So I'm gonna quit screensharing there So

797
01:02:49,760 --> 01:02:52,519
what I said was is that for
that arguments a whole, which is actually

798
01:02:52,559 --> 01:02:58,880
a Uno Meann argument, the notion
of begetting would have to be an energy.

799
01:02:58,920 --> 01:03:01,960
And this is the argument that you
know makes against Nissa against Eunomias,

800
01:03:02,719 --> 01:03:07,079
and the argument is that begetting is
not a power. So Jakeson's equivocating on

801
01:03:07,119 --> 01:03:13,119
the distinction between hypothetic properties and powers, and the fact that Roman Catholics claim

802
01:03:13,199 --> 01:03:15,239
this really has nothing to do with
our debate. Romancallics claim all kinds of

803
01:03:15,239 --> 01:03:19,119
things. Jake doesn't believe in Roman
Catholicism, so he wants to try to

804
01:03:19,199 --> 01:03:22,440
use an argument as if that would
have any weight in this debate. Really

805
01:03:22,480 --> 01:03:24,440
doesn't matter what Roman Catholics say,
he says, I didn't reply to the

806
01:03:24,559 --> 01:03:28,800
LPT. I did reply to the
LPT. I pointed out that his argument

807
01:03:28,920 --> 01:03:31,840
and his use of it relies on
counting in one way, counting by identity.

808
01:03:32,159 --> 01:03:37,159
I specifically addressed twice now that both
of us count by identity and both

809
01:03:37,199 --> 01:03:40,920
of us count by division. I
gave multiple people in the past who count

810
01:03:40,920 --> 01:03:45,199
this way. Jake ignored. All
that Jake acts like this is all made

811
01:03:45,320 --> 01:03:49,280
up. In recent livestreams of talks, He's actually acted like, why don't

812
01:03:49,320 --> 01:03:52,760
Joe count the way everybody does today, not even aware of the basic fact

813
01:03:52,800 --> 01:03:58,440
that ancient medieval world counted also this
way. I mentioned in my opening statement

814
01:03:58,519 --> 01:04:01,199
first order and second order in position, that certain things can be counted by

815
01:04:01,239 --> 01:04:05,079
identity and certain things can be counted
by division. Even back in the ancient

816
01:04:05,199 --> 01:04:10,079
medieval world. This became a medieval
distinction first order second order in position.

817
01:04:10,760 --> 01:04:16,840
If we want to go back to
my opening statement, I said that you

818
01:04:16,880 --> 01:04:24,559
could think of things like, let's
see where I put this. You could

819
01:04:24,800 --> 01:04:28,760
let me see. You could think
of things like first order in position would

820
01:04:28,800 --> 01:04:33,159
be things like mundane objects of cats, cows, dogs, so they would

821
01:04:33,159 --> 01:04:39,519
be concrete objects in the world.
And then you could think about abstract objects

822
01:04:39,920 --> 01:04:44,599
like sets or laws of logic.
Those would be counted by identity, because

823
01:04:44,599 --> 01:04:47,079
it doesn't really make sense to think
of, for example, one third of

824
01:04:47,119 --> 01:04:51,039
a law of logic or one third
of a set of things. Right,

825
01:04:51,039 --> 01:04:58,039
So abstract things in this case created
abstract things and would be counted by identity.

826
01:04:58,559 --> 01:05:01,679
But things that might be part of
or are divisible have to be counted

827
01:05:01,679 --> 01:05:05,519
by division. And this is actually
in even today's literature. So Jake's acting

828
01:05:05,639 --> 01:05:10,079
like, we don't count his way
today, Dog, we don't count his

829
01:05:10,159 --> 01:05:13,559
way today? Oh really? Well, I mean, I've got academic scholars

830
01:05:13,599 --> 01:05:18,239
here talking about the theory of mathematics
and countings, like like the David Leibsman

831
01:05:18,320 --> 01:05:23,519
paper where he goes into great detail
arguing that no, actually we do still

832
01:05:23,559 --> 01:05:26,880
count by division. You just have
to be more nuanced about it. I

833
01:05:26,960 --> 01:05:30,719
specifically argued again that Jake, in
his own accounting for the attributes in the

834
01:05:30,800 --> 01:05:35,119
Essence, also counts by identity and
by division. And he used the very

835
01:05:35,199 --> 01:05:39,840
terminology that relates to county by division, and he got upset by that.

836
01:05:39,920 --> 01:05:42,440
He got a little rattled, and
they had to say, that's not what

837
01:05:42,480 --> 01:05:45,760
it means. Bro, that's not
what it means. Dog. Now he

838
01:05:45,840 --> 01:05:51,599
mentioned the idea of unitarianism in modes. Jake doesn't understand the difference between in

839
01:05:51,599 --> 01:05:57,440
person nature and mode. It's very
important for Trinitarian theology to make a distinction

840
01:05:57,519 --> 01:06:02,519
between hypostasis nature person nature and mode
or trope boasts. Mode is the way

841
01:06:02,519 --> 01:06:06,519
that a thing exists. Islamic theology
is kind of all over the place,

842
01:06:06,559 --> 01:06:10,840
and they use modality in a lot
of different ways. It's kind of unclear

843
01:06:10,880 --> 01:06:15,360
and contradictory between different Islamic fingers as
to what exactly they think modality means.

844
01:06:15,599 --> 01:06:20,440
Sometimes it relates to parts whole relationships, sometimes it means relation to other objects,

845
01:06:20,599 --> 01:06:24,960
and sometimes it means the actual way
that the mode in which it exists,

846
01:06:24,960 --> 01:06:28,360
the way a thing exists, or
how it exists. So in Orthodox

847
01:06:28,400 --> 01:06:33,199
theology, we're using it in that
sense of how a thing exists. Hardly

848
01:06:33,320 --> 01:06:40,039
missed the reminder today so much.
We're going to kick it over to or

849
01:06:40,199 --> 01:06:43,599
changing it up in the format.
We're now going to the three sets of

850
01:06:43,760 --> 01:06:48,400
seven minute cross examinations. This is
going to be more formal for a cross

851
01:06:48,400 --> 01:06:53,320
examinations, folks. So we are
looking for just questions on one side and

852
01:06:53,440 --> 01:06:57,199
just question or just answers on the
other side. With that, Jake,

853
01:06:57,239 --> 01:07:04,039
the floor is yours to interrogate Jay
right now. Okay, just give me

854
01:07:04,079 --> 01:07:10,599
one second because I'm starting my timer
here. Okay, I'm ready, Jay.

855
01:07:10,760 --> 01:07:14,719
So you said that you're wondering where
did I get this idea that the

856
01:07:14,760 --> 01:07:18,079
divine essence is a universal So let
me read you from your good friend doctor

857
01:07:18,079 --> 01:07:24,880
Bo Branson and his PhD dissertation on
page one sixty eight on the section four

858
01:07:24,920 --> 01:07:30,119
point two point one USSII and Hypothesis
in Gregory of Nissa on Universals, Richard

859
01:07:30,199 --> 01:07:35,519
Cross argues persuasively in my view,
that Saint Gregory and Saint Basil both used

860
01:07:35,519 --> 01:07:42,760
the term usia synonymously with nature,
and they conceive of this as a universal.

861
01:07:43,039 --> 01:07:45,599
And then in the rest of the
section he goes on to explain just

862
01:07:45,760 --> 01:07:51,320
that that the divine essence is conceived
of as a universal by the Cappadocians.

863
01:07:51,559 --> 01:07:54,760
So what do you have to say
in response to your buddy saying that,

864
01:07:55,159 --> 01:07:59,360
yeah, the zach Kuber book actually
treats this, that the notion of universal

865
01:08:00,039 --> 01:08:02,960
evolves over time between the way the
cabin Doosians use it in the way that

866
01:08:02,960 --> 01:08:08,719
the post Chalcedonian Fathers use it up
in the John Damascus, in Saint Maximus.

867
01:08:09,039 --> 01:08:14,559
So what's relevant for our debate in
terms of human universals is not whether

868
01:08:14,639 --> 01:08:17,840
or not God's essence is common,
but whether or not there are created universals.

869
01:08:17,840 --> 01:08:21,640
So that's what I was talking.
But my question, my question is

870
01:08:21,680 --> 01:08:27,119
does bo Branson believe in this passage
and what he argues for in his dissertation

871
01:08:27,399 --> 01:08:30,560
that the divine essence is a universal? Yes or no? You're equivocating on

872
01:08:30,600 --> 01:08:34,279
the term universal. Does he say
that the divine essence is a universal?

873
01:08:34,479 --> 01:08:39,840
You're equivocating on the term universal.
Okay, so you want to you want

874
01:08:39,880 --> 01:08:42,840
to move on, I'm going to
move universe only has one. I'm going

875
01:08:42,880 --> 01:08:45,199
to move on because it's it only
has one sc It's clear to the audience

876
01:08:45,239 --> 01:08:48,600
that you can't say that. Now
let's move on to the LPT. You

877
01:08:48,680 --> 01:08:55,079
claim that I am counting by division
within God. Explain how I'm counting by

878
01:08:55,119 --> 01:09:00,279
division within God? When you use
the term insufarable, I use the term

879
01:09:00,359 --> 01:09:06,439
inseparable means that I'm separation. Well
am I using that to count? Well?

880
01:09:06,479 --> 01:09:12,439
You said that the attributes are inseparable
exactly, But how many attributes are

881
01:09:12,439 --> 01:09:15,720
there? Are there one or money? Well? Is God's essence one?

882
01:09:17,199 --> 01:09:21,319
How many attributes are there? One
or many? According to my position?

883
01:09:21,800 --> 01:09:26,640
You have believe many? Okay,
there are many, and yet they're inseparable.

884
01:09:27,000 --> 01:09:30,920
So if they're inseparable from each other
and there's many, how am I

885
01:09:30,039 --> 01:09:33,520
counting by division? Genius? No, in terms of the essence, you

886
01:09:33,520 --> 01:09:36,439
count by division by saying that it's
one. Oh, there's one essence.

887
01:09:38,439 --> 01:09:44,760
That's where where is it? Where
is there accounting by division? There is

888
01:09:44,800 --> 01:09:46,520
none? Okay, exactly. It
doesn't mean that you're It doesn't mean that

889
01:09:46,560 --> 01:09:54,439
you're saying huge. It doesn't mean
you don't even understand the basics of this

890
01:09:54,520 --> 01:09:58,960
conversation. Let's do about let's let's
let's move on. You don't understand the

891
01:09:59,319 --> 01:10:03,399
now, let's get to some other
issues. What is the difference between tefweed

892
01:10:03,479 --> 01:10:09,159
and manna and tea. I don't
know your terms. You don't know,

893
01:10:10,079 --> 01:10:13,760
so you have no idea what that
means. Okay, and yet you think

894
01:10:13,800 --> 01:10:21,000
you're able to critique our position when
these are basic terms. Exactly. No,

895
01:10:21,079 --> 01:10:26,079
But even when I'm critiquing the trinity, I'm aware of the basic terms

896
01:10:26,359 --> 01:10:30,359
of what a hypostasis is. That
is, I'm under I understand the basics.

897
01:10:32,279 --> 01:10:35,039
This is a debate about the fact
that you're ignorant of our tradition.

898
01:10:35,119 --> 01:10:40,039
Thank you very much. Now let's
move on to next And let's move on

899
01:10:40,079 --> 01:10:44,720
to the next question. Why is
it problematic to believe that the persons are

900
01:10:44,720 --> 01:10:47,720
identical to the essence as Thomas aquinas
in many Catholics hold. Why is that

901
01:10:47,760 --> 01:10:54,560
problematic because it basically ends up in
reducing person to nature, and it would

902
01:10:54,560 --> 01:11:00,279
be modalism. Okay, So would
you consider that position heretical, Yeah,

903
01:11:00,319 --> 01:11:03,760
if you mean identity in the sense
of reductionist identity. Okay. So the

904
01:11:03,840 --> 01:11:08,840
trinity, if you conceive of when
you say the Father is God, that

905
01:11:08,880 --> 01:11:13,880
the Father is identical to God,
would you agree that that's logically problematic because

906
01:11:13,880 --> 01:11:17,000
then it would follow that the Father
is identical to the Son. Well,

907
01:11:17,119 --> 01:11:21,239
identity can be the sense of is
an identity or a predication? Yeah,

908
01:11:21,239 --> 01:11:26,079
I'm saying, and the Catholics make
it explicit. There's there's no difference between

909
01:11:26,079 --> 01:11:30,079
the person and the nature in terms
of the Tonists, So they say the

910
01:11:30,159 --> 01:11:33,840
Father is identical to the nature or
essence, and so are the Son in

911
01:11:33,840 --> 01:11:39,239
the Holy Spirit, which, by
the logic of identity, would follow that

912
01:11:39,319 --> 01:11:42,319
the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are identical to each other. Do

913
01:11:42,359 --> 01:11:45,800
you agree with that critique that you
could make that argument. That's why I

914
01:11:45,800 --> 01:11:50,239
said modalism. You know, yes, I do know. You're just asking

915
01:11:51,800 --> 01:11:56,000
no because I want to. I
want you to be more explicit, but

916
01:11:56,079 --> 01:11:59,119
I'm supposed to ask questions, not
you. Thank you very much. Now,

917
01:11:59,159 --> 01:12:02,439
how many persons are there in the
trinity three? Are they separated by

918
01:12:02,439 --> 01:12:06,920
time or space? No, So
you count the persons by identity and not

919
01:12:08,000 --> 01:12:13,560
division, right? Correct? Okay? Does God have one eternal attribute or

920
01:12:13,680 --> 01:12:17,520
energy or more than one? More
than one? Are his eternal attributes separated

921
01:12:17,520 --> 01:12:21,520
from each other by time or space? No? Okay, so you count

922
01:12:21,560 --> 01:12:28,920
the attributes by identity and not division, right? Correct? Okay, So

923
01:12:29,000 --> 01:12:31,720
if we count gods in the trinity
by the same method of identity, how

924
01:12:31,720 --> 01:12:38,279
many gods would we count depends on
what God picks out. If we're talking

925
01:12:38,319 --> 01:12:43,560
about the persons three, So there
would be three gods if we counted by

926
01:12:43,600 --> 01:12:47,880
identity and the same method that we
count the attributes are eternal energies and the

927
01:12:47,920 --> 01:12:55,399
person's correct, right, Okay,
your friend Bo Banson said, Okay,

928
01:12:55,439 --> 01:12:57,920
so your friend, so there would
be three little g gods. Thank you.

929
01:12:57,920 --> 01:13:00,680
Your friend Bo Branson says that today
we count by identity, So that

930
01:13:00,720 --> 01:13:04,159
would mean by the standard way in
which we count today, there would be

931
01:13:04,199 --> 01:13:09,279
three gods in the trinity. Correct. The way that we count today is

932
01:13:09,279 --> 01:13:14,520
talking about post frago. Okay,
So I'm gonna quo what he says.

933
01:13:14,560 --> 01:13:18,079
I'm gonna quote what So today we
count want to answer it the day we

934
01:13:18,119 --> 01:13:20,680
count No, I'm answering. I'm
going to give you more you're answering.

935
01:13:20,880 --> 01:13:27,239
You're answering today as the question,
we count f's by one logical subjects that

936
01:13:27,279 --> 01:13:30,439
are discernible from or at least not
identical to one another, and our F

937
01:13:30,800 --> 01:13:34,279
that is X and y orff.
If X and Y are different in any

938
01:13:34,279 --> 01:13:38,880
way and are both fish, we
count them as two f's. So that's

939
01:13:38,880 --> 01:13:43,720
in his explanation that we count today
by identity. Yet you're quoting these other

940
01:13:43,760 --> 01:13:47,279
sources, which is not even my
argument. My argument is that you're inconsistent

941
01:13:47,319 --> 01:13:53,439
in your methodology. So do you
have if you think no, no,

942
01:13:53,439 --> 01:13:59,119
no, it's not about one counting
what is already I got to I've got

943
01:13:59,119 --> 01:14:01,640
to see if you can ask a
question, Jake, just to keep it

944
01:14:01,640 --> 01:14:04,000
as strict as well, I'm gonna
ask you a question, what is the

945
01:14:04,159 --> 01:14:10,199
justification or argument for why we must
count persons and attributes in God by identity

946
01:14:10,399 --> 01:14:14,520
but count God's by another method other
than simply trying to avoid that you're a

947
01:14:14,520 --> 01:14:17,920
polytheist. By the example that I
gave from first order and second order in

948
01:14:18,000 --> 01:14:21,960
position in the way that all of
the ancient world counted, So there is

949
01:14:23,000 --> 01:14:28,439
no justification. You're not asking why
we count the attributes and the persons by

950
01:14:28,479 --> 01:14:32,479
identity, but we count because different
things, because what you can't understand is

951
01:14:32,520 --> 01:14:40,760
a different I'll give you exactly I
got you. I'll give you a chance

952
01:14:40,840 --> 01:14:43,039
to answer the question, j and
then I've got to wrap us up.

953
01:14:44,199 --> 01:14:45,520
Can I answer what he asked?
He just talked the all time, and

954
01:14:45,520 --> 01:14:48,000
then let me answer. You can
answer, You can answer the last question

955
01:14:48,000 --> 01:14:53,199
he asked. Yeah, so different
things are counted in different ways. That's

956
01:14:53,319 --> 01:14:57,479
what I argued. And I argue
that from my opening statement, your argument

957
01:14:57,560 --> 01:15:00,479
hinges on only counting in one way, and you're taken out of context the

958
01:15:00,479 --> 01:15:05,199
fact that doctor Branson said that most
people today post Frega think of counting in

959
01:15:05,239 --> 01:15:09,159
one way, when this is a
dispute about the way the people in the

960
01:15:09,199 --> 01:15:13,920
ancient medieval world counted, which is
not by strictly by identity. We'll jump

961
01:15:13,920 --> 01:15:18,079
into the seven minutes of Jay interrogating
Jake. The floor is all yours,

962
01:15:18,199 --> 01:15:23,640
Jay, Jake, you said that
you do have you're happy to affirm this

963
01:15:23,720 --> 01:15:30,119
sort of empiricist nominalist position, and
that seems to necessitate the idea that all

964
01:15:30,159 --> 01:15:34,600
of the knowledge that we have comes
from either sense data or relations of ideas.

965
01:15:35,000 --> 01:15:40,079
I'm just curious if you think that
the peripatetic axiom itself is found in

966
01:15:40,159 --> 01:15:43,399
sense data. That's not my position. When did I ever say that I'm

967
01:15:43,399 --> 01:15:46,600
an empiricist. Well, if you're
a nominalist, you're an empiricist. How

968
01:15:46,640 --> 01:15:53,159
does that follow? Well, so
you disagree with what most people in your

969
01:15:53,159 --> 01:15:59,319
tradition. No, so you're not
an impurist. I'm not an empiricist by

970
01:15:59,359 --> 01:16:01,600
the standard you just laid out.
Well, so you don't think the knowledge

971
01:16:01,600 --> 01:16:04,920
comes from sense data. I do, but I don't think it's limited to

972
01:16:04,960 --> 01:16:08,520
sense data. I didn't limit it
to that, I said. Also,

973
01:16:09,119 --> 01:16:12,199
I said relations of ideas. Yeah, I don't think it's limited to those

974
01:16:12,199 --> 01:16:14,880
two. Okay, where else do
we? Where else does knowledge come from?

975
01:16:15,720 --> 01:16:18,279
And that is what do you know
what it is? No? I

976
01:16:18,279 --> 01:16:21,399
don't. That's why I asked you. Okay, well, similar kind of

977
01:16:21,439 --> 01:16:27,880
similar to your concept of the news. So direct perception of God? Yes,

978
01:16:28,800 --> 01:16:31,039
how do you directly perceive God?
As given to me? It says

979
01:16:31,039 --> 01:16:36,680
God cannot be seen? What do
you mean he says God cannot be seen?

980
01:16:36,720 --> 01:16:43,119
Of course God can be seen.
How can God be seen? How

981
01:16:43,159 --> 01:16:46,920
can God be seen? I guess
Jay, you're not familiar with That's why

982
01:16:47,000 --> 01:16:54,960
we're asking you. We're asking you
that I'm asking you, and yes,

983
01:16:55,000 --> 01:16:58,199
he is. It's showing that your
ignorance, that you don't even know.

984
01:17:00,000 --> 01:17:01,680
I think I'm ignorant. So that's
why you get. You get the chance

985
01:17:01,720 --> 01:17:05,439
to enlighten us. I'm trying to
soldier. If you slow down, Soldier,

986
01:17:05,479 --> 01:17:11,479
I will yes the eyes. If
you allow me to talk, I'll

987
01:17:11,479 --> 01:17:15,199
tell you by the beatific vision.
We believe in the afterlife that we do

988
01:17:15,279 --> 01:17:18,640
see God with the eyes? Correct, has anybody in this life seen God?

989
01:17:19,119 --> 01:17:23,560
No? Does God have a physical
with the eyes? Not with the

990
01:17:23,600 --> 01:17:27,640
eyes? Does God have a physical
form? Define what you mean by physical

991
01:17:28,199 --> 01:17:30,640
the body parts that are listed.
We don't believe God has body parts?

992
01:17:30,680 --> 01:17:34,920
Now, well, you believe he
has a foot, right, we believe,

993
01:17:35,000 --> 01:17:38,119
Yes, we do believe he has
a foot. We believe his hand.

994
01:17:38,239 --> 01:17:42,399
What is a foot that's nothing like
a created foot? What is a

995
01:17:42,439 --> 01:17:45,840
foot that's nothing like a created foot? The same thing, the same thing

996
01:17:45,920 --> 01:17:49,000
that an essence is, that's nothing
like a created essence. Yeah, but

997
01:17:49,039 --> 01:17:55,640
our argument is not based on analogy
for essence, I'm saying that any predicate

998
01:17:55,680 --> 01:17:59,640
that we ascribe to God in creation, there is a similarity in meaning.

999
01:18:00,079 --> 01:18:02,840
But it doesn't follow from that that
there what's that? What's that similarity meaning?

1000
01:18:03,680 --> 01:18:08,560
Let me finish, does not follow
from that that there is a similarity

1001
01:18:08,720 --> 01:18:12,600
in ontology, which I completely I
understand. No, I understand that that's

1002
01:18:12,640 --> 01:18:14,920
the to me a position. So
I'm asking, what is this, what's

1003
01:18:14,920 --> 01:18:17,680
the problem with it? What is
the similarity? What is the similarity in

1004
01:18:17,760 --> 01:18:20,800
terms of the meaning, and what
is that you're just saying? Meaning?

1005
01:18:20,920 --> 01:18:25,159
What is so? We know it
based on the text. So if you

1006
01:18:25,199 --> 01:18:27,840
go to the example, if you
go to the example, is all that

1007
01:18:27,920 --> 01:18:31,600
empirical derived? If you if you
allow me to finish, if you go

1008
01:18:31,720 --> 01:18:36,640
to the text that describe the yed
or the foot, for example, the

1009
01:18:36,720 --> 01:18:43,600
hands are described as being responsible for
directly creating Adam. So this is how

1010
01:18:43,680 --> 01:18:48,319
we understand the meanings of the text
attributes in context. So you reference another

1011
01:18:48,359 --> 01:18:55,239
created object, right, what's the
creative object the text? Now, the

1012
01:18:55,279 --> 01:18:58,560
text is not created. The text
that you read is created. Right,

1013
01:18:59,279 --> 01:19:01,399
the papers and the ink is yeah, exactly, that's the papers. The

1014
01:19:01,439 --> 01:19:04,720
papers in the ink. But the
words are called the text. I know

1015
01:19:04,760 --> 01:19:08,359
you're talking about the eternal Krean.
That's not what I'm talking I'm not talking

1016
01:19:08,359 --> 01:19:10,600
about. I don't even believe in
an eternal Koran. What are you talking

1017
01:19:10,600 --> 01:19:15,600
about? So the text that you
derived that knowledge from is empirical, right,

1018
01:19:16,600 --> 01:19:19,760
the text that I derived I don't
understand that. Yeah, you don't

1019
01:19:19,800 --> 01:19:23,520
understand the question exactly, No,
I don't. It doesn't make any sense.

1020
01:19:23,840 --> 01:19:28,000
Yeah, you think I believe you
don't empirically read the You don't empirically

1021
01:19:28,000 --> 01:19:30,720
read the Krin? Yes we do. That was the question I asked you.

1022
01:19:30,720 --> 01:19:32,920
So you do we read? You
did understand it. You just didn't

1023
01:19:32,920 --> 01:19:35,359
want to ask You didn't want to
answer. You understood them. No,

1024
01:19:38,279 --> 01:19:43,720
you're to ask you appropriate questions.
I asked you that, Yeah, you

1025
01:19:43,760 --> 01:19:45,720
think I believe in an eternal Kuran? Where does it say that in the

1026
01:19:45,720 --> 01:19:49,560
book you read? I'm asking you
about your empiricism what you don't want to

1027
01:19:49,600 --> 01:19:54,079
talk about? And you said that
very What is a created foot? What

1028
01:19:54,159 --> 01:19:56,800
is that? What is a foot
that's nothing like a created foot? And

1029
01:19:56,840 --> 01:19:59,319
I explained it to you? Did
I explained it to you? I said,

1030
01:19:59,319 --> 01:20:03,159
I said no to these texts.
I said, known through the text

1031
01:20:03,760 --> 01:20:08,239
right, which is a circle of
empirical sense data, which is what I'm

1032
01:20:08,279 --> 01:20:11,560
asking you. What's what's the circle? How do we know? How do

1033
01:20:11,640 --> 01:20:15,600
we know to another empirical piece of
data, to another empirical piece of data.

1034
01:20:15,640 --> 01:20:18,399
You can never get out of this
loop. That's why that's a problem

1035
01:20:18,399 --> 01:20:21,279
for empiricism. No, it's not, because it's the same thing when it

1036
01:20:21,319 --> 01:20:30,159
comes to divine revelation according to the
Orthodox how do you know about it's do

1037
01:20:30,199 --> 01:20:36,319
you know about trinity? You know
about the moderator, he doesn't answer the

1038
01:20:36,399 --> 01:20:45,119
questions you're complaining to the one second
hold on, I asked, I can

1039
01:20:45,159 --> 01:20:49,359
answer the questions. However, James, I'm asking. I asked about his

1040
01:20:49,479 --> 01:20:54,079
position, and he said your view
of divine revelation. That's a two quot

1041
01:20:54,119 --> 01:20:57,560
way. I'm asking about his position, which he won't explain, Okay,

1042
01:20:57,640 --> 01:21:01,000
James, whether or not my response
as a fallacy is for the audience to

1043
01:21:01,079 --> 01:21:06,359
decide. Moderators are I can?
I can, and I can answer,

1044
01:21:06,359 --> 01:21:12,560
and I can say you're not answering, I can, I can. I

1045
01:21:12,560 --> 01:21:15,800
can give any answer I want.
Yeah, exactly minutes left in the section

1046
01:21:15,960 --> 01:21:20,479
I can give, which is what
you're doing exactly. I'm answering your question.

1047
01:21:20,560 --> 01:21:25,800
You just don't like the answer,
saying anything, Just one last,

1048
01:21:26,039 --> 01:21:29,319
one last, just to be sure
I understand the question, Jay, if

1049
01:21:29,359 --> 01:21:31,439
you can ask you more time for
me? Right? So I asked for

1050
01:21:31,640 --> 01:21:35,680
his basis for knowing what the Koran
teaches, which is empirical sense data.

1051
01:21:35,920 --> 01:21:39,479
And I'm trying to get at the
point that he can never get out of

1052
01:21:39,520 --> 01:21:43,359
the domain, the veil of empirical
sense data to ever actually know anything about

1053
01:21:43,359 --> 01:21:46,640
a law himself, because much like
the Tomas position, he's stuck in only

1054
01:21:46,720 --> 01:21:50,840
seeing and interacting with creative effects.
So I'm trying to figure out He says,

1055
01:21:50,840 --> 01:21:55,680
well, in the future there will
be this direct perception of Allah in

1056
01:21:55,720 --> 01:21:58,720
the beativic vision, and I'm asking
about the here and the now, how

1057
01:21:58,720 --> 01:22:00,960
do you ever get out of the
box of the challenge of human skepticism.

1058
01:22:01,119 --> 01:22:05,680
Yeah, and I'm saying that we
have a direct possession, a direct experience

1059
01:22:05,720 --> 01:22:10,800
of God right now through the concept
of the fit thraw, which I explained.

1060
01:22:10,960 --> 01:22:13,359
But since you don't even know what
it is, it's no surprise that

1061
01:22:13,399 --> 01:22:16,279
you don't explain what it is.
So you're just I did I gave you

1062
01:22:16,359 --> 01:22:21,960
a corollary within orthodox theology, where
I explained that it's similar to the concept

1063
01:22:23,000 --> 01:22:28,119
of news, where there is a
direct experience direct no no, no no

1064
01:22:28,279 --> 01:22:30,840
no, yes you did no no
no. You're confusing a scene God with

1065
01:22:30,920 --> 01:22:35,560
a direct experience of God. Those
are not the same thing. Yes,

1066
01:22:35,600 --> 01:22:41,399
there's a direct experience of God right
now. That is not through some inferential

1067
01:22:41,479 --> 01:22:45,359
process. It's not based on argumentation. But we are at the end of

1068
01:22:45,399 --> 01:22:48,199
the seven minutes for that section.
We might have to come back to this

1069
01:22:48,800 --> 01:22:54,399
and the next set, but sure, I have the clock set for seven

1070
01:22:54,479 --> 01:22:59,800
minutes for you, Jake to interpret
j Okay, give me one second interrogate,

1071
01:23:00,199 --> 01:23:03,880
interpret it. Well, I got
to interpret what he's saying. But

1072
01:23:03,960 --> 01:23:13,039
hold on a second. Let me
just get my thing here. Okay,

1073
01:23:13,119 --> 01:23:16,439
all right, I'm ready whenever you
are. James ready, Okay, all

1074
01:23:16,520 --> 01:23:20,800
right, Jay, we're back at
it again. Let's go to the next

1075
01:23:20,840 --> 01:23:30,239
issue. All right, How many
men are on this stage right now between

1076
01:23:30,359 --> 01:23:34,640
Jake, James and Jay. None, because we're not on a stage.

1077
01:23:35,239 --> 01:23:42,039
Okay, on this platform, three
there's three men? Okay, how come

1078
01:23:42,119 --> 01:23:46,079
you don't count the same way in
which Gregory of this accounts Peter James and

1079
01:23:46,159 --> 01:23:50,399
John three men in his work on
not three Gods when he says that there's

1080
01:23:50,439 --> 01:23:55,680
only one man, because I already
explained different things are counted different ways,

1081
01:23:55,720 --> 01:24:00,399
and you're counting three men as saying
there three men, but Gregory of Nisa

1082
01:24:00,399 --> 01:24:03,359
accounts them as one man. Well, they're one in terms of nature,

1083
01:24:04,920 --> 01:24:11,119
and Gregory says that it's more appropriate
to call them one man, and that

1084
01:24:11,279 --> 01:24:15,920
actually our way of calling them three
men is incorrect, so it's better to

1085
01:24:15,319 --> 01:24:19,239
change that than to call the persons
of the Trinity three gods. That's his

1086
01:24:19,399 --> 01:24:24,840
entire argument. So by you saying
that there's three men here, you're actually

1087
01:24:24,920 --> 01:24:28,840
disagreeing. No, it's just two
different senses of the same word, which

1088
01:24:28,840 --> 01:24:32,520
you constantly equivocate on. Okay.
Richard Cartwright says on this passage, it

1089
01:24:32,560 --> 01:24:36,119
seems to have been left to Gregory
of Nissa, Basil's younger brother, to

1090
01:24:36,239 --> 01:24:42,800
notice that thus understood consumstantiality of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears to

1091
01:24:42,960 --> 01:24:48,119
license saying that there are three gods. Gregory himself rather desperately suggested that strictly

1092
01:24:48,199 --> 01:24:53,479
speaking, there is only one man. So do you agree that there's three

1093
01:24:53,520 --> 01:24:58,720
men on this platform or one.
There's one man, there's one human nature.

1094
01:24:58,880 --> 01:25:00,239
In that sense, man can be
pick out nature, which is a

1095
01:25:00,279 --> 01:25:05,640
common thing, and there's three men
as individuated. Okay, Gregory says about

1096
01:25:05,680 --> 01:25:10,439
the logical problem of the Trinity,
He says, this question, which was

1097
01:25:10,520 --> 01:25:15,039
asked to him by another bishop,
is very difficult to deal with. If

1098
01:25:15,039 --> 01:25:18,479
we should be able to find anything
that may give support to the uncertainty of

1099
01:25:18,520 --> 01:25:23,399
our mind, so that it may
longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma,

1100
01:25:23,640 --> 01:25:26,720
it would be well. On the
other hand, even if our reasoning

1101
01:25:26,840 --> 01:25:31,000
found unequal to the problem, we
must keep forever firm and unmoved the tradition

1102
01:25:31,159 --> 01:25:35,560
with which we received by succession from
the fathers. So Gregory is saying that

1103
01:25:35,600 --> 01:25:41,039
the problem is difficult. Do you
agree with that? Depending upon how you

1104
01:25:41,079 --> 01:25:44,520
cash it out. If you think
that the logical problem of trinity is identical

1105
01:25:44,560 --> 01:25:48,000
to the Aryan disputes, then you're
engaging in anacronism. This isn't about an

1106
01:25:48,159 --> 01:25:53,399
Aryan dispute. This is specifically where
he sets up the problem in his work

1107
01:25:53,479 --> 01:25:58,199
on not Three Gods and responding to
a blabbyist, where he's asking him,

1108
01:25:58,359 --> 01:26:01,680
well, we say to your Father's
son, holy Spirit or each god forbid.

1109
01:26:01,920 --> 01:26:05,279
We forbid men to say that there
are three gods. So this is

1110
01:26:05,319 --> 01:26:10,720
the very problem of tritheism. No, we forget, we forbid three gods?

1111
01:26:10,720 --> 01:26:13,920
If you mean three natures? Okay, so here we go. Next

1112
01:26:14,039 --> 01:26:17,119
question, do you understand you?
According to you, the Father has the

1113
01:26:17,279 --> 01:26:23,159
power to cause another divine person and
alone causes the Son and the Holy spir

1114
01:26:23,600 --> 01:26:27,479
already answer this, or the son? Do the Son and Holy Spirit have

1115
01:26:27,600 --> 01:26:31,920
the power to cause another divine person? You're equivocating on power. Power is

1116
01:26:31,960 --> 01:26:34,680
not an energy? Do the son? I didn't ask about energy? Do

1117
01:26:34,800 --> 01:26:40,359
the Son? And Holism is saying
that, do the Son and Holy Spirit

1118
01:26:40,439 --> 01:26:45,000
have the ability to cause another divine
person? Causing a divine person is not

1119
01:26:45,079 --> 01:26:48,319
an energy. Do they have the
ability to cause another divine person? No?

1120
01:26:48,840 --> 01:26:53,039
Okay, they don't. Thank you. If no, then do they

1121
01:26:53,039 --> 01:26:58,439
have the same power? That's only
if power is viewed as an energy.

1122
01:26:58,600 --> 01:27:01,000
And I just argue that the power
that we're talking about here is not really

1123
01:27:01,239 --> 01:27:05,079
correctly called power. It's called begetting. Okay, But it has to do

1124
01:27:05,199 --> 01:27:10,000
with an action, doesn't it.
Well, it's act in a different sense

1125
01:27:10,039 --> 01:27:14,920
than energy, and that's what athens. Yeah, I'm not asking about energy.

1126
01:27:15,359 --> 01:27:21,359
I'm asking about the argument. What
power is what an agent is able

1127
01:27:21,439 --> 01:27:25,680
to do? Do you agree powers? No, there's multiple senses to the

1128
01:27:25,680 --> 01:27:29,039
word power. Okay, so when
I say that God is all powerful,

1129
01:27:29,359 --> 01:27:32,520
I mean that he can do whatever
is medical first, actuality, second actuality.

1130
01:27:32,560 --> 01:27:41,000
And there's a let me finish.
I didn't ask you a question yet,

1131
01:27:40,279 --> 01:27:45,399
I'm explaining to explaining to you what
the understanding of power is I'm giving.

1132
01:27:45,880 --> 01:27:49,760
Don't you don't know that. You
don't know my definition of power.

1133
01:27:49,960 --> 01:27:58,239
I don't my definition. My definition
of power is whatever whatever a being can

1134
01:27:58,279 --> 01:28:04,079
possibly do. Now I'm asking does
the son have the same ability to do

1135
01:28:04,159 --> 01:28:09,199
whatever the father can do? Yes? Or no? It's it's equivocating on

1136
01:28:09,239 --> 01:28:13,800
the word power. I just gave
you the definition of power. That's your

1137
01:28:13,800 --> 01:28:17,479
definition. I don't exactly definition.
So you understand that every argument that you

1138
01:28:17,520 --> 01:28:21,479
make where you reduce words to having
a single definition, just restate your position.

1139
01:28:21,640 --> 01:28:25,680
So that's why it doesn't. It
doesn't. Oh, it doesn't because

1140
01:28:25,720 --> 01:28:30,399
the capsule you're not interested in our
This might be a good opportunity to it

1141
01:28:30,399 --> 01:28:32,720
could be that, h Jay,
if you want to answer it according to

1142
01:28:32,760 --> 01:28:35,680
your own definition of power, and
you can share that definition and then if

1143
01:28:35,680 --> 01:28:42,600
you're willing to humor Jake's question using
Jake's definition of power. Right, So

1144
01:28:42,720 --> 01:28:45,840
Jake wants a single definition of what
power is according to what he says it

1145
01:28:45,920 --> 01:28:49,119
is, and if he's going to
critique our position, then it needs to

1146
01:28:49,159 --> 01:28:55,479
be our understanding of first actuality,
second actuality, which we ascribe to God.

1147
01:28:55,520 --> 01:28:59,319
And there's different senses to power.
I can have power as a potentiality

1148
01:28:59,319 --> 01:29:01,760
that I possess that I don't actualize. I could also have power as an

1149
01:29:01,800 --> 01:29:09,439
actualized energy that I'm engaging in or
sometimes in the sense of Athanasians talking about

1150
01:29:09,439 --> 01:29:13,079
the Father begetting. He says,
you could call this an act, but

1151
01:29:13,119 --> 01:29:15,439
it's not acting the same way that
God has a triad act in terms of

1152
01:29:15,439 --> 01:29:21,520
the energies. So Jake's argument hinges
on reducing the word act to having one

1153
01:29:21,560 --> 01:29:25,279
sense in God, and we simply
don't have that view. Okay, that's

1154
01:29:25,319 --> 01:29:28,359
not my argument, but let's move
on. That's what you argue. Let's

1155
01:29:28,399 --> 01:29:31,239
move on to the next question here. You're moving on because it doesn't work,

1156
01:29:31,279 --> 01:29:35,239
does the Father No, because you've
already been refuted, does the does

1157
01:29:35,239 --> 01:29:42,279
the Father have the ability to become
incarnate? We're not told that, so

1158
01:29:42,359 --> 01:29:45,680
you don't know. You're agnostic on
the proposition. Well, there's nothing about

1159
01:29:45,720 --> 01:29:46,920
that, so there's no one I'm
asking you, do you know about it

1160
01:29:47,039 --> 01:29:50,359
or not? Can the Father become
a garnet? So you're not even letting

1161
01:29:50,359 --> 01:29:55,000
me answer, you're just immediately putting
off. I just simply said, there's

1162
01:29:55,000 --> 01:29:58,640
not any information about that. And
the way that Jesus speaks is that no

1163
01:29:58,640 --> 01:30:00,159
one has seen the Father at any
time, so there's no incarnation of them.

1164
01:30:00,359 --> 01:30:03,800
Okay, So people have interpreted.
John of Damascus is arguing that the

1165
01:30:03,840 --> 01:30:09,680
Father cannot be incarnate when he says
in his Exposition of Orthodox Faith Book four,

1166
01:30:10,159 --> 01:30:13,399
the Father is the Father and not
the Son. The Son is son

1167
01:30:13,439 --> 01:30:16,000
and not father. The Holy Spirit
is spirit and not father or son or

1168
01:30:16,079 --> 01:30:21,199
father or son. For the individuality
is unchangeable. How indeed could the individuality

1169
01:30:21,239 --> 01:30:26,720
continue to exist at all if it
were ever changing and altering? Wherefore,

1170
01:30:26,760 --> 01:30:30,680
the Son of God became son of
man in order that his individuality might endure.

1171
01:30:30,840 --> 01:30:35,439
So he's arguing that this must include
that the Son only can become incarnate

1172
01:30:35,600 --> 01:30:41,039
in order for the individuality of the
distinctions between the persons. So do you

1173
01:30:41,079 --> 01:30:45,520
agree with that interpretation the individual?
Jay? And then we've actually just hit

1174
01:30:45,600 --> 01:30:47,399
the seven minutes. I'm just asking
do you agree with that interpretation? That's

1175
01:30:47,439 --> 01:30:53,159
all? It's the individuality of the
persons as known by us, So has

1176
01:30:53,199 --> 01:30:58,319
not the incarnation? Is not what
lets us know or what conditions the distinctions

1177
01:30:58,319 --> 01:31:01,359
and the triad. We'll kick it
over to Jay for his seven minutes to

1178
01:31:01,560 --> 01:31:06,960
interrogate Jake before is yours? Jake? Earlier when you were talking about your

1179
01:31:08,039 --> 01:31:12,479
view of epistemology and whatnot, do
you agree with the position of even to

1180
01:31:12,600 --> 01:31:15,319
me as related on page one ninety
six of the Seleman book, that the

1181
01:31:15,520 --> 01:31:21,119
principles of reasoning are self evident truths. I would have to look at the

1182
01:31:21,159 --> 01:31:27,079
reference, but define self evident,
not relying on anything else to be the

1183
01:31:27,079 --> 01:31:32,960
case, I believe that they are
known directly through the fitthron And that is

1184
01:31:33,000 --> 01:31:39,600
what what I explained before, similar
to the what is what I said I

1185
01:31:39,640 --> 01:31:44,079
explained it before? Similar to the
noose Okay, So every individual in an

1186
01:31:44,119 --> 01:31:47,159
inner sense just knows self evidently that
what the law of logic is true,

1187
01:31:47,199 --> 01:31:51,600
The laws of logic are truth.
He knows that certain principles, like that

1188
01:31:53,079 --> 01:31:56,479
half is less than a whole.
He knows these things directly, not through

1189
01:31:56,520 --> 01:32:00,119
some type of inference. So are
they self evident? Self evident only in

1190
01:32:00,159 --> 01:32:04,760
the sense that he knows them directly
through the fittra. Okay, so they

1191
01:32:04,760 --> 01:32:09,680
don't. They're not from an inference, so they don't rely So they don't

1192
01:32:09,680 --> 01:32:15,039
rely on anything else to be true. They rely on God to exist to

1193
01:32:15,199 --> 01:32:17,680
create us with that faith. I
don't know that that's the case yet,

1194
01:32:17,720 --> 01:32:20,760
So you do you do believe they're
self evident? I know, I said,

1195
01:32:21,479 --> 01:32:27,239
they're not self evident in the sense
that you're to human perception. They're

1196
01:32:27,239 --> 01:32:30,319
not dependent on human perception. There
prior to the didn't say are they dependent?

1197
01:32:30,359 --> 01:32:32,920
I said, are they self evident
to human perception? Self evident in

1198
01:32:33,000 --> 01:32:39,319
the sense that they are known directly
through the fra as an apparatus. Okay,

1199
01:32:39,760 --> 01:32:44,319
So how do we adjudicate between the
things that are self evident and the

1200
01:32:44,359 --> 01:32:49,359
things that aren't. By the fact
of our existence, we know that,

1201
01:32:49,600 --> 01:32:54,319
for example, a half is greater
than a whole, and so that's a

1202
01:32:54,319 --> 01:32:57,520
fallacy. I mean, sorry,
a whole is greater than a half they're

1203
01:32:57,560 --> 01:33:02,319
appealing to. Existence doesn't justify the
truths. I explain to you how it's

1204
01:33:02,359 --> 01:33:09,640
because we know them directly through the
fit throw. So that's no, it

1205
01:33:09,680 --> 01:33:12,720
isn't. I explained how we know
them. You just said we know them

1206
01:33:13,159 --> 01:33:18,000
because we exist and experience them.
I said, I said that we experienced

1207
01:33:18,199 --> 01:33:24,600
them through the apparatus of the fit
throw, which God has created human beings

1208
01:33:24,640 --> 01:33:28,840
upon. Yeah, but how do
we know the difference between those and the

1209
01:33:28,840 --> 01:33:30,039
non self evident truth? Is what
I asked you? He said, by

1210
01:33:30,079 --> 01:33:34,039
existence, because they're self evident,
as you just said. Oh, so

1211
01:33:34,239 --> 01:33:38,960
now you do believe in self evidence
self evident in the sense that they're not

1212
01:33:39,159 --> 01:33:42,640
based upon inference. And how do
we know those distinct from the ones that

1213
01:33:42,680 --> 01:33:45,560
aren't, Because you know when you
make an inference and when you don't,

1214
01:33:45,600 --> 01:33:49,920
and if you don't, then know
reality is reality. So if you get

1215
01:33:50,199 --> 01:33:54,439
do you know the difference between when
you're making an inference? And I'm asking

1216
01:33:54,479 --> 01:33:58,439
you questions, not you exactly.
So I'm telling you we know the difference

1217
01:33:58,479 --> 01:34:00,800
between when we make an inference and
when we don't make an inference. Yeah,

1218
01:34:00,840 --> 01:34:04,640
but that's not answering the question.
I'm asked for the justification for the

1219
01:34:04,680 --> 01:34:09,560
division between the self referential and the
non self referential. What's the justification?

1220
01:34:09,760 --> 01:34:14,039
The justification is that the self referential, which you're talking about, the self

1221
01:34:14,039 --> 01:34:18,319
evident ones, do not rely upon
inference, where others they're self evident because

1222
01:34:18,319 --> 01:34:24,199
they're self evident. That's their self
evident, because they don't reply on inference.

1223
01:34:24,800 --> 01:34:30,159
And because when I make an argument, when I make an argument and

1224
01:34:30,199 --> 01:34:32,880
I appeal to an inference rule,
I know that I'm appealing to an inference

1225
01:34:32,960 --> 01:34:36,279
rule. So there's so that's a
circle. Jake, this is a basic

1226
01:34:36,279 --> 01:34:41,640
epistemology problem for your cicism. Do
you have a question, sir? Exactly,

1227
01:34:42,199 --> 01:34:44,880
you have a question. You're ready
for me to move on. I

1228
01:34:45,000 --> 01:34:46,359
know, I'm asking you if you
have a question, how do we know

1229
01:34:46,399 --> 01:34:51,560
the difference between the self referential?
Already answers already answered your question. You

1230
01:34:51,640 --> 01:34:56,399
just restated that we know. No, you said, how do we know

1231
01:34:56,479 --> 01:34:58,800
that their self? How do we
know the difference? How do we know

1232
01:34:59,119 --> 01:35:01,840
called the criteria problem? No,
how do we know it's called the criteria?

1233
01:35:02,319 --> 01:35:06,199
Are you familiar with the answering?
I'm not answering that I know what

1234
01:35:06,239 --> 01:35:11,760
the criterion problem is. That's my
point. I'm saying to you, that's

1235
01:35:11,800 --> 01:35:15,640
my question. I'm saying to you
that you're asking me, how do I

1236
01:35:15,680 --> 01:35:20,680
know the difference between what's self evident
and what is known? An inference between

1237
01:35:20,720 --> 01:35:26,479
what's not self evident, right,
and the opposite of not being self evident

1238
01:35:26,720 --> 01:35:30,119
is something that is known to So
you're in the criterion problem. It's it.

1239
01:35:32,479 --> 01:35:35,760
I've explained it three times. It's
very you explained it, but it's

1240
01:35:35,800 --> 01:35:39,760
not answering the criterion from you.
We don't know if you don't know the

1241
01:35:39,840 --> 01:35:43,479
difference. Do you know what the
criteria? I already answered that question.

1242
01:35:43,720 --> 01:35:47,399
Do you know what the problem is? I? Do you just explain the

1243
01:35:47,439 --> 01:35:50,800
problem? Moderator. He won't answer. Uh, do you know who's associated

1244
01:35:50,840 --> 01:35:56,399
with it? Who's associated with what? The criteria problem? It's a problem

1245
01:35:56,399 --> 01:36:00,720
in epistemology. Who's associated with it? I don't know who the So it's

1246
01:36:00,800 --> 01:36:03,119
David Chisholm. So how do you
answer their criteria problem? I'm giving you

1247
01:36:03,159 --> 01:36:06,199
an answer. I've been doing it
for the past five minutes, so you'll

1248
01:36:06,239 --> 01:36:14,319
notice. And he doesn't answer the
self evident because it's self evident. No,

1249
01:36:14,359 --> 01:36:16,439
I never said that, Never did
say that. Everybody heard him say

1250
01:36:16,439 --> 01:36:21,479
it's self evident because it exists.
And he said, how do we know?

1251
01:36:21,640 --> 01:36:28,279
And I said, we know it
through a divinely created apparatus. That's

1252
01:36:28,279 --> 01:36:31,199
how we know it. You don't
know this is your starting point. What

1253
01:36:31,279 --> 01:36:34,399
do you mean we're talking about starting
points. You're appealing to divine apparatuses.

1254
01:36:34,399 --> 01:36:39,319
I'm talking about the starting point.
No, I'm saying that that, according

1255
01:36:39,359 --> 01:36:44,319
to our epistemology, the fit thraw
is how we know these things, and

1256
01:36:44,359 --> 01:36:47,399
we know that because it's we're created
upon it. Yeah, but the question

1257
01:36:47,479 --> 01:36:49,960
is about do you know that you're
created that way? And you're just saying,

1258
01:36:49,960 --> 01:36:53,159
well, we're made that way.
That's my question. I'm saying we

1259
01:36:53,199 --> 01:36:57,119
know we're created because we have a
direct experience. No, I'm asking about

1260
01:36:57,199 --> 01:37:00,600
the principles of reason themselves. And
you said you believe in self evidence,

1261
01:37:00,640 --> 01:37:03,079
and then I said okay, And
then I asked you the criterion problem,

1262
01:37:03,199 --> 01:37:06,479
and you haven't answered the criterion problem. You keep talking around it. I've

1263
01:37:06,520 --> 01:37:12,800
answered your question, you have several
times. Your answer was circular. Explain

1264
01:37:12,880 --> 01:37:15,800
the circle because you said that,
well, I know it's self evident because

1265
01:37:15,800 --> 01:37:19,600
it's self evident. And when I'm
not doing something that's an inference, that's

1266
01:37:19,600 --> 01:37:23,600
not answering the criterion. Now you
asked, how how do I know it?

1267
01:37:23,640 --> 01:37:30,600
What's the justification? I asked,
you don't even understand the question question?

1268
01:37:30,640 --> 01:37:34,359
What is the justification for the for
the belief that you know the difference

1269
01:37:34,399 --> 01:37:39,279
between the self evident ones and the
non self evident ones. So the criteria

1270
01:37:39,319 --> 01:37:43,159
problem is saying that you have a
more fundamental criteria by which you cash out

1271
01:37:43,199 --> 01:37:45,319
these two different things and put them
into different classes. How do you know

1272
01:37:45,359 --> 01:37:50,399
that more fundamental Chisholm issue is what
I'm asking. Yeah, and I'm repeating

1273
01:37:50,479 --> 01:37:56,159
the same exact answer. We know
it based on the fact that we are

1274
01:37:56,239 --> 01:38:03,560
created by God with I experience circle. That doesn't That doesn't tell us,

1275
01:38:04,079 --> 01:38:08,760
Jake, that doesn't tell us we
know the fundamental criteria is the case.

1276
01:38:09,720 --> 01:38:12,199
We were out of time. We've
got to kick it over to Jake to

1277
01:38:12,279 --> 01:38:15,880
interrogate ja and this is our final
set. So we'll have one seven minute

1278
01:38:15,880 --> 01:38:24,560
section of Jake interrogating j and then
one last interrogation of j on Jake.

1279
01:38:25,000 --> 01:38:35,399
With that, Jake, the floor
is all yours. OK, sorry about

1280
01:38:35,399 --> 01:38:41,439
that. Just get my notes up
here. No, problem. Folks,

1281
01:38:41,520 --> 01:38:45,960
if you haven't yet, check out
our guests linked below. There's a value

1282
01:38:45,960 --> 01:38:49,119
in hearing their positions firsthand from them. This debate is a great introduction to

1283
01:38:49,159 --> 01:38:54,039
their views. But check out their
channels that includes the podcast. We've linked

1284
01:38:54,039 --> 01:38:59,239
both of our guests below. Okay, I'm ready, ready, Okay,

1285
01:38:59,359 --> 01:39:03,560
Jay? Do you have an argument
or justification for the claim that the Trinity

1286
01:39:03,680 --> 01:39:12,720
and Orthodox theology or the Orthodox Church
specifically is a precondition for rationality, intelligibility

1287
01:39:12,960 --> 01:39:15,840
and all the other transcendental categories?
Do you have an argument justification for that?

1288
01:39:16,439 --> 01:39:18,920
Yes? What is it? It's
a two parter or can I?

1289
01:39:19,079 --> 01:39:21,760
Can I explain it? Yeah?
Go ahead. So the first part is

1290
01:39:21,800 --> 01:39:26,600
that it's a reductio at absurdim argument. When you deny it, this is

1291
01:39:26,640 --> 01:39:30,439
called retortion and Aristotilian argumentation. And
the second part of the argument is to

1292
01:39:30,560 --> 01:39:36,920
posit the Christian worldview as the way
to ground the transcendental categories that are the

1293
01:39:36,960 --> 01:39:43,239
preconditions for all possible knowledge. Yeah, you're saying to posit them. Well,

1294
01:39:43,279 --> 01:39:48,800
what's the justification for the claim that
it is the only system that can

1295
01:39:48,840 --> 01:39:53,520
account for those things? Is there? You provide arguments or not retortion?

1296
01:39:53,840 --> 01:39:57,800
Correct the first. Okay, explain
what retortion is? Do you know,

1297
01:39:58,039 --> 01:40:00,560
you're Jake the Muslim metaphysician, know
what it is. But I've actually seen

1298
01:40:00,600 --> 01:40:05,800
in your I've actually seen in your
videos. You're not asking me questions.

1299
01:40:05,840 --> 01:40:12,199
I'm asking you questions. You've explained
in your videos that you critique the tomists

1300
01:40:12,520 --> 01:40:16,319
when they bring up the issue of
retortion. So can you explain it and

1301
01:40:16,520 --> 01:40:20,279
explain how when they use it?
They're not justified in doing so, but

1302
01:40:20,359 --> 01:40:26,079
you are because they're classical foundationalists like
you, And it's a REDUCTI organ I'm

1303
01:40:26,119 --> 01:40:29,159
not a classical foundational list. Now, it's a reduction. You are.

1304
01:40:29,479 --> 01:40:31,920
You are. I'm not a classical
foundationalist. You are, So you're gonna

1305
01:40:31,920 --> 01:40:39,720
tell me my own epistemology common I'm
not a classical foundationalist the way you just

1306
01:40:39,840 --> 01:40:43,199
argue. Again, I'm gonna ask
you. I'm going to ask you again,

1307
01:40:43,239 --> 01:40:47,920
Doden. I'm asking because you are. I'm asking. I'm asking you

1308
01:40:48,119 --> 01:40:51,800
questions. Yeah, I'm supposed to
be asking him questions. Just to be

1309
01:40:51,840 --> 01:40:56,279
clear. Okay, Jay, again, I'm going to ask you. When

1310
01:40:56,319 --> 01:41:00,640
you critique the tonist, you're saying
the only reason is because they're a classical

1311
01:41:00,680 --> 01:41:06,439
foundationalist and you're not. How does
that affect the legitimacy of them making the

1312
01:41:06,479 --> 01:41:10,640
same move that you are, Because, like you, they don't understand a

1313
01:41:10,680 --> 01:41:15,000
meta level argument. Okay, So
why don't you explain it to us other

1314
01:41:15,039 --> 01:41:17,000
than making a claim? I didn't
make a claim. I said that the

1315
01:41:17,039 --> 01:41:21,079
first part of the argument is reductio
or retortion argument, showing the absurdity of

1316
01:41:21,119 --> 01:41:25,560
that worldview. And then the second
part of the argument is to show and

1317
01:41:25,800 --> 01:41:30,760
argue that only the Orthodox Christian metaphysic, epistemology, and ethic can ground the

1318
01:41:30,840 --> 01:41:34,640
transcendental categories that are the preconditions for
any possible knowledge. Okay, so there's

1319
01:41:34,680 --> 01:41:38,680
two parts to it, Jay,
let's deal with the first part. Does

1320
01:41:38,720 --> 01:41:45,680
the first part alone give justification for
the claim that the orthodox theological positions are

1321
01:41:45,720 --> 01:41:50,119
the only justification for the preconditions of
intelligibility and all the other transcendental categories?

1322
01:41:50,239 --> 01:41:54,920
Now allrators and shows is that the
other position is absurd. Okay, So

1323
01:41:54,960 --> 01:41:58,439
it only shows that that position is
absurd, So that doesn't justify it.

1324
01:41:58,760 --> 01:42:03,359
So the second part is is positing
the Orthodox position. But that's the very

1325
01:42:03,520 --> 01:42:10,520
thing that we're asking for what is
the justification for the claim that the Orthodox

1326
01:42:10,560 --> 01:42:15,039
position alone justifies the preconditions of intelligibility? Correct? So what is it?

1327
01:42:15,279 --> 01:42:17,880
You're just restating the claim. You're
not giving an argument. No, it's

1328
01:42:18,199 --> 01:42:23,960
you're confusing a first order argument with
a metal level argument. It's a category.

1329
01:42:24,039 --> 01:42:27,239
Err. You keep saying, I'm
confusing and you're making claims, but

1330
01:42:27,279 --> 01:42:30,560
then you're never giving any content to
your claim. I just stated the content.

1331
01:42:30,600 --> 01:42:32,119
You just don't understand it. No, I know, I do understand

1332
01:42:32,159 --> 01:42:38,680
what you're saying. You just said, you just said, you just said.

1333
01:42:38,720 --> 01:42:43,000
It's a meta level argument. And
I see here from your good friend

1334
01:42:43,359 --> 01:42:46,239
Annius, right, father deacon and
Nius, which I've read his paper and

1335
01:42:46,439 --> 01:42:50,439
was very interesting. Actually didn't understand
it too bad. I didn't understand it.

1336
01:42:50,479 --> 01:42:54,159
I mean, it was so terrible. He contradicts himself up and down

1337
01:42:54,199 --> 01:42:59,600
on the same page, and he
explicitly says that the tag argument to ask

1338
01:42:59,720 --> 01:43:08,239
for a justification for positing Orthodox view
is wrongheaded because it's prior to epistemology in

1339
01:43:08,359 --> 01:43:12,000
argument long headed in the first order
of reasoning. Okay, so then there

1340
01:43:12,079 --> 01:43:16,880
is that. That's my point.
There is no justification by the criterion by

1341
01:43:17,039 --> 01:43:21,840
first order reasoning, by the criterion
problem you were as by the criterion problem

1342
01:43:21,840 --> 01:43:28,439
you were asking me about, do
you have a justification for the claim that

1343
01:43:28,479 --> 01:43:35,600
the Eastern Orthodox position alone suffices for
the grounding transcendentals? Do you have a

1344
01:43:35,800 --> 01:43:42,600
justification that meets the criterion of justiification
that the first part is the absurdity of

1345
01:43:42,640 --> 01:43:45,600
your worldview in our case, in
this today, and the second part is

1346
01:43:45,720 --> 01:43:50,680
the coherence and the grounding work that
the Orthodox Christian world view does for things

1347
01:43:50,800 --> 01:43:57,159
like universals, laws of logic,
objective ethics, identity over time, All

1348
01:43:57,159 --> 01:44:00,720
those metaphysical principles make sense in a
world that's where God is the creator?

1349
01:44:01,159 --> 01:44:04,600
Okay, Jay, Which is exactly
what I said. So, Jay,

1350
01:44:04,720 --> 01:44:11,560
And the problem of orthodoxy in orthodoxy
argument, does Alan Siegel from your reading

1351
01:44:11,600 --> 01:44:14,680
of his Two Powers in Heaven?
Does he say that the two powers in

1352
01:44:14,760 --> 01:44:20,239
heaven view is heretical? Yeah?
Okay? Do Siegel and boy or in

1353
01:44:20,359 --> 01:44:28,479
consider the two powers in heaven view
akin to logos theology they relate I don't

1354
01:44:28,479 --> 01:44:33,279
know if they'd be a kin Okay, they relate it. So is logos

1355
01:44:33,479 --> 01:44:39,239
is? Yeah? Is logos theology
heretical? According to Orthodox Christianity, meaning

1356
01:44:39,319 --> 01:44:43,920
the theology of Philo is that heretical? Yeah, A Filo's position would be

1357
01:44:43,920 --> 01:44:47,880
banetarian. Okay. According to Boyor
and John Behar and the Catholic Encycopedia,

1358
01:44:48,279 --> 01:44:55,640
was Justin Martyr a proponent of logos
theology or Orthodox trinitarianism. I think that

1359
01:44:56,039 --> 01:45:00,479
Justin had a form of logos theology
and trinitarianism. Okay? Is Justin Martyr

1360
01:45:00,520 --> 01:45:03,840
a saint in the Orthodox Church?
He is? And I we address this

1361
01:45:04,000 --> 01:45:08,479
in the Inspiring Philosophy stream in all
of your arguments. Is it permissible to

1362
01:45:08,520 --> 01:45:13,279
pray to him? We asked for
his intercession? Okay? So when he

1363
01:45:13,399 --> 01:45:17,479
declares that Jesus is another God and
says that the son is a product of

1364
01:45:17,520 --> 01:45:24,000
the Father's will? Are those heretical
positions? There might be a lack of

1365
01:45:24,000 --> 01:45:28,119
clarity there, but we already addressed
this in the Inspiring Philosophy stream. Is

1366
01:45:28,119 --> 01:45:30,399
it heretical to believe that the son
is a product of the Father's will?

1367
01:45:31,439 --> 01:45:35,359
There's probably some lack of clarity there. If that's an authentic text, yeah,

1368
01:45:35,479 --> 01:45:39,760
Is it heretical to believe that the
son is a product of the Father's

1369
01:45:39,760 --> 01:45:43,039
will? Yeah? If he means
it in that sense, we would say

1370
01:45:43,079 --> 01:45:45,800
it's wrong. Okay, is it
heretical? It could be, Okay,

1371
01:45:45,840 --> 01:45:51,079
so it's permissible to pray to heretical
saints. Correct. Well, we don't

1372
01:45:51,119 --> 01:45:56,000
automatically think that if somebody got something
wrong, they're necessarily a heretic. I

1373
01:45:56,000 --> 01:46:02,119
mean, Augustine made any mistakes many
Harris, Well, a heresy has decided

1374
01:46:02,119 --> 01:46:05,039
to believe in the Philiokue, right, Augustine believed in a philio Okay,

1375
01:46:05,119 --> 01:46:09,840
right? Correct? Is that heresy
when it becomes known as a heresy?

1376
01:46:09,920 --> 01:46:12,760
Yes, okay, so now it
would be heretical to believe in that.

1377
01:46:12,760 --> 01:46:15,760
That's what counsels are for. Correct, Okay, thank you very much.

1378
01:46:15,159 --> 01:46:21,239
So do ethities believe in divine simplicity? Jake? I don't remember. You

1379
01:46:21,239 --> 01:46:25,840
don't know. If you don't know
if we believe in divine simplicity? Well

1380
01:46:26,039 --> 01:46:30,600
you say that not in the sense
of absolutely divine simplicity. Are we occasionalists?

1381
01:46:30,600 --> 01:46:34,560
Some? Is it been to me? An occasionalist? It been to

1382
01:46:34,560 --> 01:46:41,880
me. His position seems to be
that created causes actually happen, but God

1383
01:46:41,920 --> 01:46:45,520
can also reverse them. But he
doesn't seem to affirm as strict occasionalism.

1384
01:46:46,239 --> 01:46:49,000
Okay, So is he an occasionalist
or not? You don't know. I

1385
01:46:49,159 --> 01:46:55,640
just answered that, does he believe
in secondary causality? He says that they're

1386
01:46:55,640 --> 01:47:00,840
not necessary, but God can change
them. Does he believe in secondary causality?

1387
01:47:00,840 --> 01:47:02,840
It's a basic term. I just
answered that, yes or no?

1388
01:47:02,920 --> 01:47:05,800
Does he believe in secondary cause out? I just answered it. Dude,

1389
01:47:05,920 --> 01:47:09,920
you didn't answer it. I did. Does he believe in secondary calls out?

1390
01:47:10,079 --> 01:47:13,000
You want me to read you his
position from the book? I just

1391
01:47:13,039 --> 01:47:15,640
asked you, does he believe in
secondary causality? It's a yes or no

1392
01:47:15,720 --> 01:47:17,000
question. I'll give you a chance
to respond. Jay, we've run out

1393
01:47:17,000 --> 01:47:23,000
of that seven minutes. Okay,
no problem. Yeah. The best of

1394
01:47:23,039 --> 01:47:26,920
my understanding of his position is that
he thinks that there's, uh, there

1395
01:47:26,960 --> 01:47:31,760
is real causality in the world.
It's not it doesn't operate apart from God's

1396
01:47:31,760 --> 01:47:35,439
will, and that if God wills
to, he can do a miracle or

1397
01:47:35,479 --> 01:47:41,359
do something differently. So I'm I
mean, I couldn't figure out what exactly

1398
01:47:41,399 --> 01:47:45,840
his position is because I think it's
a bunch of contradictions. So what's up

1399
01:47:45,880 --> 01:47:48,640
next? Are we doing? Be
seven minutes of you interrogating Jake, and

1400
01:47:48,680 --> 01:47:54,479
then we'll go into the closings before
the Q and A. All right,

1401
01:47:59,760 --> 01:48:04,079
so you seem to have a problem
with the idea of reductios and internal critiques

1402
01:48:04,119 --> 01:48:08,920
and uh, meta logic. I'm
not sure why this would be a problem

1403
01:48:08,960 --> 01:48:13,079
for you, given that you're named
the Muslim metaphysician. You know, do

1404
01:48:13,119 --> 01:48:15,680
you know what metalogic is? I
don't have a problem with the critique.

1405
01:48:16,920 --> 01:48:20,439
You don't have a problem with the
Transton argument. No, I have a

1406
01:48:20,439 --> 01:48:26,760
problem with your use of it.
If you've seen my if you've seen my

1407
01:48:26,840 --> 01:48:30,680
debate on this channel. I don't
watch all your debates. I can't listen

1408
01:48:30,720 --> 01:48:34,000
to I've used a format I put
you on four times to listen to it,

1409
01:48:34,079 --> 01:48:38,600
and it's still unbearable. So what
I'm trying to figure out, you

1410
01:48:38,800 --> 01:48:42,600
know what metallogic is? No,
tell me what's metallogical? You have no

1411
01:48:42,640 --> 01:48:45,600
idea what it is? Well,
answer that condescending answer is like, you

1412
01:48:45,640 --> 01:48:49,520
do know? I have no idea
what metalogic is. Yeah, tell me,

1413
01:48:49,800 --> 01:48:54,399
I have no idea. So it's
the questioning of how logic itself works?

1414
01:48:54,680 --> 01:48:59,520
Right, Okay, good? So
is it invalid to speak of metalogical

1415
01:48:59,600 --> 01:49:04,239
argumentation. No, okay, But
your critique, for example, of the

1416
01:49:04,279 --> 01:49:09,119
way that Father Deacon A Andaius argued
in that paper was that he was contradicting

1417
01:49:09,159 --> 01:49:15,520
himself because he argued that there's no
justification for transcenal arguments in an orthodox sense

1418
01:49:15,600 --> 01:49:19,520
of not the first order or first
order argumentation, first order logic. He's

1419
01:49:19,520 --> 01:49:26,079
talking about meta level ugmentation. Was
that a question? So what I'm asking

1420
01:49:26,119 --> 01:49:28,159
you is that why do you have
a problem with it? If it's too

1421
01:49:28,199 --> 01:49:30,439
if you if you understood that it's
a meta level argument, okay. My

1422
01:49:30,560 --> 01:49:35,880
problem with father Deacon Annius, when
problem with what he said in the paper

1423
01:49:36,359 --> 01:49:40,760
is that he makes the claim,
and he seems to make the claim that

1424
01:49:40,800 --> 01:49:45,840
it's a metallogical problem or a metalogical
arguments are right, and therefore it would

1425
01:49:45,840 --> 01:49:53,680
make no sense to ask for justification
or argumentation because it's prior to argumentation.

1426
01:49:54,079 --> 01:49:57,359
That's what I'm not still a form
of there's still you can still justify it.

1427
01:49:57,239 --> 01:50:00,600
It just becomes a paradigm level justification. Yeah, stand that, but

1428
01:50:00,720 --> 01:50:04,359
that's not what my criticism is.
My criticism is that then later in the

1429
01:50:04,399 --> 01:50:10,439
paper he seemingly does try to justify
it when he says, and he talks

1430
01:50:10,479 --> 01:50:13,119
about which I gave the quote I
don't want to waste your time, where

1431
01:50:13,119 --> 01:50:15,359
he says, for only in the
Orthodox doctrine of God, we will see

1432
01:50:15,359 --> 01:50:19,880
that God is the necessary condition,
is rational, omniscient, transcendent, and

1433
01:50:19,960 --> 01:50:23,640
so on and so forth. That
was what I was giving. He starts

1434
01:50:23,680 --> 01:50:28,239
giving all of those reasons, which
is the exact same thing that I would

1435
01:50:28,279 --> 01:50:30,600
do. So what's the problem.
Well, you have a different metaphysic,

1436
01:50:30,680 --> 01:50:34,760
as I pointed out in my opening
statement and in the critiques about your ideas

1437
01:50:34,760 --> 01:50:39,000
of self evident truths, So you
have a different metaphysics. I agree with

1438
01:50:39,039 --> 01:50:41,920
that, But then it comes down
to don't you agree that? Then it

1439
01:50:41,920 --> 01:50:45,960
comes down to the difference in our
metaphysics, which are the debates. That's

1440
01:50:45,960 --> 01:50:49,560
what we're supposed to be. Your
starting point was self evident truths or reason,

1441
01:50:49,960 --> 01:50:55,520
and I know that you claim that
you also start with the direct perception

1442
01:50:55,640 --> 01:50:59,199
or intuitive whatever sense that you have
of all long line about that. Huh

1443
01:50:59,439 --> 01:51:02,479
you think I'm no, But I'm
saying that it bypasses and it ignores the

1444
01:51:02,560 --> 01:51:08,039
question of the first principles of natural
theology or reasoning, which you're committed to

1445
01:51:08,600 --> 01:51:11,680
Yeah, but I thought that you, as an orthodox, believe that the

1446
01:51:11,760 --> 01:51:15,720
news in the same manner is a
legitimate thing to appeal to. That's a

1447
01:51:15,800 --> 01:51:18,680
two que it's a too quickly No, No, it's not. It's saying

1448
01:51:18,760 --> 01:51:21,840
that, No, it's not.
It's saying that because of the same fact

1449
01:51:23,199 --> 01:51:28,640
that we are debating metaphysics. Yeah, but I have a similar position with

1450
01:51:28,720 --> 01:51:31,640
the difference though. But the difference
is that in letter two thirty four at

1451
01:51:31,680 --> 01:51:34,720
Basil, which was my closing statement
which I had to rush through. If

1452
01:51:34,720 --> 01:51:39,000
people want to go back, they
can screenshot it, I noted the argument

1453
01:51:39,079 --> 01:51:42,079
that the energies come down to us, and that's why we have a basis

1454
01:51:42,119 --> 01:51:46,159
for affirmation, or what we call
cataphatic affirmation. I believe in the same

1455
01:51:46,199 --> 01:51:49,920
thing. Yeah, but that's why
my whole argument this time was that when

1456
01:51:49,960 --> 01:51:54,439
you try to do the naming,
when even to me, for example,

1457
01:51:54,479 --> 01:51:58,319
explains in what sense there is similarity
or likeness or resemblance, he says that

1458
01:51:58,399 --> 01:52:01,359
it is not like the created motive
of beings, so it actually tells us

1459
01:52:01,359 --> 01:52:04,600
nothing. So you're naming tells us
nothing because you don't have an energy doctrine

1460
01:52:04,640 --> 01:52:08,000
that comes down to us. That
was the argument, I do we do

1461
01:52:08,079 --> 01:52:10,560
have the same doctrine in terms of
you don't, Yes, we do in

1462
01:52:10,640 --> 01:52:14,279
terms of the energies coming down.
When an energy comes down, does it

1463
01:52:14,319 --> 01:52:16,439
attach to a human being. There's
nothing to do with attaching. It has

1464
01:52:16,439 --> 01:52:20,000
to do with how we predicate.
That's the argument here. So what does

1465
01:52:20,000 --> 01:52:23,680
it mean? That's why I asked
you about the foot, and I asked

1466
01:52:23,680 --> 01:52:28,199
you if a godfoot is nothing like
a human foot, what does it tell

1467
01:52:28,279 --> 01:52:30,159
us? What's the meaning that that's
given us there? In the same way

1468
01:52:30,239 --> 01:52:34,960
that when I say that this paper
has whiteness that is nothing like the whiteness

1469
01:52:34,960 --> 01:52:39,359
in your forehead. So you're still
using the papers are created thing, you

1470
01:52:39,520 --> 01:52:42,800
understand it. And these are creatures. These are creatures. Yeah, they're

1471
01:52:42,800 --> 01:52:46,039
creatures, and we believe that.
So another creature, which is totally unlike

1472
01:52:46,119 --> 01:52:49,199
Allah, tells us nothing about all. So these names and these predicates aren't

1473
01:52:49,199 --> 01:52:51,640
telling us anything as Wetter. No, you're saying, no, I'm giving

1474
01:52:51,680 --> 01:52:56,319
you an argument to show you how
they are. Argument refers to another creature.

1475
01:52:56,840 --> 01:53:00,399
Now you're I'm giving you an argument
to show it refers to another reachure

1476
01:53:00,520 --> 01:53:06,640
that not refers to another creature.
That predication is exactly. It's not meaningless.

1477
01:53:06,680 --> 01:53:11,760
Nominalist predication is not meaningless. It's
circular. That's the point. It's

1478
01:53:11,840 --> 01:53:15,560
arbitrary because you're just using another created
object to try to explain what is beyond

1479
01:53:15,560 --> 01:53:18,079
the creative. That's the whole point
of the argu That's what I've been arguing

1480
01:53:18,079 --> 01:53:23,119
this whole time. And that's why
your position contradicts. Because on the one

1481
01:53:23,159 --> 01:53:28,640
hand, the uncreated foot is nothing
like the human created foots. But you

1482
01:53:28,680 --> 01:53:30,239
say, oh, but it actually
kind of is. But we don't know

1483
01:53:30,279 --> 01:53:32,920
the meaning of that. So it's
we do know the meaning of anything.

1484
01:53:32,920 --> 01:53:36,239
We do know the meaning. Again, you're misrepresentative even to me. Assessed

1485
01:53:36,239 --> 01:53:42,520
both both that we don't He says
that it's like it we don't know the

1486
01:53:42,560 --> 01:53:45,039
meaning. He doesn't say that,
Yes, he does, doesn't say we

1487
01:53:45,079 --> 01:53:48,199
don't know the meaning. Yes,
he does give give the evidence that we

1488
01:53:48,239 --> 01:53:54,680
don't know the meaning of what Because
when you know that the godfoot, you

1489
01:53:54,720 --> 01:53:58,279
know what I mean, show that
he says we don't know the meaning.

1490
01:54:00,239 --> 01:54:01,760
Where does he say we don't know
that? Okay? What he says is

1491
01:54:01,800 --> 01:54:06,399
that what it means is that it
exists in a manner befitting a lot that

1492
01:54:06,439 --> 01:54:10,880
tells us nothing. Oh it does. So when your Orthodox Church says the

1493
01:54:10,960 --> 01:54:13,880
exact same thing, what does that
mean. We don't say that. We

1494
01:54:13,920 --> 01:54:17,560
don't say that God doesn't have an
uncreative I mean he doesn't say in a

1495
01:54:17,640 --> 01:54:23,840
God be Your Orthodox Church doesn't talk
about it, God befitting manner, not

1496
01:54:23,880 --> 01:54:28,880
a god be fitting foot. Does
it talk about a God? Talk about

1497
01:54:28,880 --> 01:54:34,840
a God? I'm asking you?
Does it talk about I'm asking you the

1498
01:54:34,920 --> 01:54:41,039
same way that it's described in the
text. That's so no answer the same

1499
01:54:41,119 --> 01:54:46,920
way, in the same way.
In this revelation doesn't tell us anything when

1500
01:54:46,920 --> 01:54:54,439
we read it. Of course,
revelation means things when we read the word,

1501
01:54:55,000 --> 01:55:00,680
you're telling me nothing. God described
God describes what his hand and feet

1502
01:55:00,000 --> 01:55:04,359
actually do. And so you have
no idea. You haven't even read.

1503
01:55:06,119 --> 01:55:10,520
You said, it's creating Adam.
But that's another created thing. I'll give

1504
01:55:10,560 --> 01:55:13,760
you a chance to Adam is not
a created thing. I'll give you a

1505
01:55:13,800 --> 01:55:18,079
chance to answer. His hands,
his hands are not created. Neither is

1506
01:55:18,119 --> 01:55:21,399
his foot is created hand. He
said He's gonna give me a chance.

1507
01:55:24,640 --> 01:55:28,680
Time is up. Cat me respond, and then you we can move on.

1508
01:55:29,119 --> 01:55:34,359
An uncreated hand in like manner,
an uncreated essence has nothing in common.

1509
01:55:34,760 --> 01:55:41,560
You have not shown that simply using
the same word entails that there is

1510
01:55:41,720 --> 01:55:45,399
similarity. And I've explained what an
uncreated hand is. It is that by

1511
01:55:45,439 --> 01:55:50,199
which a loss of panetality can grasp
things that he can create. Adam with

1512
01:55:50,239 --> 01:55:55,960
his own two hands. That's created
exactly, no creatures. Those are creatures,

1513
01:55:56,000 --> 01:55:59,000
hands creatures, and so is God's
knowledge. God's knowledge is created.

1514
01:55:59,279 --> 01:56:01,560
Knowledge is a creature. Yeah,
doesn't you believe? Right? We'll go

1515
01:56:01,600 --> 01:56:09,159
to the closing. Your position seven. I don't even understand basic arguments.

1516
01:56:09,399 --> 01:56:15,840
Seven minute closing? So what I
you got? All right, gentlemen,

1517
01:56:15,880 --> 01:56:20,520
we've gotta we've this one. I
earlier I got the order wrong. So

1518
01:56:20,600 --> 01:56:25,560
it's actually that the closings will be
just as you expected. Namely, jac

1519
01:56:25,560 --> 01:56:29,920
will go first, then Jay will
go for his closing, and then we'll

1520
01:56:29,920 --> 01:56:32,039
go into the Q and A.
So we have seven minutes. The clock

1521
01:56:32,159 --> 01:56:35,359
is set for you, Jake.
The floor is all yours for your seven

1522
01:56:35,399 --> 01:56:48,880
minute closing statement. Okay, okay, ready here we go. All right,

1523
01:56:54,000 --> 01:56:57,680
I'm about well, it's been an
interesting debate. I can say that.

1524
01:56:57,800 --> 01:57:01,520
But Jay, as we've seen,
he doesn't understand basic ethity alpda.

1525
01:57:01,800 --> 01:57:06,399
He couldn't answer whether clearly Ibanitaia is
an occasional list. I've got a book

1526
01:57:06,399 --> 01:57:10,880
over here which I can can I
don't mind actually sending it to Jay for

1527
01:57:10,960 --> 01:57:15,760
free, where he completely refutes occasionalism. We do believe in secondary causation.

1528
01:57:15,880 --> 01:57:18,119
Jay, So I guess you don't
know that he didn't know the basic difference,

1529
01:57:18,199 --> 01:57:23,960
didn't say that you're not allowed to
speak. But I do want to

1530
01:57:24,239 --> 01:57:27,199
just to. I'll give you a
chance to in your closing as well to

1531
01:57:27,760 --> 01:57:30,319
rebut Jake, but I do want
to just for the closing statements, I

1532
01:57:30,359 --> 01:57:31,319
want to keep it. Yeah,
I know it's hard, Jay, you're

1533
01:57:31,359 --> 01:57:35,600
getting refused to chill out. Just
chill out, all right, We're ready,

1534
01:57:35,640 --> 01:57:41,520
James to restart. Let's see.
I'll give you six minutes and twenty

1535
01:57:41,600 --> 01:57:45,079
seconds. Okay, good, here
we go. So Jay can't keep quiet

1536
01:57:45,119 --> 01:57:48,199
because he knows that he's being made
a fool, and he did it to

1537
01:57:48,279 --> 01:57:53,880
himself. He doesn't know the basic
difference between tef Weed and Nana and tef

1538
01:57:53,920 --> 01:57:57,039
weeded Kfia. This is basic.
And he says, oh, well,

1539
01:57:57,079 --> 01:57:59,920
your god is just a god of
the Arabs. No, but if you

1540
01:58:00,239 --> 01:58:04,359
read our literature in the same way
that I know the difference between usia and

1541
01:58:04,600 --> 01:58:09,840
which is essence, and I understand
the term homo ussion. I don't speak

1542
01:58:09,880 --> 01:58:14,760
Greek, I don't speak Latin,
but I understand these terms because I've read

1543
01:58:15,199 --> 01:58:18,439
several dozen books on the subject to
be acquainted with the terms. But you

1544
01:58:18,600 --> 01:58:23,239
haven't. And that's why you look
like an ignorant buffoon, because you don't

1545
01:58:23,279 --> 01:58:27,079
know the basic difference. And that's
why you're mocking right now because it's hard

1546
01:58:27,119 --> 01:58:29,800
on you. Everybody can see how
this debate went for you, Jay,

1547
01:58:29,840 --> 01:58:33,000
it looked really pathetic. Now,
going back to the point, he didn't

1548
01:58:33,119 --> 01:58:39,000
understand that we believe in secondary causation, that Ibantamia wasn't occasionalist. Yeah,

1549
01:58:39,039 --> 01:58:41,439
he didn't give a clear option.
He said, Oh, he's contradictory.

1550
01:58:41,479 --> 01:58:45,159
He doesn't understand. And also he
doesn't, as I said, understand a

1551
01:58:45,439 --> 01:58:49,720
basic difference between Tefweeda Nana and tefweed
Kfi, which is very basic. Okay,

1552
01:58:49,720 --> 01:58:53,840
there are many things. He didn't
even know what the petra was.

1553
01:58:54,199 --> 01:58:59,119
It's is very basic to our epistemology. How are you gonna critique our epistemology,

1554
01:58:59,319 --> 01:59:01,439
and you don't even know what the
fifthra is. It's a complete joke.

1555
01:59:01,840 --> 01:59:05,720
Now in terms of my arguments,
he didn't respond really to any of

1556
01:59:05,760 --> 01:59:10,640
them. On my first argument,
the LPT, the Father is God,

1557
01:59:10,800 --> 01:59:13,800
the Son is God, and the
Holy Spirit's God. And they're not each

1558
01:59:13,840 --> 01:59:15,960
other. They're distinct from each other
the same way that we count. Jay,

1559
01:59:16,039 --> 01:59:20,079
let me help you out. One
plus one plus one does not equal

1560
01:59:20,079 --> 01:59:25,239
one, sir, It equals three. So the muscle mean has been vindicated,

1561
01:59:25,439 --> 01:59:28,840
Thank you very much, Jay.
And his only response is, oh,

1562
01:59:28,920 --> 01:59:32,000
we count different things in different ways. And I asked you for an

1563
01:59:32,000 --> 01:59:40,000
objective criteria of why we count attributes
or energies and persons by identity and we

1564
01:59:40,119 --> 01:59:45,720
count God's by division other than an
ad hoc unprincipled assertion, And you had

1565
01:59:45,800 --> 01:59:50,119
no answer to that whatsoever, Sir. You'd had no answer, Yeah,

1566
01:59:50,199 --> 01:59:55,000
keep shaking your head. And then
you claimed, oh, you claimed,

1567
01:59:55,399 --> 01:59:59,239
Jake, actually counts by division.
And then when I questioned you about how

1568
01:59:59,279 --> 02:00:02,920
I count by divis in the cross
examination section, you flopped so hard.

1569
02:00:03,279 --> 02:00:09,479
I don't count by division. We
count the attributes by identity, by the

1570
02:00:09,560 --> 02:00:15,479
fact, even though they're inseparable and
not divided. They still count as more

1571
02:00:15,520 --> 02:00:19,399
than one. That means we're counting
them by identity, not by division.

1572
02:00:19,720 --> 02:00:25,680
So you haven't shown that I've counted
by division within God whatsoever. The only

1573
02:00:25,720 --> 02:00:30,319
thing you have is an unprincipled way
of avoiding saying that there are three gods

1574
02:00:30,359 --> 02:00:33,920
because you just don't want to admit
that you're a polytheist, which everybody knows

1575
02:00:33,960 --> 02:00:39,880
that you are, including the Roman
Orthodox. The Sorry we're Roman Catholics.

1576
02:00:40,079 --> 02:00:45,159
Now here we go to Jay's point
here where he's refuted by the Roman Catholics.

1577
02:00:45,600 --> 02:00:51,079
Right here we go Branson again refuted
him on the claim that Branson himself

1578
02:00:51,119 --> 02:00:56,720
says, the Gregory of Nissa believes
that the essence of God to divine essences

1579
02:00:56,840 --> 02:01:00,199
universal Jayan is one of his videos. He says, apply that same idea

1580
02:01:00,279 --> 02:01:06,000
to the Trinity, which is that
each of the hypostheses instantiates the divine nature.

1581
02:01:06,479 --> 02:01:11,840
So they are instantiations of the divine
nature. Now, Jay, don't

1582
02:01:11,840 --> 02:01:14,920
get a wrestled out of your seat. Now, I know they're not merely

1583
02:01:15,039 --> 02:01:19,520
instantiations, but they do instantiate the
divine essence. Nevertheless, Timothy Paul Catholic

1584
02:01:19,520 --> 02:01:25,880
philosopher says about the instantiation view,
there are at least two problems with Jay

1585
02:01:25,920 --> 02:01:30,800
Dyer's Eastern Orthodox instantiation view. This
is a critique from the Catholics who believe

1586
02:01:30,800 --> 02:01:35,800
they're polytheists that the instantiation view has
to face an answer to why the person

1587
02:01:35,920 --> 02:01:40,960
nature question, both having to do
with the conciliar claim that there is only

1588
02:01:41,000 --> 02:01:45,279
one God. First, consider a
problem often raised against social trinitarianism, a

1589
02:01:45,359 --> 02:01:50,560
type of instantiation view that builds into
the unity of God much more than mere

1590
02:01:50,600 --> 02:01:57,920
instantiation. The problem goes as follows. The instantiation view gives up monotheism when

1591
02:01:57,960 --> 02:02:00,079
we count human people, Jay,
just like I ask you how many people

1592
02:02:00,079 --> 02:02:02,600
are on the screen, which your
own church father would have said one,

1593
02:02:02,680 --> 02:02:09,720
which is ridiculous. We count by
individual instances of humanity. When my daughters

1594
02:02:10,000 --> 02:02:15,640
Mary, Beatrice Edith Agnes, each
instantiate the universal humanity, and each has

1595
02:02:15,680 --> 02:02:18,960
a proper characteristic such that we don't
confuse them what we have. There are

1596
02:02:19,079 --> 02:02:24,640
four humans, not a single human, like Gregory of Nissis says. So

1597
02:02:24,880 --> 02:02:29,800
likewise on the instantiation count, we
ought to invert the line from the afthinacious

1598
02:02:29,840 --> 02:02:34,199
creed saying instead that there is not
one God but three gods. Think about

1599
02:02:34,239 --> 02:02:41,079
it another way, Christians wanted to
safeguard the monotheism that they inherited from Judaism.

1600
02:02:41,279 --> 02:02:45,159
Whether they succeeded as a separate question. Now suppose a Jewish Man were

1601
02:02:45,199 --> 02:02:48,720
accused of polytheism. Here's the defense
he could give on this instantiation view of

1602
02:02:48,760 --> 02:02:51,880
the divine nature. He could say, yes, it is true. I

1603
02:02:53,000 --> 02:02:58,159
worship the God of Israel, Ball
of the Canaanites, Dagon of the Philistines,

1604
02:02:58,319 --> 02:03:02,640
and countless others. But fear not, I only countenance a single universal

1605
02:03:02,680 --> 02:03:08,600
divinity, which each of my many
gods instantiates. As such, I'm still

1606
02:03:08,680 --> 02:03:13,279
a monotheist. I don't think Moses
would be impressed. Jay. This is

1607
02:03:13,319 --> 02:03:16,840
what Timothy Paul is saying, that
you're clearly just a polytheist. Now,

1608
02:03:17,760 --> 02:03:23,039
what does Jay say about the Catholic
view? He rightly points out that it

1609
02:03:23,079 --> 02:03:27,760
reduces to modalism. And I agree. That's why the Catholic view is modalism.

1610
02:03:27,880 --> 02:03:30,960
The Eastern Orthodox view is polytheism.
They say that the truth is in

1611
02:03:31,000 --> 02:03:36,159
between, but they're never able to
explain that properly. Jay says, I

1612
02:03:36,239 --> 02:03:40,600
equivocated on power, but he doesn't
believe that the Father, Son and Holy

1613
02:03:40,640 --> 02:03:44,359
Spirit have the same abilities. He
couldn't give an even answer if the Father

1614
02:03:44,439 --> 02:03:46,840
has the ability or power to become
incarnate, because he knew that would result

1615
02:03:46,920 --> 02:03:49,600
in them not having the same powers, in which they wouldn't be the same

1616
02:03:49,640 --> 02:03:56,800
God. Thomas Aquinas criticizes that view
in the Summa in part three and less

1617
02:03:56,840 --> 02:04:00,399
but not least, Jay was not
able to actually do with the ethy Alkida,

1618
02:04:00,640 --> 02:04:04,960
and it's because he hasn't even read
our texts before the debate. He

1619
02:04:05,000 --> 02:04:09,000
needed to delay it. So people
were wondering what the delay was. It

1620
02:04:09,079 --> 02:04:12,600
was because of him. He wasn't
able to read an English translation of an

1621
02:04:12,680 --> 02:04:15,880
unreleased book, and that's why he
doesn't understand our position. Thank you very

1622
02:04:15,920 --> 02:04:19,920
much. That will could it over
to Jay for his ten minute closing as

1623
02:04:19,920 --> 02:04:21,880
well. Want to get it.
I want to say, folks, if

1624
02:04:21,920 --> 02:04:26,600
you haven't yet, check out the
poll in the live chat you can vote

1625
02:04:26,600 --> 02:04:30,880
on where you stand on this question. Tonight already has two seven hundred and

1626
02:04:30,880 --> 02:04:34,840
fifty four votes, so log in
right now in the live chat you can

1627
02:04:34,880 --> 02:04:39,720
put your vote in the poll or
that Jay, the floor is all yours.

1628
02:04:40,199 --> 02:04:43,520
I hope Jake's okay, because the
whole debate, he's basically been Spergin

1629
02:04:43,640 --> 02:04:46,359
and the squirming like something's wrong over
there, he's got Parkinson's or what's going

1630
02:04:46,359 --> 02:04:48,279
on. But I hope he's okay. I didn't mean to hurt him so

1631
02:04:48,359 --> 02:04:53,479
bad or hurt his feelings. I
love you, Jake Man. Yeah,

1632
02:04:53,520 --> 02:04:55,920
I think that. First of all, as I pointed out when he asked

1633
02:04:55,920 --> 02:04:58,840
me about Iven, to me,
I was clearly trying to remember exactly what

1634
02:04:58,920 --> 02:05:02,840
his position was from the Suleman book, and I specifically said that he allows

1635
02:05:02,880 --> 02:05:08,600
for created causation. Jake then tried
to make me sound like I was saying

1636
02:05:08,640 --> 02:05:10,880
that he was an occasionalist. I
never said that, so that was a

1637
02:05:10,880 --> 02:05:15,239
complete dishonest lie. I said that
he believes that there's real causation in the

1638
02:05:15,279 --> 02:05:17,840
world, but he also thinks that
God can intervene and do miracles. So

1639
02:05:17,880 --> 02:05:23,000
that was a straight up lie,
just looking for anything grasping at straws.

1640
02:05:23,039 --> 02:05:27,520
Because he performed so badly, it's
probably why he had to or take off

1641
02:05:27,520 --> 02:05:30,880
his camera. I don't know if
he's running the bathroom to take a comfort

1642
02:05:30,920 --> 02:05:33,000
break or what's going on, But
yeah, I think if we review this

1643
02:05:33,039 --> 02:05:39,079
debate, we'll notice that the central
issues that were in question two ways of

1644
02:05:39,119 --> 02:05:44,479
accounting for unity of multiplicity, as
I pointed out in my opening statement,

1645
02:05:44,800 --> 02:05:48,000
not a question of who's the true
monotheis versus the polytheist the way that Jake

1646
02:05:48,119 --> 02:05:53,520
wanted to characterize the debate, because
if you go watch, for example,

1647
02:05:53,600 --> 02:05:57,800
Jake's debate with doctor bo Branson or
his debate with doctor Khalil, you'll notice

1648
02:05:57,800 --> 02:06:02,239
that Jake consistently had no real way
to answer for the actual questions of how

1649
02:06:02,279 --> 02:06:09,279
we account for multiplicity and unity in
his conception of the attributes in the Essence.

1650
02:06:09,560 --> 02:06:14,760
I specifically gave numerous arguments in the
opening statement that Jake never got anywhere

1651
02:06:14,800 --> 02:06:16,920
near touching. He says, I
didn't make any arguments I did. I

1652
02:06:16,960 --> 02:06:23,800
made countless arguments throughout that opening statement. I specifically pointed out that not that

1653
02:06:23,960 --> 02:06:28,439
Jake only counts in one way.
I said that when he uses the terminology

1654
02:06:28,439 --> 02:06:33,560
of inseparability, that he's using the
idea of counting by division, and it's

1655
02:06:33,560 --> 02:06:39,520
simply saying that if you say,
for example, that the attributes are undivided,

1656
02:06:39,640 --> 02:06:44,920
or that the essence is one and
undivided, that's also counting by division.

1657
02:06:45,439 --> 02:06:48,239
That's how the ancient and medieval world
typically thought, unless they were dealing

1658
02:06:48,279 --> 02:06:54,319
with objects of first order imposition or
objects of second order imposition. Again,

1659
02:06:54,359 --> 02:06:59,119
I addressed those disputes when I covered
that topic. So most of the stuff

1660
02:06:59,119 --> 02:07:03,840
that Jacobs pointed to I did address. He just then came on and said

1661
02:07:04,039 --> 02:07:08,680
he never addressed nothing. I said, No, I did address everything that

1662
02:07:08,720 --> 02:07:11,560
you said. Just most of what
I addressed you just weren't familiar with or

1663
02:07:11,600 --> 02:07:14,880
you didn't know what these topics were. Now again in the topic of the

1664
02:07:15,039 --> 02:07:21,199
universal for us, as universals get
discussed amongst the Cappadocians and then post Chalcidon,

1665
02:07:21,640 --> 02:07:25,279
it becomes more and more specified and
more and more clarified. So if

1666
02:07:25,319 --> 02:07:28,880
you just asked me something like,
as God's essence a universal, it really

1667
02:07:28,880 --> 02:07:34,479
depends on what timeframe we're talking about. But Cappadocians, post Calcidon and so

1668
02:07:34,560 --> 02:07:40,000
forth, we don't usually see the
idea of a universal itself in the platonic

1669
02:07:40,079 --> 02:07:44,319
sense being attributed to the divine essence. It's simply said to be something common.

1670
02:07:44,399 --> 02:07:46,039
So we can say that, yeah, the divine essence is common,

1671
02:07:46,319 --> 02:07:51,119
But universals take on a specific category
of a created thing, especially in same

1672
02:07:51,159 --> 02:07:56,399
Maximus. Maximus, for example,
argues that universals can perish, and this

1673
02:07:56,479 --> 02:08:03,920
is in the Tolusen dissertation. Universals
aren't the divine essence because the divine essence

1674
02:08:03,920 --> 02:08:07,359
can't perish, and if universals comparison, then universals are created things. Now

1675
02:08:07,640 --> 02:08:11,920
universals are patterned on things in the
divine mind, we would call those the

1676
02:08:11,920 --> 02:08:15,840
divine ideas. But that's a different
topic. Let's advise to say it's again

1677
02:08:15,880 --> 02:08:20,600
another kind of equivocation with how the
Cappadocians use the term common or universal versus

1678
02:08:20,920 --> 02:08:24,520
the way that it's used by the
time of Saint John Damascus in a more

1679
02:08:24,520 --> 02:08:28,279
precise way about created realities. So
the universal's dispute, however, is very

1680
02:08:28,279 --> 02:08:33,720
important for this debate because, as
we saw, Jake's denial of universals results

1681
02:08:33,720 --> 02:08:37,880
in a lot of problems for accounting
for things like meaning and identity over time.

1682
02:08:39,279 --> 02:08:41,800
That's why I kept stressing, how
would Jake understand various texts of the

1683
02:08:41,840 --> 02:08:46,720
Qur'an. And you'll notice when we
got into the nitty gritty of the epistemology,

1684
02:08:46,079 --> 02:08:50,600
Jake completely collapsed Jake went in circles. He was lost, he didn't

1685
02:08:50,600 --> 02:08:54,079
know what was going on where he
was. Even at he thought that you

1686
02:08:54,119 --> 02:08:56,680
could say that, well, some
things are self evident, which you noticed

1687
02:08:56,720 --> 02:09:00,520
when I first asked him, he
didn't want to say it was self evident.

1688
02:09:01,239 --> 02:09:03,039
About a minute or two later,
yeah, these are self evident truths.

1689
02:09:03,720 --> 02:09:07,399
But then he's when I asked him
about the criterion problem, which is

1690
02:09:07,560 --> 02:09:09,960
how do we know the self evident
versus the non self evident, he began

1691
02:09:11,039 --> 02:09:15,279
appealed to a self referential thing because
we know because of the way that we

1692
02:09:15,359 --> 02:09:18,319
go about doing it. Yeah,
but that doesn't justify the claim, and

1693
02:09:18,359 --> 02:09:20,560
he knows that it doesn't, and
that's why he went deeper into deflecting over

1694
02:09:20,640 --> 02:09:26,199
into transcendental argumentation and justification. And
he didn't know what a metalogical argument was,

1695
02:09:26,319 --> 02:09:31,800
even though he admits that the FDA
was making a metalogical argumentation in the

1696
02:09:31,840 --> 02:09:37,359
paper. The paper's just arguing that
the transcendental argument isn't justified in the exact

1697
02:09:37,359 --> 02:09:41,359
same way that first order types of
beliefs are justified. So, and this

1698
02:09:41,479 --> 02:09:45,640
is just to say that different things
are argued for in different ways. If

1699
02:09:45,680 --> 02:09:48,960
you watch my Matt Dill Hunty debate. This becomes a very central point of

1700
02:09:50,039 --> 02:09:52,840
dispute between us, where Matt thinks
that everything is argued for in one way.

1701
02:09:54,880 --> 02:10:00,439
Likewise that very low tier quality of
debate that Jake shares with at dyla

1702
02:10:00,479 --> 02:10:03,640
Monkey. They both just seem to
think that words mean one thing. All

1703
02:10:03,760 --> 02:10:09,039
arguments are argued in the same way. Justification happens in one way. Different

1704
02:10:09,039 --> 02:10:13,079
types of things are proven and argued
for in different ways. Different types of

1705
02:10:13,079 --> 02:10:18,239
things are counted in different ways.
So I made this very clear. Again,

1706
02:10:18,319 --> 02:10:20,560
Jake didn't get any of that,
and everything had to be smushed down

1707
02:10:20,560 --> 02:10:26,319
and reduced into one simple, one
dimensional ways of understanding everything throughout this debate.

1708
02:10:26,920 --> 02:10:28,640
So I think that if people paid
attention, especially when we got to

1709
02:10:28,680 --> 02:10:35,640
the notion of handfoot, the bodily
properties that are ascribed to a lot in

1710
02:10:35,720 --> 02:10:39,520
his school. In his tradition,
Jake couldn't tell us what an uncreated foot

1711
02:10:39,720 --> 02:10:45,119
is that doesn't bear similarity to foot, except that it's similar in the case

1712
02:10:45,199 --> 02:10:50,359
of functionality of creating. Okay,
but the creating that you talked about,

1713
02:10:50,479 --> 02:10:52,960
or the piece of paper that you
referred to, or this or that those

1714
02:10:52,000 --> 02:10:56,079
are other created things. And so
the creative things that you keep appealing to

1715
02:10:56,680 --> 02:11:03,239
never match up or touch upon the
uncreated thing, which the Quran says is

1716
02:11:03,680 --> 02:11:09,560
unlike right Allah is absolutely unlike creatures. What's that fifty seconds. So the

1717
02:11:09,680 --> 02:11:15,039
argument is not that Jake believes,
or even to mea believes that there's no

1718
02:11:15,119 --> 02:11:20,680
way to have positive predication. The
argument is that they contradict, and Suleyman

1719
02:11:20,760 --> 02:11:26,880
points out numerous places where actually he
contradicts. So Jake says, oh,

1720
02:11:26,920 --> 02:11:30,439
he didn't read it. I was
just waiting for a good book on this

1721
02:11:30,560 --> 02:11:33,560
topic to have a good debate.
So Jake's trying to make it like I

1722
02:11:33,640 --> 02:11:35,920
was, you know, avoiding something
or whatever. No, no, no,

1723
02:11:35,960 --> 02:11:39,319
I just wanted to have a good
debate, and I went to the

1724
02:11:39,319 --> 02:11:43,319
trouble of reading this four hundred page
book for you to have a good discussion

1725
02:11:43,359 --> 02:11:48,720
and a good debate. And again
Suleyman, pages three thirty one, notes

1726
02:11:48,199 --> 02:11:56,239
that he absolutely contradicts himself on this
point. He also contradicts on this notion

1727
02:11:56,319 --> 02:11:58,920
of what the divine perfections are,
right, and so when we're told that,

1728
02:12:00,039 --> 02:12:03,239
yeah, we are supposed to know
what a hand is. Every Jew

1729
02:12:03,279 --> 02:12:07,560
are Christian in the seventh or eighth
century would know what a hand is my

1730
02:12:07,720 --> 02:12:13,119
empirically based end time. With that, we're gonna go into the Q and

1731
02:12:13,159 --> 02:12:16,199
A. I want to say,
folks, we're going to try to move

1732
02:12:16,359 --> 02:12:20,560
through this as fast as humanly possible. A couple of quick things. One

1733
02:12:20,680 --> 02:12:24,680
is the goal is what we have
written down here is thirty minutes. As

1734
02:12:24,760 --> 02:12:30,600
well as we will not read super
chats that are just attacks on people,

1735
02:12:30,720 --> 02:12:35,680
we do want actual sincere questions.
Also, as we had mentioned earlier in

1736
02:12:35,680 --> 02:12:37,479
the debate, and as you can
probably see at the bottom right of your

1737
02:12:37,479 --> 02:12:39,840
screen, we're only going to read
super chats that are five dollars or more.

1738
02:12:41,000 --> 02:12:43,680
We're gonna try to get to standard
questions, namely when you just tag

1739
02:12:43,720 --> 02:12:46,840
me in the chat with a question. But I just can't make any promises

1740
02:12:46,880 --> 02:12:50,199
because we do we agree to a
thirty minute Q and I. So I

1741
02:12:50,239 --> 02:12:52,039
want to go through this as fast
as humanly possible. Thanks for your patience,

1742
02:12:52,039 --> 02:12:56,000
and here we go. First up, Thanks very much, Jean Michael

1743
02:12:56,039 --> 02:13:01,039
b says. Jake says that we
are polytheists. You know, he follows

1744
02:13:01,520 --> 02:13:07,560
a pagan god named La. Give
you a chance to respond to that,

1745
02:13:07,640 --> 02:13:11,239
Jake. I have a feeling you
disagree. Yeah, I don't know where

1746
02:13:11,279 --> 02:13:18,560
he's getting this pagan god concept of
law. In fact, even Orthodox Christians,

1747
02:13:18,600 --> 02:13:22,640
I think Jay, maybe this is
something that we could agree on.

1748
02:13:22,119 --> 02:13:30,640
Orthodox Christians that are actually Arabs call
God Allah. So if you think that

1749
02:13:30,640 --> 02:13:35,760
that's the case, then Jay is
just as much of a pagan and Orthodox

1750
02:13:35,800 --> 02:13:41,800
are for using the term Allah.
So it's completely ridiculous question for Jake.

1751
02:13:41,039 --> 02:13:45,880
They say, how does Allah,
who is above the seven heavens, descend

1752
02:13:46,000 --> 02:13:52,119
to the lowest heaven? Does he
have temporal space? I don't know what

1753
02:13:52,279 --> 02:13:58,439
temporal space means because that time and
space are two different things, at least

1754
02:13:58,439 --> 02:14:03,479
in my under standing, unless you
take a modern physical understanding where time and

1755
02:14:03,479 --> 02:14:07,439
space are the same thing. So
I don't even really understand the question.

1756
02:14:07,800 --> 02:14:13,199
But when you ask how, that
shows that the questioner doesn't understand because we

1757
02:14:13,319 --> 02:14:16,600
don't say that we know the how
or the kfea. We don't know the

1758
02:14:16,720 --> 02:14:22,000
kfea of the attribute. So,
and it's not only for descent or nozoul,

1759
02:14:22,079 --> 02:14:26,880
it's the same for Yed or Hua
or any of the attributes. We

1760
02:14:26,000 --> 02:14:31,720
don't talk about the howness of the
attribute. That's disclaimer, folks. We

1761
02:14:31,800 --> 02:14:33,920
have so many questions. Please don't
submit any more questions. We're going to

1762
02:14:33,960 --> 02:14:37,439
try to move fast. Joshua to
King says, believe whatever you want.

1763
02:14:37,560 --> 02:14:41,880
Allah has eternal attributes that require a
recipient. Therefore he's dependent upon other than

1764
02:14:41,960 --> 02:14:48,640
himself to express himself. Who's that
for. Yeah, that's just a statement.

1765
02:14:48,720 --> 02:14:52,960
But I mean, okay, we
don't believe that. We don't believe

1766
02:14:52,960 --> 02:14:56,800
that a loss of pantata. How
is he if he's dependent upon his attributes,

1767
02:14:58,199 --> 02:15:00,760
Let's say, for the sake of
argument, he's dependent upon his attributes.

1768
02:15:01,039 --> 02:15:05,000
How is he dependent upon somebody else? They're his attributes. So,

1769
02:15:05,399 --> 02:15:07,960
I mean, that just makes no
sense. It's the same. It would

1770
02:15:07,960 --> 02:15:11,840
be a similar concept in Orthodoxy to
say, oh, God has attributes,

1771
02:15:11,039 --> 02:15:16,079
so he's dependent upon somebody else.
Well, the attributes are his. It's

1772
02:15:16,119 --> 02:15:20,319
just such a low level critique.
This one from gould see Taburn says Allah

1773
02:15:20,399 --> 02:15:26,279
and Yahweh are both the that's they're
just crawlling. This one coming in from

1774
02:15:26,359 --> 02:15:33,159
do appreciate your question? This one
is from screens reloading. I mean,

1775
02:15:35,119 --> 02:15:39,119
Yashay King says, why does the
Koran say it's clear, detailed and explains

1776
02:15:39,159 --> 02:15:46,600
everything, Yet Muslims differ on Allah
in the Koran doesn't detail the hyphia slash

1777
02:15:46,640 --> 02:15:48,439
howness. Let me know if I
it wrong. Yeah, no, no,

1778
02:15:48,479 --> 02:15:52,199
it's okay. So he's saying,
why does the Kuran say it's a

1779
02:15:52,239 --> 02:15:56,399
detailed explanation of all things? That's
in chapter twelve, verse one eleven when

1780
02:15:56,439 --> 02:16:01,359
it says tefsi la couliche. But
if you see this phrase used, it's

1781
02:16:01,439 --> 02:16:07,119
obviously used in a hyperbolic manner because
it's used in the same sense when it

1782
02:16:07,199 --> 02:16:11,199
talks about what was revealed to Moses. Uh he was also revealed a detailed

1783
02:16:11,199 --> 02:16:16,760
explanation of all things. And yet
we believe that put An came afterwards and

1784
02:16:16,880 --> 02:16:20,159
revealed things that were not given to
Moses. So it's just a misunderstanding of

1785
02:16:20,199 --> 02:16:24,600
the phrase. This one coming in
from doctor Chillin, says, hey,

1786
02:16:24,680 --> 02:16:30,560
j two part question, is LGBT
allowed in Islam? Because in Suna Son

1787
02:16:30,560 --> 02:16:35,479
and Nabi Dawood five two two four, Mohammad was kissing. Oh, let's

1788
02:16:35,520 --> 02:16:39,959
see, they say, allegedly Muhammad
was kissing another man on the chest.

1789
02:16:39,040 --> 02:16:43,959
They say, should we stone him? I would have to look at the

1790
02:16:45,000 --> 02:16:48,399
headith. I don't know what he's
referring to. But LGBTQ, I don't.

1791
02:16:48,399 --> 02:16:50,319
I mean, I don't want to
get the stream banned or anything,

1792
02:16:50,360 --> 02:16:54,840
but no, we believe it's a
We believe it's a sin uh similar to

1793
02:16:56,159 --> 02:17:01,120
Orthodox So we're actually in agreement on
that perspective that LGB is a sin.

1794
02:17:01,920 --> 02:17:07,200
This one from Famo says, Jay, your entire open was a failed attempt

1795
02:17:07,239 --> 02:17:11,600
at trying to challenge Taheed. Get
once, not once did you attempt to

1796
02:17:11,639 --> 02:17:18,120
prove the blatant paradox known as the
Trinity. Well again, in my last

1797
02:17:18,120 --> 02:17:24,840
statement, I addressed the chief argument
that Jake relies on the LPT, and

1798
02:17:24,920 --> 02:17:31,040
I just simply pointed out that there's
two different ways that counting happens for different

1799
02:17:31,040 --> 02:17:35,440
things. Different things are counted in
different ways, and that's why, you

1800
02:17:35,479 --> 02:17:39,280
know, if you want a fuller
presentation of explaining and arguing the Trinitarian doctrine

1801
02:17:39,280 --> 02:17:43,200
itself, you know, I gave
a lot of those passages in the beginning

1802
02:17:43,200 --> 02:17:46,040
part of the Daniel debate, but
I was just trying to squeeze as much

1803
02:17:46,040 --> 02:17:50,799
in as possible. But I would
also add that I would say that if

1804
02:17:50,879 --> 02:17:52,280
Jake, you know, as he
pointed out, wants to just count by

1805
02:17:52,319 --> 02:17:56,760
identity, if he thinks God is
necessary, and he counts by identity,

1806
02:17:56,799 --> 02:18:01,959
and if we follow the rules of
Tamia that each of the what's true of

1807
02:18:01,000 --> 02:18:05,440
one of the attributes is also true
of the essence and so forth, then

1808
02:18:05,559 --> 02:18:11,479
he's got multiple necessary beings. If
he's got multiple attributes, you got it.

1809
02:18:11,520 --> 02:18:15,559
There's one coming in from Do appreciate
it. Even Lord says j are

1810
02:18:15,600 --> 02:18:20,600
Mormons basically Muslims and Jake as a
Muslim. Well we'll first, we'll give

1811
02:18:20,639 --> 02:18:24,440
you a chance to respond, Jay
are Mormons basically Muslims. Then there's some

1812
02:18:24,520 --> 02:18:33,079
interesting parallels between the supposed prophet status
of Muhammad and the supposed prophet status of

1813
02:18:33,280 --> 02:18:37,639
you know, Joseph Smith in terms
of you know, polygamy or direct new

1814
02:18:37,719 --> 02:18:43,799
revelations that sort of contradict previous revelation. See my argument with Danielikikachu. But

1815
02:18:43,920 --> 02:18:48,559
I also I would argue that you
know, Islam is mainly focused on trying

1816
02:18:48,559 --> 02:18:54,799
to explain through thousands of pages of
debates, what Allah's unity and singleness actually

1817
02:18:54,879 --> 02:19:00,319
is, whereas Mormons are actually tritheis
and believe in three distinct, discrete gods.

1818
02:19:01,760 --> 02:19:03,479
I believe in a lot more than
three gods. But yeah, they

1819
02:19:03,520 --> 02:19:07,639
say, for Jake as a Muslim, what are your thoughts of Mormons compared

1820
02:19:07,680 --> 02:19:15,040
to other Christians and Protestant groups.
Yeah, Mormons. I agree with Jay's

1821
02:19:15,079 --> 02:19:20,399
part about Mormonism. I don't think
it's anything similar to Islam. But Mormons

1822
02:19:20,399 --> 02:19:24,239
are actually some of the biggest polytheists
in the world because they believe Father,

1823
02:19:24,360 --> 02:19:26,200
Son, and Holy Spirit. At
least, I say they're a bit more

1824
02:19:26,239 --> 02:19:30,639
honest than Jay because they admit their
three gods, but then they go much

1825
02:19:30,680 --> 02:19:35,520
further than that by saying that man
can become God one day and not in

1826
02:19:35,559 --> 02:19:39,399
the sense that Jay talks about with
theosis. They go much further than that

1827
02:19:39,479 --> 02:19:43,000
because they believe Father, Son and
Holy Spirit used to not be gods and

1828
02:19:43,040 --> 02:19:46,799
they elevated to that station of God. So they're actually one of the biggest

1829
02:19:46,840 --> 02:19:50,520
polytheists in the world as a religion. You got it. This one from

1830
02:19:50,920 --> 02:19:58,319
Bo Branson says, Jake quotes me
saying trinitarianism quote unquote, seems like saying

1831
02:19:58,520 --> 02:20:05,200
one plus one plus one equals one, not that it is. He admits

1832
02:20:05,360 --> 02:20:11,360
that. I next put Gregory of
Nyssa's response in standard predicate logic, giving

1833
02:20:11,440 --> 02:20:16,680
a formal consistency proof Yeah. So
to be clear, I wouldn't be so

1834
02:20:16,920 --> 02:20:24,079
stupid to claim that Bo Branson actually
explicitly says that the trinity is like one

1835
02:20:24,120 --> 02:20:28,000
plus one plus one equals one.
That's not the point. The point is

1836
02:20:28,040 --> 02:20:33,840
that the original problem. I was
using the quote to explain how he understands

1837
02:20:33,879 --> 02:20:39,799
what the LPT is and we can
agree, I think Jay and I if

1838
02:20:39,840 --> 02:20:43,920
we agree about anything, the difference
in terms of why I say the trinity

1839
02:20:43,959 --> 02:20:48,600
results in three gods is about counting. So that's the only point of the

1840
02:20:48,680 --> 02:20:54,600
quote. It's not to say that
Branson believes that the LPT is successful or

1841
02:20:54,639 --> 02:20:58,040
he believes in three gods. That
would be ridiculous. It's just to show

1842
02:20:58,319 --> 02:21:01,159
that he's explaining what the problem is
supposed to be. And then, of

1843
02:21:01,159 --> 02:21:05,520
course in his dissertation he attempts to, you know, respond to the problem.

1844
02:21:07,200 --> 02:21:09,200
This one coming in from even Lord
says, JA, we got that

1845
02:21:09,239 --> 02:21:16,200
one xxwlzxss question for Jake, do
you believe the eyes are that's weird?

1846
02:21:16,399 --> 02:21:20,040
This Bo Branson says, if there
should turn out to be any problem with

1847
02:21:20,159 --> 02:21:24,280
the doctrine of the trinity at all, it will not be one of mere

1848
02:21:24,479 --> 02:21:33,920
logical inconsistency In saying that quote these
three are one. I mean, that's

1849
02:21:33,920 --> 02:21:37,280
just a claim. But I've given
an argument for the LPT, and the

1850
02:21:37,360 --> 02:21:41,719
same argument that I gave to Branson
is the same one I gave to Jay

1851
02:21:41,799 --> 02:21:46,159
and Branson even in his new book, because I've spoke to other contributors to

1852
02:21:46,200 --> 02:21:50,760
the new book, which has been
not been published yet, he never responds

1853
02:21:50,799 --> 02:21:56,879
to my critique of the unprincipled ad
hoc manner in which they count persons and

1854
02:21:56,000 --> 02:22:01,159
attributes their energies by identity. But
the count got it's by division. He

1855
02:22:01,200 --> 02:22:05,959
has no explanation for them. Of
course, that was explained multiple times tonight.

1856
02:22:05,079 --> 02:22:11,239
It's explained by doctor Branson in many
places, and I addressed it by

1857
02:22:11,280 --> 02:22:16,000
first and second order in position argumentation, as well as showing that multiple theologians,

1858
02:22:16,079 --> 02:22:20,479
even algaz Ali, count by a
division. I don't mind Jay responding,

1859
02:22:20,520 --> 02:22:22,520
but if he's going to respond,
then I'd like to respond to other

1860
02:22:22,559 --> 02:22:26,760
questions. I mean, ja,
no, no, I'm not saying.

1861
02:22:26,840 --> 02:22:31,079
I'm not saying to respond now to
what he said. I'm just saying Jay

1862
02:22:31,159 --> 02:22:35,440
has answered other questions that I would
have wanted to respond to. But I

1863
02:22:35,479 --> 02:22:37,479
was quiet, so well, let
me ask a question about that in terms

1864
02:22:37,479 --> 02:22:41,680
of the moderator, like, so
does the other person get to respond to

1865
02:22:41,920 --> 02:22:45,120
like if a question goes to Jake, does it just to Jake? Or

1866
02:22:45,120 --> 02:22:46,680
how's this going to work? I
don't know. That's what I'm trying to

1867
02:22:46,680 --> 02:22:50,239
call. I'm asking the moderator what
what normally? We normally? This is

1868
02:22:50,280 --> 02:22:54,559
something that I I'm happy to have
your guys creative and put on tonight.

1869
02:22:54,680 --> 02:22:56,479
I would. I think it's best
just because we want to get through as

1870
02:22:56,479 --> 02:23:03,319
many questions as possible. This one
from ma Here eighty four says the Messiah

1871
02:23:03,440 --> 02:23:09,360
in parentheses whose name wasn't Jesus didn't
know the hour? When did the Holy

1872
02:23:09,440 --> 02:23:15,719
Spirit relinquish power to not have the
same knowledge as the father? Emphasis on

1873
02:23:15,879 --> 02:23:18,600
father? I think that's for you, Jay? Is that to me?

1874
02:23:18,719 --> 02:23:22,239
Yeah? If you read Basil letter
two thirty five and six, I think

1875
02:23:24,040 --> 02:23:26,319
two thirty four five and six therefore
is the energies. And then five to

1876
02:23:26,399 --> 02:23:33,040
six addresses this topic where it's just
the use of rhetorical exaggerative language, which

1877
02:23:33,120 --> 02:23:35,879
Jesus does quite a bit. For
example, he says there's none good but

1878
02:23:35,079 --> 02:23:37,799
God. But then we have other
places where he says, of course,

1879
02:23:39,559 --> 02:23:43,600
this person is the good man.
You know, the bottle calls Jesus good,

1880
02:23:43,879 --> 02:23:48,000
Holy Spirit good. So it's a
rhetorical device to say that not even

1881
02:23:48,040 --> 02:23:50,639
I know, right, or not
even the sun knows. It doesn't literally

1882
02:23:50,680 --> 02:23:54,040
mean that he doesn't know, because
we're also told that Jesus knows all things.

1883
02:23:54,840 --> 02:23:58,639
This one from Seur says, is
the trinity a necessary truth or contingent

1884
02:23:58,719 --> 02:24:05,120
truth? If the former, what
is the contradiction of rejecting it? If

1885
02:24:05,120 --> 02:24:11,319
a contradiction isn't shown from denial,
it's a contingent truth. Therefore trinity false.

1886
02:24:11,920 --> 02:24:18,079
And assuming that's to me right,
yeah, I think that this is

1887
02:24:18,520 --> 02:24:22,000
if this is like the atheist TikTok
people that ask this question, this is

1888
02:24:22,040 --> 02:24:26,040
again kind of making the mistake of
thinking that the argument, the transcendal argument,

1889
02:24:26,120 --> 02:24:28,959
is a first order argument. It's
a meta level argument. So that's

1890
02:24:30,040 --> 02:24:33,799
not really relevant to how we are
we argue tagged. This one from f

1891
02:24:33,920 --> 02:24:37,120
c LA News says a Lah,
I know I'm going to say this wrong,

1892
02:24:37,200 --> 02:24:41,639
so help me alu akbar. Yeah, I say this right. This

1893
02:24:41,719 --> 02:24:52,159
one from LH says Jake the meta
Central Dawa says Jay Dyer saying, quote

1894
02:24:52,280 --> 02:24:58,719
Jake doesn't understand. Unquote is not
an argument against Jake. Make an actual

1895
02:24:58,799 --> 02:25:03,319
argue. Give you a chance to
Jade respond to that. Well, I

1896
02:25:03,319 --> 02:25:05,719
mean I might have used that phrase
at a couple points in the debate,

1897
02:25:05,840 --> 02:25:09,600
but I didn't rely only on saying
Jake doesn't understand. I think I used

1898
02:25:09,600 --> 02:25:15,200
that phrase two or three times,
but I gave many arguments. You got

1899
02:25:15,200 --> 02:25:18,840
it. Let's see this one from
LH says, so there's one Allah with

1900
02:25:18,920 --> 02:25:24,559
multiple body parts, i e.
The hands are distinct from the shin complete

1901
02:25:24,639 --> 02:25:28,760
partiality of Allah they put in all
caps. No, we don't believe that

1902
02:25:30,000 --> 02:25:33,159
a laws Yed is a body part. We don't believe that he has any

1903
02:25:33,200 --> 02:25:37,079
body parts. And Jay should know
this. I'm not saying he's claiming that,

1904
02:25:37,200 --> 02:25:41,559
but from reading the text, we
don't believe that their body parts.

1905
02:25:41,719 --> 02:25:48,159
So by people keep asserting this same
falsehood, which Farid Suliman refutes directly in

1906
02:25:48,200 --> 02:25:52,120
the book, just shows their own
ignorance. But they can do it as

1907
02:25:52,159 --> 02:25:56,239
long as they like this. So
coming in from dal Eel says Jake,

1908
02:25:56,719 --> 02:26:00,680
why do you worship ninety nine gods? I'll give you a chance respond to

1909
02:26:00,680 --> 02:26:03,479
that. I don't worship ninety nine
gods, because I don't say that the

1910
02:26:03,600 --> 02:26:09,159
sufat or the Siphah, which is
an attribute, is a god, just

1911
02:26:09,239 --> 02:26:15,520
as Jayder does not say that the
energy of God's will or power or knowledge

1912
02:26:15,719 --> 02:26:20,319
are gods. We don't call them
gods. They're attributes of God. Famo

1913
02:26:20,319 --> 02:26:24,280
says jay If the Son wanted a
tree to be yellow, the Holy Spirit

1914
02:26:24,440 --> 02:26:28,840
wanted it to be orange, and
at the same time the Father wanted it

1915
02:26:28,920 --> 02:26:33,159
to be blue, what color would
the tree be? Yeah, we don't

1916
02:26:33,200 --> 02:26:41,000
believe in that will and intentionality and
action are themselves personal properties. So the

1917
02:26:41,000 --> 02:26:46,360
Trinity shares a common will, a
common nature, and common operations, and

1918
02:26:46,440 --> 02:26:54,760
so there wouldn't be conflicting contrary wills
within God. That's the traits or properties

1919
02:26:54,799 --> 02:26:56,959
of nature. And then when we
talk about the mode in which that nature

1920
02:26:58,000 --> 02:27:00,920
exists, it exists in the mode
of three per since it habits, so

1921
02:27:00,920 --> 02:27:05,520
it's both particularized and it's common at
the same time. So I'm coming in

1922
02:27:05,559 --> 02:27:11,079
from L two A says, did
a natural theist really just try to hijack

1923
02:27:11,120 --> 02:27:18,200
the anthropology of the noose without an
energy essence distinction? I think that's to

1924
02:27:18,280 --> 02:27:22,760
me, and I would say that
I mean I understand. I guess the

1925
02:27:22,799 --> 02:27:26,840
apologetic use of trying to utilize the
notion of the news, but I don't

1926
02:27:26,840 --> 02:27:33,600
think that translates into the talhat theology
that he has in any coherent way.

1927
02:27:33,879 --> 02:27:37,440
You got it, Thank you very
much for this question. Ecclesiastes says,

1928
02:27:37,520 --> 02:27:41,719
Jake, why would you debate?
Let's see this one from Punk Giver says,

1929
02:27:41,840 --> 02:27:46,879
for Jake, if the sun cannot
cause another person, can Allah's foot

1930
02:27:46,000 --> 02:27:52,959
cause another Alah's hand? I mean, it's just a ridiculous questions. Responding

1931
02:27:54,000 --> 02:28:00,440
to Ecclesiastes says, great job,
Jay Dyer, they say Ja or they

1932
02:28:00,479 --> 02:28:09,399
say Jake? Would you debate?
David Wood depends on the topic. Listen

1933
02:28:09,479 --> 02:28:16,680
from Domain says, is the son
a s? If yes, how is

1934
02:28:16,719 --> 02:28:20,719
that possible since he's begotten? And
if no, how is he God?

1935
02:28:20,120 --> 02:28:26,079
Because it's greater to be a a
s E and God is maximally great.

1936
02:28:26,280 --> 02:28:30,319
I think he means, I'll say, but I'm sure Jay got that sayity

1937
02:28:30,600 --> 02:28:35,040
is for us a property that picks
up the father, and so as you.

1938
02:28:35,200 --> 02:28:39,079
If you can go watch the debate
between Jake and doctor bo Branson,

1939
02:28:39,200 --> 02:28:43,120
that whole debate settles this question,
because we could say, for example,

1940
02:28:43,200 --> 02:28:46,479
that all fathers are human beings,
but anything that's not a father is not

1941
02:28:46,520 --> 02:28:50,079
a human right. This ends up
in certain fallacies like the nine the antecedent,

1942
02:28:50,120 --> 02:28:54,000
and if you watch that debate,
Jake's guilty of the nine the antecedent.

1943
02:28:54,600 --> 02:28:58,399
You got it. This one from
the Chelskian says, Jake does your

1944
02:28:58,399 --> 02:29:03,600
back hurt? Okay, that's weird. Abrahams Sorry, guys, I don't

1945
02:29:03,639 --> 02:29:07,360
get to vet all these these such
a dozen. I'm sitting quite comfortably.

1946
02:29:07,360 --> 02:29:13,239
But yeah, you say, what
is the point in Allah using the created

1947
02:29:13,360 --> 02:29:18,520
term hand or foot, et cetera. Yet is nothing like a created hand,

1948
02:29:18,639 --> 02:29:24,079
foot, et cetera. It's It's
something very basic that I've explained numerous

1949
02:29:24,120 --> 02:29:28,000
times, and it seemed that Jay
himself didn't get it when you say that

1950
02:29:28,159 --> 02:29:33,600
these are created things, all of
the predicates that we use in the English

1951
02:29:33,719 --> 02:29:37,000
language or in Arabic, when we
say essence or we say power, or

1952
02:29:37,040 --> 02:29:41,959
we say hand, there is no
difference in terms of predicating those things of

1953
02:29:43,000 --> 02:29:46,920
God and predicating those things of creation. Our position is that there's a similarity

1954
02:29:46,959 --> 02:29:52,600
in meaning and that there's no similarity
in ontology. You got it. This

1955
02:29:52,639 --> 02:29:58,319
one coming in from and each nurse
says, did Muhammad destroy Allah's idol with

1956
02:30:00,360 --> 02:30:07,760
balls? I don't know what that's
talking about. Neither my Zabibo's trajectory says

1957
02:30:07,799 --> 02:30:13,760
if I text you the way,
see that's weird. Mjasons. Can Jay

1958
02:30:13,760 --> 02:30:18,440
give an example of anything else that
is counted differently, as in the case

1959
02:30:18,520 --> 02:30:24,200
of Trinity, we have three persons, one nature, but yet one God.

1960
02:30:26,120 --> 02:30:28,520
I don't understand the question is is
there something that we are there things

1961
02:30:28,520 --> 02:30:33,760
that we count in different ways,
or can I give examples the way that

1962
02:30:33,799 --> 02:30:37,360
we count God in different ways?
Because what I argue was that if you

1963
02:30:37,399 --> 02:30:41,120
look at medieval philosophy, there's first
order in position, second order in position.

1964
02:30:41,159 --> 02:30:45,920
First order position is counting things that
are mundane like cows and dogs,

1965
02:30:46,879 --> 02:30:50,520
and then second order in position is
counting abstract things like walls of logic or

1966
02:30:50,559 --> 02:30:56,000
sets. And so, for example, concrete things we would count by division,

1967
02:30:56,079 --> 02:30:58,840
and abstract things we would count by
identity. So even in the Middle

1968
02:30:58,840 --> 02:31:03,159
Eight people counted in different ways.
So it's odd to me that the whole

1969
02:31:03,280 --> 02:31:07,440
argument tonight was premised on we only
count in one way, and that's counting

1970
02:31:07,440 --> 02:31:11,719
by identity, which is why I
said that if Jake counts by identity,

1971
02:31:11,959 --> 02:31:16,799
then he has missed many necessary beings
in his account of the attributes. Got

1972
02:31:16,840 --> 02:31:20,079
it? This one from the Chelsekian
says, when Alla comes down the third

1973
02:31:20,120 --> 02:31:24,280
part of the night to answer prayers, that means that either Allah is like

1974
02:31:24,399 --> 02:31:28,879
a yo yo because Earth is a
globe, or that Muhammad thought that the

1975
02:31:28,920 --> 02:31:33,879
Earth was flat. I think this
is for you, Jake. No,

1976
02:31:35,000 --> 02:31:39,319
that's incorrect, because again they're going
into the kafia or the howness of the

1977
02:31:39,360 --> 02:31:45,079
descent, which we don't and we
don't actually make the claim that it is

1978
02:31:45,200 --> 02:31:50,920
a movement necessarily from one spatial location
to the another. In a similar manner

1979
02:31:50,200 --> 02:31:56,000
that Jay Dyer believes that the attributes
or energies descend upon creation, and he

1980
02:31:56,079 --> 02:32:01,959
doesn't imagine that they're like ripping off
a piece of and and and somehow coming

1981
02:32:03,079 --> 02:32:07,120
into creation and a landing on a
human being. So this is just a

1982
02:32:07,200 --> 02:32:11,319
misunderstanding of our position. You got
it? This one coming in from Do

1983
02:32:11,319 --> 02:32:16,799
you appreciate it? Ahmed, says
Jake alu Akbar. Great job, MJ

1984
02:32:16,959 --> 02:32:22,920
says, Can Jay give an example
of anything else that is counted differently as

1985
02:32:22,959 --> 02:32:26,959
in the case of trinity. We
have three persons, one nature, but

1986
02:32:26,040 --> 02:32:31,239
yet one God. I think that's
like the last question, the question sorry

1987
02:32:31,239 --> 02:32:39,040
about that Matt Belcher's is Michael loft
And dressed as a Muslim? I don't

1988
02:32:39,159 --> 02:32:43,719
understand this one from buddy, who's
your friend? Michael? Okay, GBT

1989
02:32:45,360 --> 02:32:48,360
zero point one two says, let's
see, I don't think Michael Lofton has

1990
02:32:48,440 --> 02:32:54,760
any friends on this stream. This
one coming in from do appreciate it?

1991
02:32:54,799 --> 02:33:00,319
Famos, says Jay. Answer without
they say, how can an unlimited infinite

1992
02:33:00,399 --> 02:33:05,399
being I E. God be finite
e I E. Jesus and infinite I

1993
02:33:05,559 --> 02:33:09,200
E. God at the same time. Yeah, well, this is what

1994
02:33:09,280 --> 02:33:15,239
we talked about earlier with mode.
And so the mode that Jesus entered into

1995
02:33:15,440 --> 02:33:20,600
is a new mode of being,
which the Book of Philippians describes as a

1996
02:33:20,639 --> 02:33:24,319
willful non exercising of every one of
his attributes. I think that Jake himself

1997
02:33:24,319 --> 02:33:28,280
has argued in the past that God
doesn't have to exercise every power and every

1998
02:33:28,879 --> 02:33:31,559
attribute of creating at all times.
And so in the same way, we

1999
02:33:31,639 --> 02:33:35,959
just simply say that the second person
of the God had stepped into the mode

2000
02:33:35,959 --> 02:33:41,520
of human nature while still having the
divine nature. So he didn't lose his

2001
02:33:41,639 --> 02:33:46,559
deity, he didn't undergo any change, he didn't become the opposite of himself.

2002
02:33:46,879 --> 02:33:50,159
We believe a both and rather than
either or. You got it.

2003
02:33:50,600 --> 02:33:54,159
This one coming in from just want
to remind you folks, we are looking

2004
02:33:54,159 --> 02:33:58,440
for sincere questions, not statements that. I don't know why these guys would

2005
02:33:58,440 --> 02:34:01,319
pay a lot of money just to
not a question up there. It's just

2006
02:34:01,399 --> 02:34:05,760
silly. I don't either they're asking, they're saying all sorts of things.

2007
02:34:05,840 --> 02:34:09,280
But this one from John, this
is one. We got this on money.

2008
02:34:09,360 --> 02:34:15,760
Basia says Jay, how do you
worship Jesus without worshiping his human nature?

2009
02:34:15,920 --> 02:34:20,200
Don't you have to worship the created
human nature when you worship the person

2010
02:34:20,239 --> 02:34:26,360
of Jesus, which even Christians would
consider idolatry. Well, this is addressed

2011
02:34:26,360 --> 02:34:30,479
in St. Cyril and the Council
of Ephesus, because it's an argument that

2012
02:34:30,639 --> 02:34:37,360
Nestorius makes, And interestingly, the
Islamic or Oxtrad Handbook of Islam notes that

2013
02:34:37,399 --> 02:34:41,000
there is in fact a historian influence
on Islam. So I don't fault him

2014
02:34:41,040 --> 02:34:45,079
for making that mistake or thinking that
way, But the answer is just simply

2015
02:34:45,120 --> 02:34:50,319
that. Cyril says that we don't
worship the creature per creature. We direct

2016
02:34:50,399 --> 02:34:56,120
all of our worship to the divine
hypostasis, and we give him a holistic

2017
02:34:56,159 --> 02:35:00,280
worship as the whole being, because
it's the body of the word. Don't

2018
02:35:00,280 --> 02:35:03,280
worship the body of Christ or the
human nature of Christ in any divided or

2019
02:35:03,360 --> 02:35:09,719
separate way, but we worship the
god Man who is also incarnate. You

2020
02:35:09,879 --> 02:35:13,600
got it this one. I'll read
the appropriate part. They say, guys,

2021
02:35:13,680 --> 02:35:20,479
it's read Go join Gigi slash Soony. By the way, I'm six

2022
02:35:20,520 --> 02:35:26,040
foot seven. Okay, then I
don't know, sir this, susse says.

2023
02:35:26,639 --> 02:35:33,799
Discord dot gg slash Soony says,
join the Debate Review. So if

2024
02:35:33,879 --> 02:35:35,479
yeah, we're happy to share about
debate reviews, folks, if you want

2025
02:35:35,479 --> 02:35:39,600
to go check that out, go
have a conversation there, uh, sussep

2026
02:35:39,280 --> 02:35:48,639
says. They say, okay,
John Michael b says. Jake says,

2027
02:35:48,680 --> 02:35:52,600
we are polytheist because you know we
follow Pigan. We got that one,

2028
02:35:52,920 --> 02:36:01,200
maneeb Zia says, Jay got that. Ab just shook her, says Jay,

2029
02:36:01,079 --> 02:36:07,079
how have you actually read authority position? Because when Jake asked you simple

2030
02:36:07,200 --> 02:36:13,840
questions yes or no, you have
hard time answering yes or no. Well,

2031
02:36:13,879 --> 02:36:20,319
for example, when he asked about
whether even to me believes in occasionalism

2032
02:36:20,479 --> 02:36:24,120
or secondary causes, I was trying
to remember the specific page in the Foreigner

2033
02:36:24,159 --> 02:36:28,719
page book which I did read,
which says he doesn't believe in occasionalism.

2034
02:36:28,840 --> 02:36:33,959
So I was trying to accurately give
the position. And so the answer is

2035
02:36:33,959 --> 02:36:37,120
no, he doesn't believe in occasionalism. That's why I said specifically that he

2036
02:36:37,159 --> 02:36:41,920
does allow for creative causes. You
got it this one from Giant Media,

2037
02:36:41,000 --> 02:36:45,799
or says Jake. If Alan's foot, I think you mean all his foot

2038
02:36:46,079 --> 02:36:50,799
and hands and other attributes quote unquote
are not divisions of Allah, but each

2039
02:36:50,840 --> 02:36:56,440
one is an identity? Is I
think? Now, No, there wasn't

2040
02:36:56,440 --> 02:37:00,479
a mistake. They're saying Alan on
purpose. I think they say if Allan's

2041
02:37:00,479 --> 02:37:03,520
foot, in, hands and other
attributes are not divisions of Allen, but

2042
02:37:03,639 --> 02:37:11,360
each one is an identity? Is
each one the whole of Allen? Yeah,

2043
02:37:11,399 --> 02:37:15,760
so obviously he's talking about Allah.
I don't know what's his Alan business,

2044
02:37:15,760 --> 02:37:18,920
but we believe that the attributes,
all of the attributes, And I

2045
02:37:20,159 --> 02:37:24,040
repeat it again we don't believe their
body parts. So you can keep saying

2046
02:37:24,120 --> 02:37:26,959
that we believe their body parts,
but we don't believe that. This is

2047
02:37:26,040 --> 02:37:31,079
explicit in all of our texts,
so it's just misrepresentation. But they are.

2048
02:37:31,319 --> 02:37:35,760
We believe they're inseparable from the essence, right, just as God's power

2049
02:37:35,879 --> 02:37:41,120
and knowledge. They're all inseparable from
the essence. It's not like God's knowledge

2050
02:37:41,120 --> 02:37:45,440
starts floating around and comes and drifts
down to earth and we don't believe that.

2051
02:37:45,520 --> 02:37:50,040
So just a misunderstanding of the position. I'muel, says Jake, I

2052
02:37:50,079 --> 02:37:52,920
love you, remember Jesus King and
Joe, You're weird? And Derek,

2053
02:37:54,040 --> 02:37:58,040
let's play fortnite. Susep says Justin
in his dialogue, makes it clear that

2054
02:37:58,079 --> 02:38:05,479
the Father can incarnate. This is
clear subordinationism, showing he believed the Father

2055
02:38:05,600 --> 02:38:09,680
had a level of greatness in his
personhood where he can't incarnate. Do you

2056
02:38:09,760 --> 02:38:16,559
pray to a heretic? Is that
a question to me? I guess I

2057
02:38:15,920 --> 02:38:20,920
think I know you don't pray to
just well, it was it was it

2058
02:38:20,959 --> 02:38:26,959
was phrased odd. Yeah, So, like I said, I mean the

2059
02:38:26,959 --> 02:38:28,719
the Father. The reason I said
that we don't know is that. I'm

2060
02:38:28,760 --> 02:38:37,399
not aware of any statement where we're
told by divine revelation that the Father could

2061
02:38:37,440 --> 02:38:41,879
not incarnate. But there are the
alphantic manifestations where we have the Father,

2062
02:38:41,440 --> 02:38:46,280
you know, speaking to the son, but that's an energetic manifestation. But

2063
02:38:46,520 --> 02:38:48,959
like I said, Jesus says that, you know, no one sees the

2064
02:38:48,000 --> 02:38:52,879
Father at any time. So just
like the divine essence is not perceived or

2065
02:38:52,920 --> 02:38:56,440
seen, we don't think that the
Father is directly seen or perceived, except

2066
02:38:56,440 --> 02:39:01,440
as Jesus says, in the Son. So I don't see what that's a

2067
02:39:01,520 --> 02:39:07,479
problem really for our theology. I
mean, it's not if Justin Martin makes

2068
02:39:07,479 --> 02:39:09,559
a mistake like that, I would
class it as the same type of mistake,

2069
02:39:09,600 --> 02:39:13,959
but Augustine makes can I just asked
Jay a quick question about that.

2070
02:39:13,600 --> 02:39:20,360
Are there disputes and orthodoxy amongst the
scholars about whether or not the Father can

2071
02:39:20,479 --> 02:39:26,639
become incarnate? No, just a
genuine question. I'm just asking. No,

2072
02:39:26,719 --> 02:39:30,639
I'm just was thinking about first Ofvine
revelation. I'm aware of what you're

2073
02:39:30,639 --> 02:39:35,399
talking about in terms of what John
Damascus talks about, but I was just

2074
02:39:35,399 --> 02:39:39,680
trying to think about what they might
be referring to which is like we have

2075
02:39:39,760 --> 02:39:43,559
stories or we have a case like
where when Jesus baptized, right, the

2076
02:39:43,600 --> 02:39:46,840
father says, this is my beloved
son. So somebody might think that that's

2077
02:39:46,799 --> 02:39:50,559
the Father entering into creation. But
in our theology, we don't think the

2078
02:39:50,600 --> 02:39:56,920
Father enters into creation in that way
other than it's an energetic manifestation that tells

2079
02:39:56,000 --> 02:40:00,399
us about the Father, but it's
not the person of the Father. Okay,

2080
02:40:00,920 --> 02:40:03,719
this one from Jack Hoggs says Allah
is completely unlike created things. But

2081
02:40:03,840 --> 02:40:11,479
yes, created things can etiquette of
Allah. Yeah, as I've explained numerous

2082
02:40:11,520 --> 02:40:16,479
times, this hinges on our and
Jay's right to point out. I'm happy

2083
02:40:16,559 --> 02:40:22,799
that we that was actually part of
the conversation nominalism, but they keep focusing

2084
02:40:22,920 --> 02:40:26,559
on God. What the But what
these people don't understand if they actually study

2085
02:40:26,799 --> 02:40:35,040
nominalism. I believe that there is
no shared reality between my hand and Jay's

2086
02:40:35,040 --> 02:40:39,200
hand. I don't believe that there
is this thing called handness which is partially

2087
02:40:39,360 --> 02:40:43,040
or fully identical in my hand and
Jay's hand, or my knowledge and Jay's

2088
02:40:43,040 --> 02:40:48,559
knowledge. Everything that exists is a
particular So there's nothing unique about this.

2089
02:40:48,799 --> 02:40:54,280
When it comes to a law or
human beings. So people understand that this

2090
02:40:54,360 --> 02:40:58,799
is a debatable point, but it
seems like they're not even aware of what

2091
02:41:00,000 --> 02:41:03,680
anomalism even is. So from Beyond
Doubt theology says, Jay, you have

2092
02:41:03,760 --> 02:41:07,719
a problem with God having a foot, But if you can say God died

2093
02:41:09,000 --> 02:41:13,760
in parentheses Council of Ephesus, can't
you say that God or Jesus in particular

2094
02:41:13,879 --> 02:41:20,639
had feet. Yeah. So the
internal critique was the first part about how

2095
02:41:20,920 --> 02:41:24,440
when Jake gives an account or when
even to me it gives an account of

2096
02:41:24,840 --> 02:41:30,280
the semantic content that's supposed to be
similar in terms of quote meaning, that

2097
02:41:30,360 --> 02:41:33,840
actually ends up telling us nothing about
what that actually is. That was the

2098
02:41:33,840 --> 02:41:37,319
force of my argument in terms of
an internal critique of his position. But

2099
02:41:37,399 --> 02:41:41,520
it is true that in our theology
you could say that by appropriation or by

2100
02:41:41,559 --> 02:41:46,399
what Cyril calls the communication communicatio idio
modern or the communication of properties, that

2101
02:41:48,399 --> 02:41:50,840
God the Son died. It doesn't
mean that he died in his divine nature

2102
02:41:52,000 --> 02:41:56,159
or the underwent change, or that
the divinity became passable. It just simply

2103
02:41:56,200 --> 02:42:00,000
means that the subject to the divine
person, the son, experienced the seventh

2104
02:42:00,040 --> 02:42:03,959
bring of his human soul. From
his human body. You got it?

2105
02:42:03,959 --> 02:42:09,399
This one coming in from Jack Hoggs
says, got that one imagination, says

2106
02:42:09,479 --> 02:42:13,319
Jake. You cannot have your own
definitions and tell Jay to respond by using

2107
02:42:13,360 --> 02:42:18,440
them. It's utterly ridiculous. Allah
means a fake by my definition. Could

2108
02:42:18,479 --> 02:42:24,559
you please prove Allah is real?
I mean, that's a strange question their

2109
02:42:24,680 --> 02:42:30,639
or statement. But obviously, my
theory of a language and theory of meaning

2110
02:42:30,719 --> 02:42:33,479
is entirely different. I believe that
the meaning of a word, or a

2111
02:42:33,600 --> 02:42:39,159
sentence or a phrase is based on
the intention of the speaker. Okay,

2112
02:42:39,200 --> 02:42:43,040
So when I ask about what power
is or what this is, and then

2113
02:42:43,079 --> 02:42:46,520
I explain my intention of what the
meaning is, you can answer according to

2114
02:42:46,559 --> 02:42:50,159
that, and you can say,
oh, but I don't use the word

2115
02:42:50,200 --> 02:42:52,920
that way, and given another answer. So there's no problem with that whatsoever.

2116
02:42:54,479 --> 02:42:56,079
Well, except that you tried to
say that I have to accept that

2117
02:42:56,120 --> 02:43:01,120
meaning. I mean, got it? This one coming in from appreciate it

2118
02:43:01,879 --> 02:43:07,760
all, mass see, he says
to Jake. Even Kamia brings Sahi in

2119
02:43:07,879 --> 02:43:15,399
his book that Mohammad sits with Allah, where rsh Percy trembles. Since you

2120
02:43:15,440 --> 02:43:20,920
pray to Allah, how are you
not polytheists. Since I pray to Allah,

2121
02:43:20,959 --> 02:43:24,319
how am I not a polytheist?
I mean, how is that even

2122
02:43:24,399 --> 02:43:28,680
connected to the first part of what
he said? I have no idea.

2123
02:43:28,239 --> 02:43:33,479
And since Jay is making comments on
the backhand of my statements, then I

2124
02:43:33,520 --> 02:43:37,360
would make a comment on the backhand
of his questions. And just as the

2125
02:43:37,520 --> 02:43:45,159
questioner was asking before about predications and
the communication of idioms or attributes, likewise,

2126
02:43:45,399 --> 02:43:48,440
Jay can appropriately say that God has
a penis. There's no problem with

2127
02:43:48,479 --> 02:43:54,079
that whatsoever. This one from i'mule
says I was low key having doubts.

2128
02:43:54,360 --> 02:43:58,399
Then I remember Jesus as God.
Now I'm gonna give doubts. Hi,

2129
02:43:58,479 --> 02:44:03,600
Derek, I love you and you
as well. Joe Matt Schneider said,

2130
02:44:03,680 --> 02:44:05,360
Jake, if you were on the
north pole and Jay was on the cell

2131
02:44:05,440 --> 02:44:11,280
pole, could you both point toward
Allah. Yes, we don't believe space

2132
02:44:11,639 --> 02:44:18,239
is an actual thing. It's relative. But he believes that you can point

2133
02:44:18,440 --> 02:44:20,559
up to Allah. And we believe
that God is on the present. He's

2134
02:44:20,559 --> 02:44:26,920
not in a spatial location. Up
is a spatial location. This depends what

2135
02:44:26,959 --> 02:44:31,239
you mean by spatial location. But
we can go back up. No,

2136
02:44:31,040 --> 02:44:37,760
like space, you believe you do
believe is a space space in an Aristatilian

2137
02:44:37,879 --> 02:44:41,440
sense of encompassing. In your sense, you believe that you can point up

2138
02:44:41,479 --> 02:44:43,319
to Allah. You said it to
Khalil. I already I already just said

2139
02:44:43,360 --> 02:44:46,799
that right here in my answer.
Right that's spatially direct. You don't think

2140
02:44:46,799 --> 02:44:52,280
app is a spatial direction. We
believe in a jiha or a direction.

2141
02:44:52,559 --> 02:44:58,239
But when you use space, when
you use when you use spatial, it

2142
02:44:58,280 --> 02:45:01,319
depends on what you mean by space. Yeah, so a new definition of

2143
02:45:01,360 --> 02:45:05,959
space, that's too. We have
an Aristotelian definition of space. Oh interesting,

2144
02:45:07,760 --> 02:45:11,719
So it's okay to use the medieval
things here, But what about counting

2145
02:45:11,760 --> 02:45:15,239
has to be post fraga? I
never said that. What are you talking

2146
02:45:15,239 --> 02:45:18,040
about? My critique was that you're
inconsistent in your counting method, but you

2147
02:45:18,079 --> 02:45:22,600
don't have a you're a consistent because
you count, you count the attributes.

2148
02:45:22,600 --> 02:45:24,399
By then I already showed you that
you look like a fool because you have

2149
02:45:24,760 --> 02:45:26,879
so now you have to you have
to go to ad home and then when

2150
02:45:26,920 --> 02:45:31,319
I pin you down again, when
you did what when I pin you down,

2151
02:45:31,360 --> 02:45:33,319
you have to go to at home
and you will pin me down.

2152
02:45:33,399 --> 02:45:39,440
You because you count by identity I
hate to do this. Necessary do count

2153
02:45:39,440 --> 02:45:43,280
by identity? Awesome? You have
multiple necessary beings? No, we don't.

2154
02:45:43,600 --> 02:45:46,799
We must move, they say,
question for Jake, Please ask this.

2155
02:45:48,040 --> 02:45:52,159
James, does Islam teach that Jesus
is the nephew of Aaron and Moses?

2156
02:45:52,799 --> 02:45:56,440
Sorry, say that again? Is
he does Islam teach that Jesus is

2157
02:45:56,479 --> 02:46:03,680
the nephew of Aaron and Moses?
No? This one from James, says,

2158
02:46:03,959 --> 02:46:09,600
can Jake quote unquote tell us why
Allah being called quote the one the

2159
02:46:09,639 --> 02:46:18,799
absolute is not blatant mimicry of bhutone
plotinus karan through two. Thank you.

2160
02:46:20,479 --> 02:46:24,959
We don't believe that a loss of
panotada is the one or absolute in the

2161
02:46:24,000 --> 02:46:31,440
way that Platinas said, Platinus believed
in a complete uh, in divine simplicity

2162
02:46:31,440 --> 02:46:35,280
in a radical sense. We don't
believe in that whatsoever. So it's a

2163
02:46:35,360 --> 02:46:41,440
complete uh misunderstanding of our actual position. This one coming from so, says

2164
02:46:41,479 --> 02:46:45,159
says Jake. Does Allah act in
time or is he timeless? How does

2165
02:46:45,200 --> 02:46:52,239
the doctrine affect immutability? The full
falsapha adhere to true tahed uh if you

2166
02:46:52,319 --> 02:46:56,799
mean by the philosopher's ibn sina,
we believe that he was a Kaffre.

2167
02:46:56,239 --> 02:47:00,840
Uh So, I'm sorry to tell
you for for for the questioner. We

2168
02:47:00,879 --> 02:47:03,120
don't believe he was a Muslim in
that sense, unless you take the theory

2169
02:47:03,159 --> 02:47:09,040
that he repented later in life.
But nevertheless, I forgot what the first

2170
02:47:09,079 --> 02:47:15,479
part of that question was. Besides
the philosophers to oh, yeah, I'm

2171
02:47:15,520 --> 02:47:18,719
surprised that Jay didn't actually that.
I wish we would have had a chance

2172
02:47:18,760 --> 02:47:22,520
to go through this more. If
you mean by does a loss of panet

2173
02:47:22,520 --> 02:47:26,120
out to act in time, then
yes, we believe that he acts in

2174
02:47:26,159 --> 02:47:31,000
succession that he has and this was
actually and I mentioned this. Jay and

2175
02:47:31,000 --> 02:47:33,879
I don't agree on any things,
but in my debate review of his debate

2176
02:47:33,920 --> 02:47:39,079
with us Rah Rashid, I think
this is a serious problem that he highlighted

2177
02:47:39,840 --> 02:47:46,440
very effectively in pointing out that the
Ashatas don't believe that the attributes of action

2178
02:47:46,719 --> 02:47:52,959
are actually divine attributes. They say
that Allah's actions simply refer to his created

2179
02:47:52,000 --> 02:47:56,760
effects. We think this is complete
nonsense. No, we believe that his

2180
02:47:56,200 --> 02:48:03,920
actions are actual attributes or in a
language of Eastern Orthodoxy, our energies,

2181
02:48:03,120 --> 02:48:07,760
and they can have a beginning in
time and yet are uncreated. And I

2182
02:48:07,799 --> 02:48:13,280
gave support from that from Imam Bucati
in my opening presentation. This one from

2183
02:48:15,280 --> 02:48:20,879
Alexander says, why does Allah have
two right hands? Why does he have

2184
02:48:20,920 --> 02:48:24,520
two right hands? I mean,
it's just a silly question if you actually

2185
02:48:24,559 --> 02:48:30,959
read the text and understand why the
term right is used. Wright is used

2186
02:48:30,959 --> 02:48:35,840
in terms of blessing. So we
believe that the blessings pour forth from a

2187
02:48:35,920 --> 02:48:39,120
loss of pano Ada's hands. That's
the meaning of the term, which I

2188
02:48:39,200 --> 02:48:43,600
have videos on my channel explaining that
this is a standard tough sier or explanation

2189
02:48:43,680 --> 02:48:50,360
of those ahadith. I'm yul says, I'm currently tking. Matt Belcher says,

2190
02:48:50,440 --> 02:48:54,600
Jake. If Allah is the only
eternal, then why is the Kuran

2191
02:48:54,719 --> 02:48:58,600
also said to be eternal? Again, this is something I corrected Jay on

2192
02:48:58,639 --> 02:49:03,319
them prized when he thought that I
believe that the put Ann is eternal.

2193
02:49:03,680 --> 02:49:05,159
I didn't believe that. I just
said, I wasn't talking about that.

2194
02:49:05,559 --> 02:49:07,959
You did, no, I said, I wasn't talking about it. You

2195
02:49:09,000 --> 02:49:11,200
can go back. You can go
back to the tape and look at it

2196
02:49:11,239 --> 02:49:13,559
yourself. I said, I don't
know what your position is there. I

2197
02:49:13,600 --> 02:49:16,280
didn't say you believed that. Okay, you don't know what my position is.

2198
02:49:16,280 --> 02:49:18,360
What's explained in the text. We
don't say that the put An is

2199
02:49:18,399 --> 02:49:22,200
eternal in terms of a speech act. We believe that it was spoken in

2200
02:49:22,319 --> 02:49:26,879
time to the angel Jabrilani, he
said, i'm and then to the prophet

2201
02:49:26,920 --> 02:49:30,639
muhammad Ad he said said, I'm
so. We don't believe that it is

2202
02:49:30,760 --> 02:49:35,559
eternal in that sense, only eternal
in the sense of within God's knowledge that

2203
02:49:35,639 --> 02:49:39,200
he knew what he would speak.
But the act of speech itself happens at

2204
02:49:39,200 --> 02:49:45,040
a particular moment in time. You
got it this one coming in from do

2205
02:49:45,120 --> 02:49:48,319
appreciate it? Sojournon, says jacob
Alla. His hand is something that grabs

2206
02:49:48,360 --> 02:49:54,440
what is all of shin God.
This is just ridiculous questions. And anyway,

2207
02:49:54,440 --> 02:49:58,040
thirty mon he thinks they're ridiculous because
they don't want to deal with these.

2208
02:49:58,680 --> 02:50:01,760
No, I've answered how many times
have I answered questions about a lot's

2209
02:50:01,799 --> 02:50:09,719
hand a lost foot? Every single
time it does it does. I've explained

2210
02:50:09,719 --> 02:50:13,760
the meaning several times over and over. Everybody focuses on this because your explanations

2211
02:50:13,799 --> 02:50:16,440
are terrible. That's why they focus
on it. Jake. No, it's

2212
02:50:16,479 --> 02:50:20,799
because you guys don't understand the basics
of what I'm talking about. When I

2213
02:50:20,840 --> 02:50:24,559
say that it's a nominalist predictor that
you can have you can have a shared

2214
02:50:24,719 --> 02:50:28,719
meaning, which I gave the meaning, and I said the meaning is known

2215
02:50:30,079 --> 02:50:33,600
through the text, and I gave
examples of that. And then you say,

2216
02:50:33,799 --> 02:50:37,399
and I buried that. Yeah,
because of your you didn't You didn't

2217
02:50:37,440 --> 02:50:41,040
nail me. But Jay, you
don't even know the basic critics. I

2218
02:50:41,079 --> 02:50:46,479
do know the basic critics. You
don't know the basic critiques of your So

2219
02:50:46,520 --> 02:50:50,559
you don't have logical laws. Don't
you don't have logical laws. But just

2220
02:50:50,559 --> 02:50:54,559
to go, Yeah, Jake can't
control himself. He has to interrupt it

2221
02:50:54,600 --> 02:51:00,559
every moment, said Jake. If
all his hand is on thing that grabs,

2222
02:51:00,600 --> 02:51:03,879
what is all his shi? Yeah, I just already respond to this

2223
02:51:03,959 --> 02:51:09,040
question. You got responded to it
five times already, Moose says j Do

2224
02:51:09,120 --> 02:51:18,200
you support all gbt Q plus and
you should believe in progressive Christianity? What

2225
02:51:18,239 --> 02:51:22,079
I think this person is a troll, But I'll give you a chance.

2226
02:51:22,520 --> 02:51:26,559
It's just the way they spelt progressive. But I could be wrong. Ja,

2227
02:51:26,879 --> 02:51:30,600
do you support well it was a
statement that I should or what was

2228
02:51:30,600 --> 02:51:33,159
it? A question? Do I
know? Don't we think? That's this

2229
02:51:33,280 --> 02:51:43,280
one from Habik Mohammed says, okay, nothing about spanking giant meteor, says

2230
02:51:43,360 --> 02:51:46,719
Jake. You didn't answer my question. I didn't say that all his hands

2231
02:51:46,079 --> 02:51:50,200
and foot are body parts. I
asked if they are counted by division?

2232
02:51:50,520 --> 02:51:54,840
But our identities are each one of
them, the whole of Allah. They're

2233
02:51:54,879 --> 02:52:00,920
not counted by division. I already
explained that they're inseparable, and yet we

2234
02:52:01,040 --> 02:52:05,079
count them. They're inseparable, and
yet we count them as more than one.

2235
02:52:05,479 --> 02:52:11,120
That means we are counting them by
identity, which I so multiple necessary.

2236
02:52:11,360 --> 02:52:16,079
They're not most of the multiple necessary
beings? Are they? Are they

2237
02:52:16,120 --> 02:52:20,719
necessary? You continually? You continually
can't control yourself. You have to answer

2238
02:52:22,840 --> 02:52:26,600
so then so then if I do
that on every time you answer the question,

2239
02:52:26,639 --> 02:52:28,280
it's okay, right, I don't
care. Okay, Well, then

2240
02:52:28,600 --> 02:52:31,799
stick to the rules. We already
establish the rules, and you keep going

2241
02:52:31,840 --> 02:52:37,680
off the rules. I do want
to I I sympathize with you, Jay,

2242
02:52:37,719 --> 02:52:41,239
because I know that there are way
more questions for Jake, and it's

2243
02:52:41,799 --> 02:52:43,760
I would like you, but so
many things Jay says, don't you think

2244
02:52:43,760 --> 02:52:46,559
I would love to respect? Oh? I know, don't worry. I'm

2245
02:52:46,600 --> 02:52:50,600
getting there. What I was saying. I sympathize Jay. I understand that

2246
02:52:52,040 --> 02:52:54,600
we have to have consistent rules.
Either Jay's gonna abide by them or you

2247
02:52:54,680 --> 02:53:00,559
allow me to Jake. I'm I'm
agreeing. I'm trying to basically give a

2248
02:53:00,959 --> 02:53:03,440
like a rebuke to Jay right now. I'm just saying, Jay, I

2249
02:53:03,479 --> 02:53:07,600
know that it's kind of boring when
they're like a million questions for Jake,

2250
02:53:07,959 --> 02:53:11,799
But to be fair, I do
want to keep it so that we're not

2251
02:53:11,200 --> 02:53:16,360
having any sort of teaming up on
Jake. This one from Cataclysm says to

2252
02:53:16,440 --> 02:53:24,319
Jake, does Salafism hold normative authority
to dogmatize an anathemize theology? I e.

2253
02:53:24,399 --> 02:53:31,479
Ashari occasionalism Allah creates absolutely everything,
making all of the worst being with

2254
02:53:31,959 --> 02:53:39,799
prayer under an ashari a mom be
valid. Okay, So you're mixing two

2255
02:53:39,879 --> 02:53:45,239
things. You're asking about prayer behind
in a Shadi imam, which is a

2256
02:53:45,319 --> 02:53:50,159
question of fit, not merely a
Kaida, and when you talk about the

2257
02:53:50,319 --> 02:53:54,360
Shadi position on occasionalism, we believe
that they're completely wrong and that it's a

2258
02:53:54,399 --> 02:53:58,920
deviant position because it goes against the
clear text of the put On and Sun,

2259
02:54:00,559 --> 02:54:05,319
and it also goes against reason,
which again, and I don't think

2260
02:54:05,399 --> 02:54:09,360
Jay and I are very much friends
here, but I have to point out

2261
02:54:09,360 --> 02:54:15,440
that he hammered as Rabashid on the
same point in the debate when he made

2262
02:54:15,479 --> 02:54:18,239
the point which is a similar point
that I would make, and which I

2263
02:54:18,239 --> 02:54:22,040
don't know why they can't understand that
they make an argument based on causation or

2264
02:54:22,159 --> 02:54:26,840
causal chains to prove that God exists, and then when you get there,

2265
02:54:26,879 --> 02:54:30,879
they say, oh, by the
way, all of those causal chains are

2266
02:54:30,879 --> 02:54:35,520
not real, so it's just a
complete falsehood. From Christ to four,

2267
02:54:35,600 --> 02:54:39,280
oh says, why did Mohammad get
married the mother of Jesus and married the

2268
02:54:39,319 --> 02:54:46,760
sister of Moses? And Aaron confused? Say repeat the question, say why

2269
02:54:46,799 --> 02:54:52,120
did Mohammad get married the mother of
Jesus and marry the sister of Moses?

2270
02:54:52,559 --> 02:54:58,000
And Aaron confused? I'm not aware
of him getting them confused. I mean,

2271
02:54:58,040 --> 02:55:03,040
you have to go into more detail
about the This one from habitc Aboo,

2272
02:55:03,159 --> 02:55:07,280
Mahammad says one hundred dollars of j
can name more than five books on

2273
02:55:07,520 --> 02:55:16,840
Jake's position. Jake what they technically
said Jack's position, which I don't understand.

2274
02:55:18,360 --> 02:55:22,280
Yeah, it's all right. My
Italian family still calls me Jack.

2275
02:55:22,319 --> 02:55:26,719
They can't pronounce Jake for some reason. So is what it is. But

2276
02:55:26,799 --> 02:55:30,840
anyway, what's the question, what
are we doing? They said, one

2277
02:55:30,879 --> 02:55:35,879
hundred dollars of j can name more
than five books on Jack's position. Oh,

2278
02:55:35,959 --> 02:55:39,319
so that's for Jake, that's for
me. So I have let's see

2279
02:55:41,200 --> 02:55:43,680
one, two, three, four, So I have four books here with

2280
02:55:43,760 --> 02:55:48,079
me. So that would be the
critique critique of the Palmerian Creed, which

2281
02:55:48,120 --> 02:55:52,120
is not his position, but on
his position. I have the even to

2282
02:55:52,159 --> 02:55:56,280
me a book one ess of God. I have the soule Mond book what

2283
02:55:56,399 --> 02:56:03,360
we're talking about today with the quotes. So, and then I've got all

2284
02:56:03,399 --> 02:56:11,079
of the unbelief chapters in the Oxford
Handbook. So I'm sure that doesn't meet

2285
02:56:11,159 --> 02:56:15,479
the five criterion, but I don't
think I need five. Actually, good,

2286
02:56:15,479 --> 02:56:18,159
do we count the Kuran too?
This is the credit. So if

2287
02:56:18,159 --> 02:56:22,440
I count the Koran, that's five? Is that does that count? Lenland

2288
02:56:22,639 --> 02:56:26,600
said, Is Jake open to having
a debate with Sam Chamou? No?

2289
02:56:28,159 --> 02:56:31,040
Guy is out of his mind.
You got it. Let's see this one

2290
02:56:31,120 --> 02:56:37,159
from has this been thirty? I
thought it was thirty minutes of Q and

2291
02:56:37,200 --> 02:56:39,399
A. Yeah, we're going on
longer than that. But I'm just,

2292
02:56:39,639 --> 02:56:43,440
uh, I'm being patient for James
because I know that some of these are

2293
02:56:43,440 --> 02:56:46,319
probably super chats. But we're eventually
gonna have to wrap it up. I

2294
02:56:46,319 --> 02:56:48,440
mean, that's we are. We'read
the three hour mark, so we're gonna

2295
02:56:48,440 --> 02:56:50,200
wrap it up. I want to
say, folks, thank you for tuning

2296
02:56:50,200 --> 02:56:54,600
in. Check out both Jake's and
Jay's links in the description box that includes

2297
02:56:54,639 --> 02:56:58,520
if you're listening to you the podcast
later. All of the debates end up

2298
02:56:58,559 --> 02:57:01,079
on the podcast within about twenty four
hours of the debate being live, So

2299
02:57:01,120 --> 02:57:07,239
if you're listening via Spotify, Apple
Podcasts, you name it, Both Jay

2300
02:57:07,280 --> 02:57:09,920
and Jake are linked in the description
box there. Check out their links.

2301
02:57:09,959 --> 02:57:16,879
Now, there's a value in getting
to hear a person's point of view straight

2302
02:57:16,959 --> 02:57:20,120
from them, such as going to
their own videos at their own channels,

2303
02:57:20,120 --> 02:57:22,639
So I hindh they encourage you folks
check out their channels with that one to

2304
02:57:22,680 --> 02:57:24,799
say, thank you so much.
It's been a true pleasure to have you.

2305
02:57:24,799 --> 02:57:28,559
Both Jay and Jake, Thank you
guys, have a lot of fun.

2306
02:57:28,559 --> 02:57:31,799
Thank you my pleasure. Folks,
stick around. I'll be back in

2307
02:57:31,840 --> 02:57:35,920
just a moment with a post credit
scene letting you know about upcoming debates.

2308
02:57:35,239 --> 02:57:37,879
So thanks for being with us,
and I'll be back in just a moment.

2309
02:58:24,600 --> 02:58:28,920
Thanks so much for coming by,
folks. Thrilled to have you here

2310
02:58:28,959 --> 02:58:31,280
and excited. I've got to tell
you right now what I'm excited about.

2311
02:58:31,280 --> 02:58:33,840
I'm gonna show you a few things
here because you might be thinking, like,

2312
02:58:33,920 --> 02:58:37,360
huh, what are you so excited
about, James, like, tell

2313
02:58:37,399 --> 02:58:41,760
me I have to know. Well, a couple of things first is here

2314
02:58:41,799 --> 02:58:45,079
I am bottom laugh. I want
to say thanks so much for being with

2315
02:58:45,159 --> 02:58:48,479
us. If you have not already
voted in that poll, it is still

2316
02:58:48,520 --> 02:58:52,520
there waiting for you in the live
chat. You can do that right now.

2317
02:58:54,040 --> 02:58:58,440
Want to encourage you as there's been
about thirty five hundred, three thousand,

2318
02:58:58,680 --> 02:59:03,040
five hundred if I remember right last
time I chat that many votes.

2319
02:59:03,399 --> 02:59:07,399
Yeah, about that three four and
eighty two, which is huge. Do

2320
02:59:07,440 --> 02:59:09,840
you want to encourage you to check
that out? We are trying out some

2321
02:59:09,920 --> 02:59:13,879
new things here at Modern Databate.
As you see at the bottom right of

2322
02:59:13,920 --> 02:59:16,879
your screen. Let me just try
to top left, top right. There

2323
02:59:16,920 --> 02:59:20,360
you go feeing that up a little
bit. As you see at the bottom

2324
02:59:20,399 --> 02:59:24,000
right of your screen. Is that
some nights when we have a ton of

2325
02:59:24,239 --> 02:59:26,840
questions and when we have limited time
for the Q and A, we're gonna

2326
02:59:26,879 --> 02:59:31,600
do something where we're gonna try to
get to the standard questions still, namely

2327
02:59:31,639 --> 02:59:35,319
those that you just tag me and
chat with and then ask the question.

2328
02:59:35,639 --> 02:59:37,760
We're gonna still try to get to
those, but with limited time, we

2329
02:59:37,799 --> 02:59:41,360
can't guarantee it. And then those
nights we're gonna have five dollars minimum superchats.

2330
02:59:41,399 --> 02:59:46,040
So it's just a way of trying
to keep the if we especially if

2331
02:59:46,040 --> 02:59:48,760
you have two dollars super chests for
insulting people. But we also don't want

2332
02:59:48,760 --> 02:59:54,360
super chats that are frankly any amount
that insult people. But we notice that,

2333
02:59:54,239 --> 02:59:56,879
you know, not surprisingly a two
dollars super chat, you only need

2334
02:59:56,920 --> 03:00:00,680
so many characters to type in,
you know, so it's a jerk.

2335
03:00:01,559 --> 03:00:05,040
So that's one thing is we want
you could say more authentic questions, but

2336
03:00:05,159 --> 03:00:09,239
want to say we appreciate you being
here with us. I've got a lot

2337
03:00:09,280 --> 03:00:15,840
of other things to mention in particular, we actually have this Tuesday. The

2338
03:00:16,000 --> 03:00:24,760
MC tune debate last Tuesday on flat
Earth actually got nicked for the night,

2339
03:00:24,200 --> 03:00:30,200
so I do want to let you
know that is being rescheduled for this Tuesday.

2340
03:00:30,280 --> 03:00:33,200
So that's one big one. And
then the following Tuesday, Globe Face

2341
03:00:33,280 --> 03:00:37,479
will be taking on a flat Earth
or a new button in fact, so

2342
03:00:37,520 --> 03:00:39,799
you don't want to miss out on
those debates if you haven't yet hit that

2343
03:00:39,799 --> 03:00:41,639
subscribe button, as we have many
more debates. But also you might be

2344
03:00:41,680 --> 03:00:46,239
thinking, like, James, tell
me what else is going on? If

2345
03:00:46,239 --> 03:00:50,440
you didn't notice on the screen before
we started, is that right now?

2346
03:00:50,559 --> 03:00:54,120
Modern day debate is also trying something
else out in particular, folks, as

2347
03:00:54,120 --> 03:00:58,440
you can see the bottom right of
your screen, Visible Wireless as a sponsor

2348
03:00:58,520 --> 03:01:03,360
for this debate. If you are
paying more than you should if you're a

2349
03:01:03,360 --> 03:01:07,879
mobile service, this is the time
to switch over to Visible. And you're

2350
03:01:07,920 --> 03:01:09,399
like, well, James, well
how much is too much? With Visible?

2351
03:01:09,559 --> 03:01:15,239
You can get it for just twenty
dollars a month for unlimited talk,

2352
03:01:15,719 --> 03:01:20,600
unlimited text, and unlimited data for
just twenty bucks a month if you use

2353
03:01:20,639 --> 03:01:24,760
the link in the description box below. Folks, what are you waiting for

2354
03:01:24,200 --> 03:01:30,200
Save your hard earned money. Don't
let it go for thirty five dollars a

2355
03:01:30,239 --> 03:01:33,559
month for the same thing over at
Mint Mobile. Save that fifteen dollars a

2356
03:01:33,600 --> 03:01:37,159
month. Use it to go to
Chipotle. I use it to get yourself

2357
03:01:37,200 --> 03:01:39,559
some coffee, whatever it is that
you like to do instead of spending it

2358
03:01:39,600 --> 03:01:43,239
on your mobile service. So that
Visible link, if you use our link

2359
03:01:43,280 --> 03:01:48,879
below, I can tell you it
is awesome. I use Visible myself.

2360
03:01:50,000 --> 03:01:52,639
I will never promote something unless I
actually use it, and I'm a fan

2361
03:01:52,680 --> 03:01:54,879
of it, so I gotta tell
you I use it and it's amazing.

2362
03:01:56,360 --> 03:01:58,520
I'm gonna throw that link in the
old live chat and I'm gonna pin it

2363
03:02:00,000 --> 03:02:03,159
and I'm gonna wrap up that poll
with thirty five hundred votes. That is

2364
03:02:03,520 --> 03:02:09,000
huge. But want to say we
are excited about Visible being a sponsor for

2365
03:02:09,239 --> 03:02:11,719
Modern Day Debate. And I just
realized, I don't think I have that

2366
03:02:11,799 --> 03:02:16,200
link. Yeah, I don't even
have that in the description box. I'm

2367
03:02:16,200 --> 03:02:18,440
gonna grab that right now, and
I want to say thank you guys for

2368
03:02:18,479 --> 03:02:22,399
all of your support. Thanks to
your patience. Is a there's a slacken

2369
03:02:22,479 --> 03:02:26,319
on that one, but I'm gonna
grab that link now, and want to

2370
03:02:26,319 --> 03:02:30,559
say, folks, the cool thing
about visible wireless is you also have unlimited

2371
03:02:30,680 --> 03:02:35,840
hotspot data. Now. The reason
that's cool is because you could just cancel

2372
03:02:37,559 --> 03:02:43,000
your internet at home because here's the
thing. Why why have internet at home

2373
03:02:43,600 --> 03:02:46,879
when you could just say, Hey, why don't I just use my hotspot

2374
03:02:46,920 --> 03:02:50,000
on my phone and then I can
completely take out my internet bill. Let's

2375
03:02:50,000 --> 03:02:54,239
say it's sixty bucks a month,
and let's say you're paying thirty five for

2376
03:02:54,399 --> 03:02:58,280
mobile, so you could say fifteen
from your mobile bill, plus you could

2377
03:02:58,319 --> 03:03:01,920
save sixty from no longer Wi Fi. That's seventy five dollars a month,

2378
03:03:03,319 --> 03:03:07,200
which over the course of a year, that would mean nine hundred dollars of

2379
03:03:07,239 --> 03:03:11,280
savings over the course of a year. So I got to tell you,

2380
03:03:11,360 --> 03:03:15,600
folks, check out that Visible link
right now. You won't regret it.

2381
03:03:15,639 --> 03:03:20,520
You have the potential to save nine
hundred dollars over the course of a year.

2382
03:03:20,680 --> 03:03:26,040
So I just put that link for
the modern databa Visible affiliate link.

2383
03:03:26,440 --> 03:03:30,000
So for the first year, you
get twenty dollars a month. That's it.

2384
03:03:30,000 --> 03:03:35,399
It's just twenty bucks a month for
unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited

2385
03:03:35,479 --> 03:03:41,000
high speed data, including unlimited thanks
Shane for sharing that in the old live

2386
03:03:41,079 --> 03:03:48,559
chat, including unlimited hotspot data.
So I'm just for me. I gotta

2387
03:03:48,600 --> 03:03:52,319
tell you. I know everybody talks
about Hey, you know things are getting

2388
03:03:52,319 --> 03:03:56,319
really expensive. There are some things, it is true, there are some

2389
03:03:56,399 --> 03:04:05,360
things that are more expensive. But
mobile service is actually cheaper for me.

2390
03:04:05,440 --> 03:04:09,120
I remember when I first got on
a plan with data independently, So like

2391
03:04:09,159 --> 03:04:16,639
when I got off my parents' cell
service WiFi or not WiFi mobile service is

2392
03:04:16,840 --> 03:04:20,680
it was twenty five bucks a month
and I got unlimited talk, unlimited text,

2393
03:04:20,000 --> 03:04:24,559
and two gigs per month of high
speed data. That's it just too

2394
03:04:24,639 --> 03:04:26,760
so in other words, like you'd
blow through that. You could blow through

2395
03:04:26,760 --> 03:04:31,399
that in like a few days,
and then the rest of the month you'd

2396
03:04:31,440 --> 03:04:35,680
have just like super slow WiFi or
I should say super slow data for using

2397
03:04:35,719 --> 03:04:39,959
your phone. But now for twenty
bucks a month, so cheaper, like

2398
03:04:41,000 --> 03:04:43,360
you can get it compared to like
six years ago. That actually that wasn't

2399
03:04:43,360 --> 03:04:48,319
six years ago, that was more
like ten years ago. For ten years

2400
03:04:48,360 --> 03:04:52,040
compared to ten years ago, you
can get a better deal, and it's

2401
03:04:52,079 --> 03:04:54,639
actually cheaper than what I was paying
ten years ago. So you can stick

2402
03:04:54,680 --> 03:04:58,639
that in the face of inflation and
tell them to, you know, stick

2403
03:04:58,639 --> 03:05:03,479
that in or pipe and smoke it. Got to tell you it's huge savings.

2404
03:05:03,600 --> 03:05:07,360
I Anathema says. They switched to
Visible a few weeks ago, and

2405
03:05:07,399 --> 03:05:09,799
I am loving the savings. That's
awesome, and I love it too.

2406
03:05:09,920 --> 03:05:13,639
Actually I use Visible, I don't
get the same deal you do. Now

2407
03:05:13,719 --> 03:05:16,120
I am past that one year mark. I pay twenty five dollars a month.

2408
03:05:16,159 --> 03:05:18,559
But even then, for me,
I'm like twenty five dollars. It's

2409
03:05:18,559 --> 03:05:22,600
still better than when I was using
Mint. It's better than when I was

2410
03:05:22,680 --> 03:05:24,840
using Boost. It's better than when
I was using I think there was another

2411
03:05:24,879 --> 03:05:28,799
one I tried, like Tether or
something. I can't remember, Tello thing.

2412
03:05:28,879 --> 03:05:33,920
It is Tello, But highly encourage
you check out Visible's link if you

2413
03:05:35,000 --> 03:05:39,959
were looking for saving a few bucks
each month on your mobile service, and

2414
03:05:39,079 --> 03:05:43,120
potentially, like I said, you
could use your phone as a hotspot all

2415
03:05:43,159 --> 03:05:46,719
the time, Like whenever you get
home, just turn on the hotspot,

2416
03:05:46,200 --> 03:05:50,280
connect to your computer, to it
or whatever device you might be using,

2417
03:05:50,799 --> 03:05:54,000
and you don't even have a Wi
Fi bill anymore. Oh myn so pretty

2418
03:05:54,040 --> 03:05:56,360
cool. I gotta tell you,
I'm excited about that. I think it's

2419
03:05:56,399 --> 03:06:00,600
a great deal. I want to
encourage you to check that out. Thank

2420
03:06:00,639 --> 03:06:03,440
you guys for your support. Where
at seven hundred and fifty two likes.

2421
03:06:03,200 --> 03:06:09,319
Seriously, it means more than you
know. I'm gonna I'm gonna get some

2422
03:06:09,399 --> 03:06:13,559
rest. It's been three hours a
little over, so thank you guys for

2423
03:06:13,600 --> 03:06:15,399
coming by. I want to say
hi to you though, because I just

2424
03:06:15,440 --> 03:06:18,280
I really do enjoy this and I
do just appreciate you being here. So

2425
03:06:18,920 --> 03:06:20,840
dead alive Maniac. I see they're
in the live chat. Thanks for being

2426
03:06:20,840 --> 03:06:24,559
with us, Chica. Is it
cheek? Ammy? Let me know if

2427
03:06:24,559 --> 03:06:28,479
it's pronounced that way. Glad to
have you here, Sonya, thanks for

2428
03:06:28,520 --> 03:06:31,520
coming by. I see they're in
the old live chat. Sin Klon,

2429
03:06:31,680 --> 03:06:35,879
thanks for coming by. I see
you there, Booty Killer one two three,

2430
03:06:35,920 --> 03:06:39,520
thanks for dropping in. That's interesting. I am he thanks for coming

2431
03:06:39,520 --> 03:06:43,680
in, and Athama good to see
you as usual, as well as NYC.

2432
03:06:45,040 --> 03:06:48,239
Tom oh wait, thanks for coming
by. Norak Happy to have you

2433
03:06:48,600 --> 03:06:52,360
here, says what wow, how
could they possibly do this? That's right,

2434
03:06:52,559 --> 03:06:58,520
Visible is giving the deal of a
lifetime, and uh, you know

2435
03:06:58,600 --> 03:07:03,120
what else is cheap Netflix? Cheap
but phx five seven six, Thanks for

2436
03:07:03,159 --> 03:07:09,840
coming by, and let's see they
say modern day debate. My super chat

2437
03:07:09,920 --> 03:07:11,840
was genuine, but you skipped it. I did mention earlier if it wasn't

2438
03:07:11,840 --> 03:07:15,920
a five dollars super chat or higher. It was both on screen, and

2439
03:07:15,959 --> 03:07:20,319
I did mention it verbally throughout the
debate. So I gotta tell you you

2440
03:07:20,399 --> 03:07:24,159
got to pay a little bit closer
attention. Man Houston Euler, thanks for

2441
03:07:24,200 --> 03:07:31,239
coming by. Happy to have you, Moss Hallo, Halo Low, thanks

2442
03:07:31,239 --> 03:07:33,440
for coming by, Struggling Protestant,
Glad you're here, Sweet Bubbles, happy

2443
03:07:33,440 --> 03:07:37,399
to have you here at Karzan.
Happy you're here, Gambit, Glad to

2444
03:07:37,440 --> 03:07:39,680
have you with us, Alonzo Harris, happy here with us, win Fire,

2445
03:07:39,920 --> 03:07:46,520
thanks for coming by, Manuel Palia, Palayo Logos, thanks for coming

2446
03:07:46,559 --> 03:07:52,559
by, Caribou, thanks for dropping
in, Awesome loss and clips and mister

2447
03:07:52,639 --> 03:07:56,319
Anderson, Glad you're here, Abiel, thanks for coming by, Solid Ground.

2448
03:07:56,360 --> 03:07:58,520
Glad to have you here. A
Catholic data, am I saying all

2449
03:07:58,559 --> 03:08:03,040
right, glad that you were with
us. Jay Samurai seventy nine, thanks

2450
03:08:03,040 --> 03:08:05,440
for dropping in Krzan, Happy to
have you here, Brook Adam, thanks

2451
03:08:05,440 --> 03:08:09,440
for coming by. Chicami says is
visible any good? Yes, visible is

2452
03:08:09,440 --> 03:08:13,559
good. It's actually they use the
satellites for Verizon, so you have good

2453
03:08:13,559 --> 03:08:16,520
coverage. That's one thing I love
too, is that, like it's rare

2454
03:08:16,920 --> 03:08:20,440
that I ever get to a spot
where it's not good. So free Sean,

2455
03:08:20,639 --> 03:08:22,760
thanks for coming by. See you
there in the old live chat,

2456
03:08:22,799 --> 03:08:28,280
sim Claw, thanks for coming by, Role says your channel is growing.

2457
03:08:28,399 --> 03:08:30,600
Nice to see. Thank you so
much for your support. That means more

2458
03:08:30,639 --> 03:08:33,719
than you know. Also, I
have to tell you I am so excited

2459
03:08:33,760 --> 03:08:37,879
you guys. Thank you guys for
making modern day debate row as you have.

2460
03:08:39,159 --> 03:08:43,000
We owe it all to the debaters
and to you. Thank you for

2461
03:08:43,040 --> 03:08:46,959
sharing our debates things like that,
and thank you so much for just all

2462
03:08:46,000 --> 03:08:50,280
of your support. Let's see.
Nathamas says, good to have you back

2463
03:08:50,280 --> 03:08:52,360
to this huge debate. Brother,
I replied to your email. Was in

2464
03:08:52,360 --> 03:08:56,120
the hospital for a week. Wow. I hope you're doing okay, and

2465
03:08:56,440 --> 03:08:58,079
man, glad to have you here. Shane. I'm glad you're okay.

2466
03:08:58,319 --> 03:09:01,799
You know if you're here, We're
glad you're here. So but I'll get

2467
03:09:01,799 --> 03:09:07,000
back to your email and I appreciate
you. Appreciate you, man. Buika,

2468
03:09:07,120 --> 03:09:09,799
thanks for thanks for coming by.
Say they're in the old live chat

2469
03:09:09,319 --> 03:09:13,159
and yeah, I want to say
you guys do appreciate you. Thanks so

2470
03:09:13,239 --> 03:09:16,040
much. Good a live menix is
love it Debates, Please step in more.

2471
03:09:16,360 --> 03:09:20,200
Jake wisconstantly Okay, let's see Moel. Thanks for coming by, so

2472
03:09:20,440 --> 03:09:24,239
free and free. Thanks for coming
by, seither, John Ve glad to

2473
03:09:24,239 --> 03:09:26,200
have you with us. Golden Victory
Lighthouse, thanks for coming by. Debate

2474
03:09:26,280 --> 03:09:30,920
already wrapped up, just so you
know, Thanks so much. Davidson Trailer.

2475
03:09:31,159 --> 03:09:33,120
Happy to have you here, Houston. You are good to have you.

2476
03:09:33,479 --> 03:09:35,319
And I want to say, though, thank you guys for all your

2477
03:09:35,319 --> 03:09:39,120
support. Hawaiian cc it says feet
picks, I'm working on it. Check

2478
03:09:39,159 --> 03:09:41,840
your email. Thanks for coming by. I want to say, love you

2479
03:09:41,879 --> 03:09:45,200
guys, Thanks for all your support. Join us while we were small.

2480
03:09:45,440 --> 03:09:50,280
This is modern day debates, early
stages. Believe me, join us while

2481
03:09:50,280 --> 03:09:54,719
we are young. Our story is
just beginning. Modern a Debate is going

2482
03:09:54,760 --> 03:09:58,000
to do huge things in the coming
years, and someday we're gonna look back

2483
03:09:58,000 --> 03:10:01,319
and say, wow, you remember
you're so small. We had one hundred

2484
03:10:01,360 --> 03:10:03,520
and seventy seven thousand subs. That's
how big we're going to be. In

2485
03:10:03,559 --> 03:10:07,120
the future, we're going to host
bigger and badder debates, more epic debates,

2486
03:10:07,159 --> 03:10:11,479
things that are going to knock your
socks off. Believe me, they're

2487
03:10:11,479 --> 03:10:16,239
going to be tremendous. People will
be saying, Wow, I can't believe

2488
03:10:16,280 --> 03:10:18,520
modern a debate. How they pull
that. That's amazing. We're excited.

2489
03:10:18,520 --> 03:10:26,440
We are continually improving ourselves, continually
developing things, improving, tinkering, learning

2490
03:10:26,760 --> 03:10:30,200
and figuring out how we can improve
more and more. And want to say

2491
03:10:30,200 --> 03:10:33,200
thank you guys so much for all
of your support. We're excited about the

2492
03:10:33,200 --> 03:10:37,559
future as we strive provide a neutral
platform so that everybody can make their case

2493
03:10:37,680 --> 03:10:41,319
on a level playing field. We
believe that's important, and we know you

2494
03:10:41,399 --> 03:10:46,680
believe that's important. We believe in
letting a thousand flowers bloom, letting the

2495
03:10:46,760 --> 03:10:50,000
chips fall where they may, giving
people a chance to make their case on

2496
03:10:50,040 --> 03:10:52,879
a level playing field. So I
want to say thanks for all your support.

2497
03:10:54,040 --> 03:10:56,319
I love you guys. Keep sifting
out the reasonable from the unreasonable,

2498
03:10:56,399 --> 03:10:58,280
and we will see you at the
next debate.