1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:04,280
Speaker 1: Again, the question here is about presuppositions, for sure, and

2
00:00:04,360 --> 00:00:07,960
I've listed many things and many problems for the foundational's

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:11,000
approach that you're advocating. You replied with something to the

4
00:00:11,039 --> 00:00:14,480
effect that, well, there's a trilemma that we could refer to,

5
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:16,960
and there's really not many other options here. Well, the

6
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:19,039
fact that you don't think there's many other options actually

7
00:00:19,039 --> 00:00:21,559
doesn't count as a justification for the starting point. In

8
00:00:21,559 --> 00:00:25,079
other words, you started with properly basic beliefs, and all

9
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:26,760
I have to ask you is that do you think

10
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:30,559
that the notion of properly basic beliefs themselves is self evident?

11
00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:34,759
Speaker 2: Do you mean the idea properly basic belief?

12
00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:38,359
Speaker 1: Well, if I said, only beliefs that are self evident

13
00:00:38,479 --> 00:00:42,399
or encouragible or evident to the senses are properly basic,

14
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:44,759
the problem is that you're in an infinite circle of

15
00:00:44,840 --> 00:00:49,280
regress because the proposition itself, in terms of you knowing it,

16
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:51,560
is not part of your sense data. Nor can you

17
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:53,600
show that it's properly basic without assuming it.

18
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:57,479
Speaker 2: Well, I would agree that the idea of a properly

19
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:01,200
basic belief may itself not be properly based, but one could.

20
00:01:00,960 --> 00:01:03,359
Speaker 1: Just have no, self, that's not what I asked.

21
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:04,239
Speaker 2: Okay, what did you.

22
00:01:04,159 --> 00:01:08,920
Speaker 1: Ask the proposition itself about properly basic belief Is it

23
00:01:08,959 --> 00:01:10,239
properly basic.

24
00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:14,719
Speaker 2: The proposition? There are properly basic beliefs.

25
00:01:14,439 --> 00:01:17,920
Speaker 1: The proposition only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible

26
00:01:18,079 --> 00:01:20,640
or evident to the senses are properly basic.

27
00:01:23,159 --> 00:01:24,680
Speaker 2: Well, I would just I would say that it's true.

28
00:01:24,719 --> 00:01:27,560
You're saying, how do I know what properly basic beliefs?

29
00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:31,519
Speaker 1: And it's true. I'm asking, is that notion itself properly basic?

30
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:34,640
Speaker 2: So you're okay. So you're saying that if it is

31
00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:37,719
properly basic, could create some kind of circularity if I say.

32
00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:39,359
Speaker 1: That, yes, okay.

33
00:01:39,400 --> 00:01:44,159
Speaker 2: Well, as I said before, I don't know if the

34
00:01:44,239 --> 00:01:47,159
description of an idea might be properly basic, but the

35
00:01:47,239 --> 00:01:51,560
experience itself is, and then we then we have terms

36
00:01:51,560 --> 00:01:53,159
to describe what the experience is.

37
00:01:53,319 --> 00:01:55,799
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how you redefine it, because the point

38
00:01:55,840 --> 00:02:00,120
is that there's no self evident origin or incorrigible proposition

39
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:03,959
like that found in sense data. M So what's the

40
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:04,879
justification for that?

41
00:02:05,959 --> 00:02:08,680
Speaker 2: The justification is that there are some there are some

42
00:02:09,400 --> 00:02:14,120
propositions that we encounter, and upon entertaining the proposition, the

43
00:02:14,319 --> 00:02:18,199
justification is also immediately apparent, and so it is.

44
00:02:18,439 --> 00:02:21,800
Speaker 1: That's circularity. That's what that's the problem of properly basic beliefs.

45
00:02:22,319 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 2: No, it's not just you just.

46
00:02:23,719 --> 00:02:25,680
Speaker 1: Said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity.

47
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:30,879
Speaker 2: No, because the question, okay, it's it's not that because

48
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,360
if I say, for example, I am having an experience

49
00:02:34,439 --> 00:02:38,560
right now, I am just reporting something that is happening.

50
00:02:38,199 --> 00:02:40,439
Speaker 1: To you, all you're doing. No, I gave you multiple

51
00:02:40,439 --> 00:02:43,840
examples what you said I didn't do in critiquing the Kogito,

52
00:02:44,840 --> 00:02:47,599
Like what of all the metaphysical things that are assumed

53
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:48,199
in the sentence?

54
00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:52,199
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if I don't understand all the concepts

55
00:02:52,199 --> 00:02:54,000
that are involved, we can also doesn't matter.

56
00:02:54,039 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 1: This is about justifying the beliefs. Okay.

57
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,319
Speaker 2: So what you're so it sounds like you're saying to

58
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:04,159
me natural theology is false because there are no self

59
00:03:04,319 --> 00:03:05,000
evident truths.

60
00:03:05,039 --> 00:03:08,080
Speaker 1: I'm creating your position of a strong foundationalism.

61
00:03:08,599 --> 00:03:12,759
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if someone picked a weaker form of foundationalism,

62
00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:15,360
I think a lot of you Okay, what I would

63
00:03:15,439 --> 00:03:16,360
what I would say.

64
00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:18,319
Speaker 1: That's not that a position you defended five minutes ago.

65
00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:21,240
Speaker 2: Okay, but even the position that I have, I would

66
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:24,039
just say a lot of people, even people who are

67
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,639
non believers or atheists, would agree there are just basic

68
00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:30,560
facts about existence that we have agreement on. So you're

69
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:31,360
from there, we can build.

70
00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:33,280
Speaker 1: You're going to appeal to the master. That's actually a fallacy.

71
00:03:33,319 --> 00:03:34,159
It's not a justification.

72
00:03:35,039 --> 00:03:38,719
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's justification.

73
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:41,280
So what's the just The problem is I gave you

74
00:03:41,319 --> 00:03:44,919
a justification, but your system just won't allow it because afations.

75
00:03:45,520 --> 00:03:47,199
Speaker 1: Those are fallacies. No.

76
00:03:47,319 --> 00:03:50,599
Speaker 2: I told you that some propositions that we immediate that

77
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:54,240
we encounter is immedia and we do not have to

78
00:03:54,319 --> 00:03:54,960
infer them.

79
00:03:55,400 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 1: I'm asking for the justification. You're just saying that it's immediate.

80
00:03:58,840 --> 00:04:01,400
But that's just I would rest that rests on the

81
00:04:01,439 --> 00:04:04,319
assumption that the external world is properly caused to impress

82
00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:05,400
upon your senshi Wou.

83
00:04:05,639 --> 00:04:10,319
Speaker 2: I would say the justification that the self evident truths

84
00:04:10,879 --> 00:04:14,080
in my epistemology are true would be the same as

85
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:18,160
whatever justification, let you know, leads you to believe that

86
00:04:18,519 --> 00:04:21,560
the God of Christian orthodoxy on the foundation I'm.

87
00:04:21,399 --> 00:04:23,480
Speaker 1: Not subject to that problem. I don't make the strong

88
00:04:23,519 --> 00:04:25,639
foundations claim that you just did, so I don't have

89
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,439
that problem. I admit circularity at this level.

90
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:32,240
Speaker 2: Okay, but but only at that level.

91
00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 1: Right, because it's a metallogical question where circularity is unavoidable.

92
00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:39,720
That's the point was set theory, and the incompleteness is.

93
00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:45,560
Speaker 2: Therem Okay, are there any other circular so circular reasoning

94
00:04:45,639 --> 00:04:49,319
with God being the ultimate foundation of reality that is

95
00:04:49,399 --> 00:04:53,439
not invalid? Are there any other kind of the nature

96
00:04:53,439 --> 00:04:56,120
of the system itself? Okay, so it's not invalid. Are

97
00:04:56,120 --> 00:04:59,160
there any other kinds of circular reasoning apart from God,

98
00:04:59,319 --> 00:05:02,160
have nothing to do with God that are also not invalid?

99
00:05:02,319 --> 00:05:05,199
Speaker 1: Yeah? Sure, The categories themselves have to be presupposed for

100
00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:07,399
the possibility of knowledge. So in other words, the way

101
00:05:07,399 --> 00:05:10,519
I make the argument is just simply that knowledge presupposed

102
00:05:10,519 --> 00:05:13,519
to the categories. The categories themselves are grounded in God.

103
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 2: Okay, So the categories themselves, their foundation is not circular.

104
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:18,120
Their foundation is in God.

105
00:05:18,399 --> 00:05:21,600
Speaker 1: Well, they're circular when we're considering whether we can justify

106
00:05:21,639 --> 00:05:22,600
them at the human level.

107
00:05:23,519 --> 00:05:26,439
Speaker 2: So we can't say that logic is true because the

108
00:05:26,519 --> 00:05:29,920
laws of logic themselves show that they're true. It sounds

109
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:32,639
like you're saying circucular Yeah, it sounds like you're saying

110
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:37,240
circular reasoning is invalid, except when we're talking about God

111
00:05:37,319 --> 00:05:38,959
being the foundation of the universe.

112
00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:41,839
Speaker 1: I'm saying that every system at root is circular, and

113
00:05:41,879 --> 00:05:44,720
that's what I'm demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism,

114
00:05:44,759 --> 00:05:46,800
and I'm showing that that's not going to be. Then

115
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:50,800
how we justify or explain the different systems themselves. It's

116
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:53,319
a comparison of systems and not a comparison of evidence.

117
00:05:53,399 --> 00:05:56,800
Speaker 2: Well, Jay, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to using logic,

118
00:05:57,120 --> 00:06:00,600
knowledge and morality to show God exists or even these

119
00:06:00,639 --> 00:06:05,319
even a kind of transcendental argument. My concern is the

120
00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:10,279
specificity of the presupposition, because your case seemed to be

121
00:06:10,399 --> 00:06:14,560
very negative to natural theology. It's inability to prove a

122
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:17,959
rigid designator that the triune God of Christianity.

123
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:19,800
Speaker 1: No I do I agree.

124
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:24,800
Speaker 2: So my question for you is what would prevent Why

125
00:06:24,839 --> 00:06:28,879
couldn't I take your exact same presuppositionalism, swap out the

126
00:06:28,879 --> 00:06:31,959
God of orthodox Christian faith put in the Catholic divine

127
00:06:31,959 --> 00:06:36,199
simplicity God or William or Cornelius Vantil taking his Protestant

128
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:40,240
view of God using the same argument. What breaks the

129
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:43,120
symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others.

130
00:06:43,639 --> 00:06:46,480
Speaker 1: Because in this case, what I'm the way I would

131
00:06:46,480 --> 00:06:49,199
make the argument is that the Trinity is actually the

132
00:06:49,240 --> 00:06:52,680
ground not just of epistemology or logic or things like that,

133
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:55,040
but actually the entire paradigm. In other words, it's an

134
00:06:55,079 --> 00:06:57,759
argument for the entirety of the Christian paradigm, not merely

135
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:00,160
an argument for this or that piece of it. So

136
00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:02,879
the Trinity comes with in terms of Orthodox theology as

137
00:07:02,920 --> 00:07:06,319
I understand it, Saint Maximus's grand metaphysic, It actually comes

138
00:07:06,319 --> 00:07:11,480
with a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding

139
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:14,480
of the natural world itself. So it's not just an

140
00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:18,720
argument for an abstract concept or some logical thing. It's

141
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:22,319
the entire Christian paradigm and the metaphysics of the Trinitarian

142
00:07:22,360 --> 00:07:25,879
theology that we have as Orthodox, which is unique to us.

143
00:07:26,399 --> 00:07:28,759
And this is why one last point, this is why,

144
00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:32,439
in for example, Questions and Doubts, Saint Maximus goes to

145
00:07:32,519 --> 00:07:35,839
great links to show that there are natural proofs for

146
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:38,319
the Trinity. He actually thinks the existence of the world,

147
00:07:38,319 --> 00:07:41,600
the modal existence of the world itself, is triadic and

148
00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:44,759
is a proof, not an adamiration or a trace, but

149
00:07:44,839 --> 00:07:46,319
an actual proof of the Trinity.

150
00:07:46,560 --> 00:07:51,160
Speaker 2: Okay, but why I didn't hear a reason? Why are

151
00:07:51,399 --> 00:07:56,079
why is our presupposition going to be a trinity versus

152
00:07:56,120 --> 00:07:57,800
a unity a unitarian God?

153
00:07:57,959 --> 00:07:58,079
Speaker 1: Oh?

154
00:07:58,879 --> 00:08:04,160
Speaker 2: Why that's point one and point two? Why your concept

155
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:07,199
of the Trinity as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant concept. Why?

156
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:13,079
Speaker 1: Well, because, first of all, the the the Triune God

157
00:08:13,199 --> 00:08:16,759
is not just posited. I'm actually saying that God and

158
00:08:16,839 --> 00:08:19,680
the Christian world in the Christian Orthodox paradigm, gives an

159
00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:24,519
account for the metaphysical problems, for the one and the many,

160
00:08:24,560 --> 00:08:28,800
for the universals, for the for the you know, logical categories,

161
00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:32,639
the Aristotelian categories that you know maximums basically squishes into

162
00:08:32,759 --> 00:08:35,480
natural contemplation. I'm saying that the structure of the world,

163
00:08:36,639 --> 00:08:40,120
as well as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, all of that is

164
00:08:40,399 --> 00:08:44,200
justified given an account for and grounded in a specific

165
00:08:44,360 --> 00:08:48,039
triune God and the specific revelation of what he says

166
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:52,000
about how the world's constructed. So it's a revelatory theism

167
00:08:52,039 --> 00:08:57,399
and a justification via revelation as opposed to autonomous Uh,

168
00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:02,120
you know, the unaided reasoning approach that you're defending.

169
00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 2: So you're saying that we should presuppose the God of

170
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,799
Eastern Orthodox Christian theism. Correct, because the God of Eastern

171
00:09:08,879 --> 00:09:12,120
Orthodox Christian Theism has revealed we ought to presuppose him.

172
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:16,399
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that we should presuppose him precisely because

173
00:09:16,879 --> 00:09:22,159
the self revelatory declaration gives an account for the problems

174
00:09:22,159 --> 00:09:24,919
of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology that I keep raising.

175
00:09:25,120 --> 00:09:25,519
Speaker 2: Why is it?

176
00:09:25,799 --> 00:09:27,639
Speaker 1: Why solves those problems?

177
00:09:28,159 --> 00:09:32,200
Speaker 2: Why does only Orthodox Christians? So so I guess what, I'm.

178
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:36,320
Speaker 1: Trying to make revelatory character of the Trinity and Orthodox Christianity.

179
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:39,360
Speaker 2: Right, But Protestants and Catholics also believe in the Trinity.

180
00:09:39,519 --> 00:09:41,519
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you don't have it because you have heterodox

181
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:43,639
versions of it. Not I'm not I'm personally attacking you,

182
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:44,039
but I'm.

183
00:09:43,919 --> 00:09:48,039
Speaker 2: Saying that that's fine. But okay, So we would we

184
00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:51,679
would say your conception of theism is the only one

185
00:09:51,679 --> 00:09:56,600
that explains reality, because we would deploy arguments of reason

186
00:09:56,759 --> 00:09:59,639
to show that the competitors are false or don't succeed.

187
00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 1: Correct. But that's a category error. But because I'm not

188
00:10:02,399 --> 00:10:04,519
just because I'm using arguments from reason doesn't mean that

189
00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:07,600
they have logical or or epistemic orontological priority. That's a

190
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:11,039
category error that Thomas, that Thomas constantly make that because

191
00:10:11,039 --> 00:10:16,080
I'm using an argument that it therefore has epistemic orontological priority,

192
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:18,519
or did I use it first in a chain? Okay,

193
00:10:19,240 --> 00:10:19,519
it doesn't.

194
00:10:19,639 --> 00:10:23,200
Speaker 2: With this also include we only got a few seconds

195
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:28,679
here My question earlier did did did Abraham believe God?

196
00:10:28,759 --> 00:10:31,039
Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?

197
00:10:31,200 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 1: Yes, and say Maximus, as he did?

198
00:10:33,200 --> 00:10:35,200
Speaker 2: Okay, so he knew the father son only is all right?

199
00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:37,919
Speaker 1: All right? So I think that what I really wanted

200
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:43,320
to get to here was the epistemic problems of an

201
00:10:43,399 --> 00:10:47,159
approach that Trent has to strong foundationalism, which you affirmed

202
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:50,799
early on regarding the way that we go about doing

203
00:10:50,879 --> 00:10:54,120
natural theology. What I heard from Trent throughout the debate,

204
00:10:54,159 --> 00:10:59,080
in many many instances was actually equivocating and word concept

205
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:03,639
fallacy shift between natural law, moral law, the revelation of

206
00:11:03,679 --> 00:11:07,840
God in nature and his tomistic conception of natural theology.

207
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:09,799
My whole point in this debate was that those things

208
00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:12,840
are not equivalent. But multiple times of debate, Trent seemed

209
00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:15,919
to switch back between these different things which are very

210
00:11:15,919 --> 00:11:18,960
specific and nuance, as if they're all just talking about

211
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:21,679
the same thing. Of course, my questioning here is to

212
00:11:22,559 --> 00:11:25,039
raise that very quick I'm questioning that very assumption right

213
00:11:25,039 --> 00:11:26,960
there that I don't think those are all talking about

214
00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:31,360
the same thing. I wanted to really stress that this

215
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:36,440
approach that Trent's doing is an empirical approach. I didn't

216
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:39,240
say Trent or Aquinas was an empiricist. I said the

217
00:11:39,279 --> 00:11:43,080
approach is empirically based. And that's not in doubt because

218
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:47,200
in de Veritati, Aquinas clearly says that there's nothing in

219
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:50,320
the intellect that's not also in the senses. He also

220
00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:53,039
affirms the distinction between what is better known in itself

221
00:11:53,039 --> 00:11:54,799
and what is better known by us. And this is

222
00:11:54,879 --> 00:11:59,679
really the basis of the foundationalist approach that we have here.

223
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:02,759
If we're gonna take that approach, we have a series

224
00:12:02,799 --> 00:12:06,240
of problems that I raised one as an example of

225
00:12:06,279 --> 00:12:09,080
properly basic beliefs in terms of the section when I

226
00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:12,679
was questioning Trent about circularity of properly basic beliefs. This

227
00:12:12,799 --> 00:12:17,919
is just one problem for any empirically based epistemology, and

228
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:21,600
make no bones about it, Trent's natural theology isn't empirically

229
00:12:21,639 --> 00:12:25,480
based natural theology. So he's going to have to demonstrate

230
00:12:25,639 --> 00:12:29,799
the justification for the empirical argumentation that he's doing to

231
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:33,200
say natural theology is a case when I am saying

232
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:36,399
that natural theology isn't the case because I can come

233
00:12:36,399 --> 00:12:39,320
to the table and critique the presubpositions in the exact

234
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:42,279
same way that human kant do that you're gonna have

235
00:12:42,279 --> 00:12:43,799
to give an account for And why do you have

236
00:12:43,799 --> 00:12:46,240
to give an account for it in that way? Because

237
00:12:46,279 --> 00:12:49,519
of the nature of your presubpositions and the foundationalism itself.

238
00:12:49,799 --> 00:12:52,840
Foundationalism is saying these are self evident, these are the

239
00:12:52,879 --> 00:12:56,519
things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What

240
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:58,519
does it matter how many people agree with something or

241
00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:01,200
disagree with it. That's a appeal to the masses fallacy,

242
00:13:01,759 --> 00:13:05,240
And so if Trent's going to have a foundationalist of pistemology,

243
00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:07,679
He's going to have to answer not just that, but

244
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:11,519
the questions of what is the metaphysical content of all

245
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:13,840
the words that you're listing here in terms of this

246
00:13:13,960 --> 00:13:16,840
sense data. What is the status of the external world

247
00:13:16,879 --> 00:13:19,960
that you're presupposing in these metaphysical claims. What is the

248
00:13:20,159 --> 00:13:22,600
certitude that you have that the sense data matches up

249
00:13:22,639 --> 00:13:25,000
to the objects in the external world? How do you

250
00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:27,720
solve Sellers problem of the myth of the given? How

251
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:30,879
do you resolve the underdetermination of data? How do you

252
00:13:30,879 --> 00:13:33,600
account for the fact that the paraphetic axiom itself is

253
00:13:33,639 --> 00:13:36,600
not in sense data? How if that's the case, do

254
00:13:36,639 --> 00:13:40,000
you account for induction and deduction on an empirical basis?

255
00:13:40,399 --> 00:13:43,240
What are the primary what are the properly basic beliefs?

256
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:45,720
Given the fact that I don't think the ones that

257
00:13:45,759 --> 00:13:49,039
you listed are actually properly basic beliefs, given the critique

258
00:13:49,039 --> 00:13:53,000
that I gave of Descartes cogito. If that's the case

259
00:13:53,080 --> 00:13:55,360
and we start with induction, how do we get to

260
00:13:55,399 --> 00:13:59,759
the justification of universals right from induction? So if deduction

261
00:13:59,840 --> 00:14:02,200
is a problem, excuse mean. If the induction is the problem,

262
00:14:02,399 --> 00:14:07,399
deduction also goes What is the justification for the epistemic

263
00:14:07,480 --> 00:14:11,080
bootstrapping project at the outset that Trent is involved in,

264
00:14:11,480 --> 00:14:13,200
Given that as I tried to show there are no

265
00:14:13,279 --> 00:14:16,799
properly basic beliefs, and also given the fact that things

266
00:14:16,960 --> 00:14:20,600
like the uniformity of nature, that logic works and operates

267
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,919
in an external world, or that the external world actually

268
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:28,399
has a causal relationship that it imprints data upon Trent's mind.

269
00:14:29,039 --> 00:14:32,480
Nothing in that was a affirmation or an accusation that

270
00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:35,320
Trent is a human empiricist, or that a Quitas is

271
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:38,000
an empiricist. I never said that, so Trent was replying

272
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:40,720
to a strong man. I simply said, how does Trent

273
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:45,360
reply as a foundationalist to these classic problems? For any

274
00:14:45,399 --> 00:14:48,360
foundationalist system, it really doesn't matter which one we pick.

275
00:14:49,399 --> 00:14:51,600
One thing that I really wanted to conclude with was

276
00:14:51,679 --> 00:14:55,080
about the arguments of Saint Maximus for the Trinity, and

277
00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:57,360
I'll just run through these really quick. Maximus thinks that

278
00:14:57,399 --> 00:14:59,720
the modes of natural contemplation lead us to the low gee,

279
00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:02,559
which to the logos. The logos is a rigid designator,

280
00:15:02,639 --> 00:15:07,200
not for generic reasoning or Marcus Aurelius's logos, but in fact,

281
00:15:07,200 --> 00:15:11,519
for as Trent said, the wisdom literature logos of Ecclesiasticus,

282
00:15:11,639 --> 00:15:14,840
Proverbs and John One, who is the second person of

283
00:15:14,840 --> 00:15:17,960
the Godhead. It's a rigid designator creation that, according to

284
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:21,679
Saint Maximus, is fundamentally chrystological and fundamentally triadic. And big

285
00:15:21,720 --> 00:15:24,159
Ue ten shows that creation is a veil for the logos.

286
00:15:24,279 --> 00:15:26,720
The creative world, Maximus says, is a book. It's a

287
00:15:26,759 --> 00:15:29,080
book that's the same as the logos in terms of

288
00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:32,279
the Bible book, right Maximus. This goes on, of course

289
00:15:32,279 --> 00:15:35,600
to say that the created order is a theophany. And

290
00:15:35,679 --> 00:15:38,399
my main point here is that natural theology posits a

291
00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:43,679
deity that does not allow the created world to actually

292
00:15:43,720 --> 00:15:47,639
be a theophany. And I think the tomism demonstrates that

293
00:15:48,159 --> 00:15:51,200
Matt Frad and Trent Horn are we not supposed to

294
00:15:51,200 --> 00:15:52,080
be Orthodox?

295
00:15:52,399 --> 00:15:56,120
Speaker 2: And for me, the papacy is a gift that God

296
00:15:56,159 --> 00:15:58,200
has given the church. That makes sense. It's one of

297
00:15:58,240 --> 00:15:59,960
the important things in being Catholic.

298
00:16:00,919 --> 00:16:03,720
Speaker 1: If the papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy

299
00:16:03,840 --> 00:16:06,759
such an issue of contention right now in the Roman

300
00:16:06,799 --> 00:16:10,240
Catholic world, and especially since the time of attic in two.

301
00:16:10,759 --> 00:16:14,519
I mean again, you'll find that they always just appeal

302
00:16:14,679 --> 00:16:18,320
to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it

303
00:16:18,399 --> 00:16:21,399
just makes sense. Look it's just gonna help with unity. Look,

304
00:16:21,399 --> 00:16:24,360
it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually

305
00:16:24,399 --> 00:16:28,200
do that? No, it doesn't. Remember ninety percent of their

306
00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:32,320
apologetic of these guys is you need this office because

307
00:16:32,360 --> 00:16:34,240
it's going to solve all the problems that you have.

308
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:38,200
Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find

309
00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:41,279
that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do.

310
00:16:41,759 --> 00:16:44,799
It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact,

311
00:16:44,879 --> 00:16:47,600
if you remember when we did the for the two

312
00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:50,639
four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent,

313
00:16:50,879 --> 00:16:53,360
remember that right got a lot of views on that.

314
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,759
We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how

315
00:16:58,799 --> 00:17:01,879
to make sense of And here's your various ways to

316
00:17:02,039 --> 00:17:05,400
interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have

317
00:17:05,519 --> 00:17:08,599
to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be

318
00:17:08,839 --> 00:17:13,480
a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even

319
00:17:13,559 --> 00:17:18,599
have to have the pope clarifying the basic morals which

320
00:17:18,599 --> 00:17:23,119
are now ambiguous, which related to quote natural justice in

321
00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:26,920
the traditional Roman cality view. But remember what's he doing here?

322
00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:32,440
Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier Oh,

323
00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:34,759
it'll just make it easy. Oh, it'll make it simple,

324
00:17:34,839 --> 00:17:37,519
it'll solve the problems. Again, the last seventy years of

325
00:17:37,599 --> 00:17:42,599
Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that chaos, collapse,

326
00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:48,039
lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater

327
00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:54,079
moral revulsion, especially when it comes to to Rome itself

328
00:17:54,640 --> 00:17:58,160
on quote clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that

329
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:01,400
the selling points that these guys always fall back on

330
00:18:01,960 --> 00:18:04,599
are the very things that they're also always having to

331
00:18:04,599 --> 00:18:08,680
deal with that it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything,

332
00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:13,359
it's not making anything better, it's not producing unity. And

333
00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:19,559
this is they're apologetic, is what papal lawyering.

334
00:18:19,839 --> 00:18:22,559
Speaker 3: We debate these guys, they are always like on following Peter,

335
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:26,599
and by Peter they mean the papacy, right, because we

336
00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:31,680
believe to see if Peter's in every bishop and bring

337
00:18:31,759 --> 00:18:35,920
up for the audience your argument from indefectibility.

338
00:18:35,960 --> 00:18:39,279
Speaker 1: It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially, what we've gotten

339
00:18:39,319 --> 00:18:43,480
to in modern day Roman cathloch Apologists that are in

340
00:18:43,599 --> 00:18:49,240
this sphere is the idea that rather than I'm gonna,

341
00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:52,119
you know, to move away from the question of infallibility,

342
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:54,119
not that you can't debate infallibility. I think it's funny

343
00:18:54,119 --> 00:18:55,880
and you can go down that route. But they'll just

344
00:18:55,920 --> 00:18:58,519
always have this out where they'll just say, well, but

345
00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:02,039
he's only infallible in xyz cases, and I will tell

346
00:19:02,079 --> 00:19:04,640
you when that is right. So every individual Catholic will

347
00:19:04,680 --> 00:19:07,240
have their own list of when he's being fallible when

348
00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:10,880
he's not being infallible. And so the better way to

349
00:19:10,920 --> 00:19:14,799
construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility. And this

350
00:19:14,839 --> 00:19:18,200
is better because we know Vatican one is teaching very

351
00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:21,160
clearly that the Roman Sea will never defect from the

352
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:23,680
faith until the end of the world. It will contain

353
00:19:24,319 --> 00:19:27,559
valid successors until the return of Christ. Vatican One says

354
00:19:27,720 --> 00:19:30,960
the Sea of Rome is indefectible until he defects, which

355
00:19:31,000 --> 00:19:34,480
is to say nothing, so basically a meaningless statement which

356
00:19:34,519 --> 00:19:38,079
allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply say that I

357
00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:41,440
will accept and reject the papacy insofar as it applies

358
00:19:41,480 --> 00:19:44,279
to my own version of papalism. And that's why every

359
00:19:44,279 --> 00:19:47,519
single Roman Catholic will have a different list of what

360
00:19:47,559 --> 00:19:52,119
the infallible teachings actually are. And again, this whole system

361
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:55,599
should at least give us the list. What do the

362
00:19:55,680 --> 00:19:58,079
Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where's

363
00:19:58,079 --> 00:20:02,559
your list of Douglas, where's your list of dogmas? Oh,

364
00:20:02,559 --> 00:20:05,279
they don't have it? Exactly what do they have? They

365
00:20:05,319 --> 00:20:10,119
have a couple criteria of categories to rank the authority

366
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:12,799
of the various teachings and dogmas, which is then up

367
00:20:12,839 --> 00:20:16,799
to every individual Catholic to apply and to try to

368
00:20:16,799 --> 00:20:19,880
make sense with mental gymnastics, how the system isn't chaos

369
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:20,519
and nonsense?

370
00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:24,359
Speaker 2: And Orthodox counsel of just the Orthodox bishops, well, one

371
00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:27,799
guy can always just kind of they can't, and so

372
00:20:28,119 --> 00:20:31,559
you're not able to address you don't have that unity

373
00:20:32,079 --> 00:20:35,960
that a person who is given a special authority from

374
00:20:36,039 --> 00:20:41,759
Christ to be the first among bishops, and the Orthodox

375
00:20:41,799 --> 00:20:43,799
say the BOE has that title, but it doesn't really

376
00:20:43,839 --> 00:20:44,400
mean much.

377
00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:47,160
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting because if this is the case, then

378
00:20:47,200 --> 00:20:51,720
why does Ratzinger and by extension, the post Vatican too

379
00:20:51,799 --> 00:20:55,440
Vatican why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has

380
00:20:55,720 --> 00:21:04,200
preserved its faith and it's doctrines, it's unity for the

381
00:21:04,279 --> 00:21:09,319
last thousand years. So that's an admission that we preserve

382
00:21:09,480 --> 00:21:16,160
this without the papacy for a thousand years. So the

383
00:21:16,200 --> 00:21:20,440
papacy actually isn't necessary. So your own popes admit that

384
00:21:20,799 --> 00:21:23,079
we don't need the pope. I mean, this is in

385
00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:25,960
Ratzinger's books. Now you might disagree with that, but my

386
00:21:26,039 --> 00:21:28,599
point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize that,

387
00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:31,519
let's not an infallible statement. I don't have to acceipt that, Okay,

388
00:21:31,519 --> 00:21:34,519
so what right? This is? All they do is spur

389
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:37,599
out and go to this arbitrary of when it's infallible

390
00:21:37,599 --> 00:21:42,279
when it's non infallible, which again they're going to have

391
00:21:42,359 --> 00:21:46,000
to have an infallible criteria when they say what isn't

392
00:21:46,039 --> 00:21:48,400
isn't infallible or else. That whole system falls apart into

393
00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:51,240
the contradiction. But as we've seen, they're not very good

394
00:21:51,240 --> 00:21:52,640
at logic and epistemology.

395
00:21:53,079 --> 00:21:54,799
Speaker 2: But when you go back to the New Testament, it

396
00:21:54,839 --> 00:21:57,119
seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic

397
00:21:57,119 --> 00:22:00,000
commenters that Peter was given special.

398
00:22:00,319 --> 00:22:03,079
Speaker 1: In the yearly. So here we go again. The only

399
00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:05,920
things that matter to them are Matthew sixteen, right, So

400
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:08,519
it's like they don't care about the Bible at all

401
00:22:08,880 --> 00:22:11,920
until they want to do is to Jesus with Isaiah

402
00:22:11,960 --> 00:22:14,160
twenty two in Matthew sixteen. They don't care about anything

403
00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:17,119
else to do. They go to Acts fifteen where Peter

404
00:22:17,319 --> 00:22:20,480
is not the voice of God and the final authority

405
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,799
where it's James. No, they don't do that, or they

406
00:22:24,799 --> 00:22:26,720
do this stupid thing where they try to argue that

407
00:22:27,039 --> 00:22:31,240
it's a different Peter in Galatians one or in Acts fifteen.

408
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:36,319
I mean, just silly mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing.

409
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,599
But I'll use the Bible for when it backs up

410
00:22:39,640 --> 00:22:41,400
the Papa seat. The rest of the time, I don't

411
00:22:41,400 --> 00:22:44,079
care what the Bible says, and they don't, especially the trads.

412
00:22:44,119 --> 00:22:46,599
I mean they even say that they're happy that they

413
00:22:46,599 --> 00:22:49,079
don't read the Bible. Many of the trads that they're

414
00:22:49,079 --> 00:22:52,359
said on Twitter all the time, right, Reading the Bible

415
00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:54,640
is a Protestant thing. They think the sell delusional and

416
00:22:54,680 --> 00:22:58,160
idiotic these people are. But I mean, these are just

417
00:22:58,240 --> 00:23:02,400
terrible arguments. This is this is car salesmanship.

418
00:23:02,759 --> 00:23:04,960
Speaker 2: Paul will stand for the truth and he'll even stand

419
00:23:05,039 --> 00:23:06,000
up to Peter.

420
00:23:07,039 --> 00:23:10,720
Speaker 1: Oh really, sound like Vatican one, Trent.

421
00:23:11,119 --> 00:23:13,160
Speaker 2: Now, why why does you make note of Peter? Because

422
00:23:13,200 --> 00:23:16,960
Peter has the most authority, right, I will even oppose Peter.

423
00:23:17,079 --> 00:23:22,960
Speaker 1: So mouthpiece authority. None of that equates to Vatican One. Again,

424
00:23:23,039 --> 00:23:25,200
all non sequitors. The whole thing is bait and switch,

425
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:29,319
just telling you that because there is this place, because

426
00:23:29,440 --> 00:23:34,039
Rome has this pre eminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman

427
00:23:34,079 --> 00:23:38,000
Catholic doctions are all true. It doesn't follow. In other words,

428
00:23:38,039 --> 00:23:41,119
there's an Orthodox read, and maybe the Orthodox reading is wrong, right,

429
00:23:42,039 --> 00:23:45,119
But my point is that there's an orthodox reading of

430
00:23:45,160 --> 00:23:50,400
all of this stuff, and it's ignored because the idea

431
00:23:50,480 --> 00:23:54,319
is just that look at all these quote minds, look

432
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:56,279
at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff, and

433
00:23:56,279 --> 00:23:59,640
therefore Vatican one. That's essentially what he's saying, even though

434
00:23:59,640 --> 00:24:02,599
he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican One,

435
00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:06,640
but he knows that Vatican one is the counsel about

436
00:24:06,680 --> 00:24:10,519
the papacy. So the whole point of this text of

437
00:24:10,599 --> 00:24:15,960
Paul is that even Peter can be rebuked if he

438
00:24:16,240 --> 00:24:19,640
errs this is all spun to be the opposite in

439
00:24:19,720 --> 00:24:24,079
their exegesis, to be that Paul went to Peter to

440
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:29,119
see if he was correct, and Paul found out, oh oops,

441
00:24:29,599 --> 00:24:32,200
Peter made a gaff. He just kind of messed up.

442
00:24:32,319 --> 00:24:34,720
Is that what he says? No, he says that he

443
00:24:34,799 --> 00:24:40,039
departed from the Gospel. That equates to defecting from the faith.

444
00:24:40,519 --> 00:24:43,519
That is the very thing that Vatican One says Rome

445
00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:50,319
can never do. Peter is Rome their exegesis proves he

446
00:24:50,359 --> 00:24:56,599
departed from the faith in Galatians. It's like, did they

447
00:24:56,599 --> 00:24:58,960
even read the text or did he just read quote

448
00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:02,200
minds from other Roman Catholic apologists or did he actually

449
00:25:02,359 --> 00:25:07,039
even read Galatians? Is he just repeating Dahlgreen in Hest's book.

450
00:25:07,400 --> 00:25:10,079
Speaker 2: Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people

451
00:25:10,119 --> 00:25:13,759
have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just

452
00:25:13,799 --> 00:25:16,599
giving God all the honor God is due, and.

453
00:25:17,359 --> 00:25:21,839
Speaker 1: That is not what worship essentially is. That's a very

454
00:25:21,880 --> 00:25:25,960
broad statement that you could say, Okay, yeah, we give

455
00:25:26,039 --> 00:25:29,119
God the honor, but how do we give God the

456
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:32,359
honor in the way that God lays down. This is

457
00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:37,799
why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants that Protestants are

458
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:43,400
essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic

459
00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:48,160
altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on

460
00:25:48,200 --> 00:25:51,279
the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have

461
00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:58,279
discarded that eucharistic centrality to worship that's ongoing at an altar,

462
00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:03,839
and to most pop apologists in the Roman Calic sphere,

463
00:26:04,079 --> 00:26:07,240
they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do

464
00:26:07,319 --> 00:26:10,640
not really worship God. They might have a mental assent,

465
00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:15,079
but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person,

466
00:26:15,400 --> 00:26:19,039
the entire being of the person. This is why the liturgy,

467
00:26:19,079 --> 00:26:21,599
both in the East and the West includes the whole man.

468
00:26:21,839 --> 00:26:25,880
It's not just a mental assent. It's also actually eating God,

469
00:26:25,960 --> 00:26:30,160
it's actually partaking of it's bowing down, it's crossing yourself.

470
00:26:30,480 --> 00:26:34,680
It's all of these actions that are including the physical

471
00:26:34,799 --> 00:26:39,119
body just as much as the mind, and Romancalolics don't

472
00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:43,680
even have this for Orthodox the heart. Keep in mind,

473
00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:46,640
in the Roman Catholic system there is no noose or

474
00:26:46,759 --> 00:26:50,000
heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They believe in the

475
00:26:50,039 --> 00:26:54,079
Augustinian and Thomistic idea that its body and soul, and

476
00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:58,759
for them, soul is essentially primarily identified with the intellect.

477
00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:03,559
So for them's salivation is ultimately an intellectual vision of

478
00:27:03,599 --> 00:27:06,480
the divine essence. This is known as the beatific vision.

479
00:27:06,960 --> 00:27:10,160
This is why for them, when they talk about worship,

480
00:27:10,480 --> 00:27:14,200
it's in that context of a mental assent to a

481
00:27:14,359 --> 00:27:18,559
vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the highest form of worship.

482
00:27:18,960 --> 00:27:21,559
For the Orthodox, that is not the highest form of worship.

483
00:27:21,839 --> 00:27:25,440
We do agree that there is an intellectual faculty in man,

484
00:27:25,799 --> 00:27:28,680
but we think that as Romans One says, man's heart,

485
00:27:29,720 --> 00:27:33,880
as a result of the fall, is darkened, and the

486
00:27:33,920 --> 00:27:37,039
heart is not identical to the intellect or the mind.

487
00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:41,039
The heart is the innermost being, the spirit in man,

488
00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:43,839
which is why Paul talks about body, soul, and spirit.

489
00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:47,920
He lists three things. Roman Catholics they only believe it two.

490
00:27:48,359 --> 00:27:53,519
So the whole man is deified. The whole man participates

491
00:27:53,559 --> 00:27:56,359
in worship, which is why we taste and see that

492
00:27:56,400 --> 00:27:59,720
the Lord is good, the fountain of immortality as we

493
00:27:59,759 --> 00:28:03,400
see in the liturgy, and why the whole body is

494
00:28:03,440 --> 00:28:09,359
involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing. All of these

495
00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:13,880
things go into the holistic element of man being involved

496
00:28:13,880 --> 00:28:17,519
in worship, which is because the resurrection is not just

497
00:28:17,559 --> 00:28:22,319
an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of body and soul

498
00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:27,039
and spirit coming back together after death. Thus, the body

499
00:28:27,200 --> 00:28:30,480
plays a key role in the escaton and in the

500
00:28:30,519 --> 00:28:35,039
resurrected state these people don't really realize that, because for them,

501
00:28:35,440 --> 00:28:40,039
the eschatological state is an intellectual vision of the divine essence.

502
00:28:40,240 --> 00:28:42,640
For the Orthodox, there's a new heavens and a new Earth,

503
00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:47,880
and it's mirrored and patterned on the resurrected body that

504
00:28:47,920 --> 00:28:50,279
you see at the end of the Gospel of John

505
00:28:50,480 --> 00:28:54,559
that Jesus possesses. Jesus has a new body that walks

506
00:28:54,599 --> 00:28:57,720
through walls, and that can appear and disappear, and yet

507
00:28:57,720 --> 00:29:00,480
he can still eat and it still has physical reality,

508
00:29:00,880 --> 00:29:04,000
even though it's deified flesh. According to Saint Cyril of Alexandria,

509
00:29:04,480 --> 00:29:07,000
that's the deified flesh that we're eating in the Eucharist, which,

510
00:29:07,039 --> 00:29:09,759
by the way, disproves the Roman Catholics in the debate

511
00:29:09,839 --> 00:29:12,720
with Father Deacon Antonius, because they argue that you don't

512
00:29:12,720 --> 00:29:16,279
actually taste and see God in the Eucharist, because they're

513
00:29:16,319 --> 00:29:20,160
being consistent with their Toumistic theology that it's all created

514
00:29:20,240 --> 00:29:24,799
causal effects and not the actual uncreated divinity that you're

515
00:29:24,839 --> 00:29:28,880
participating in. I hope you see this, because this all

516
00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:32,400
of this nonsense the last two weeks three weeks is

517
00:29:32,440 --> 00:29:36,799
simply illustrating the vast differences between the Orthodox view and

518
00:29:36,880 --> 00:29:39,640
these other pagan systems, and I will include Rome in

519
00:29:39,680 --> 00:29:44,079
the pagan systems. It should be evident now and on

520
00:29:44,160 --> 00:29:47,359
display for everyone all the things that I've been telling

521
00:29:47,400 --> 00:29:51,240
you for the last ten years. The entire internet e

522
00:29:51,839 --> 00:29:56,279
religious world is able to now see this that Rome

523
00:29:56,440 --> 00:30:02,200
has a severely heretical and de efficient position on all

524
00:30:02,240 --> 00:30:03,079
of these topics.

525
00:30:03,599 --> 00:30:06,880
Speaker 2: Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing

526
00:30:06,920 --> 00:30:09,720
to honor each of these persons as God means a

527
00:30:09,759 --> 00:30:13,640
nontrinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible

528
00:30:13,680 --> 00:30:16,400
teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,

529
00:30:16,839 --> 00:30:20,559
and that Pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore,

530
00:30:20,759 --> 00:30:24,599
they say, Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have

531
00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:27,400
to be careful about taking a few proof texts and

532
00:30:27,559 --> 00:30:31,200
using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor

533
00:30:31,440 --> 00:30:33,440
do not exist, and if they have any effect on

534
00:30:33,480 --> 00:30:36,119
the world, that's just the work of demons. And John

535
00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:38,759
says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father, but in the

536
00:30:38,759 --> 00:30:41,839
same letter he also says he who loves is born

537
00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:43,000
of God and know.

538
00:30:43,200 --> 00:30:47,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms of being

539
00:30:47,839 --> 00:30:51,359
in the covenant and having the love of God. So

540
00:30:51,559 --> 00:30:54,240
just saying that anyone that loves is of God is

541
00:30:54,279 --> 00:30:56,720
not the sense that John means it in One John.

542
00:30:56,759 --> 00:31:00,920
He's not saying that anyone, even a say Satanists, who

543
00:31:01,000 --> 00:31:04,319
loves their spouse or their husband is of God. That's

544
00:31:04,319 --> 00:31:05,119
completely false.

545
00:31:05,279 --> 00:31:08,200
Speaker 2: Knows God. A person might not have God as a

546
00:31:08,240 --> 00:31:11,599
covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have

547
00:31:11,759 --> 00:31:15,200
God as the creator to whom they must give worship.

548
00:31:15,079 --> 00:31:17,480
Speaker 1: For the wrath of God is revealed against all on

549
00:31:17,599 --> 00:31:20,759
goodness and unrusouness of men who suppressed the truth and unrightousness.

550
00:31:20,920 --> 00:31:24,240
So notice that in the pagan world the truth is

551
00:31:24,279 --> 00:31:31,680
not revealed, it is not acknowledged, it is suppressed. Why well,

552
00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:36,680
it is manifest within them. Notice he's not talking about

553
00:31:36,720 --> 00:31:43,720
external reasonings at this point, about syllogisms or Aristotle having

554
00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:47,319
a really supreme high IQ intellect. And that's why he

555
00:31:47,400 --> 00:31:51,440
got a lot further than the Amazon tribesmen did about

556
00:31:51,440 --> 00:31:55,119
who God is. Right. It's nothing to do with syllogisms

557
00:31:55,160 --> 00:32:00,480
and reasoning out in some Hellenic philosophic Plato aristotl sense.

558
00:32:00,960 --> 00:32:04,960
It's about the universal world of idolatry, that all the

559
00:32:05,079 --> 00:32:08,519
nations fell into after the fall except for the Covenant

560
00:32:08,559 --> 00:32:11,680
people who maintained the true worship of God, the only

561
00:32:11,720 --> 00:32:15,680
acceptable worship of God, by the way, and he says

562
00:32:15,720 --> 00:32:22,559
that these people had a manifest witness to them in creation,

563
00:32:23,240 --> 00:32:25,599
that they should have come to the conclusion that there

564
00:32:25,680 --> 00:32:28,880
is only one true God, and that he lives and

565
00:32:28,920 --> 00:32:33,839
exists and so forth. But did they come to that conclusion. No,

566
00:32:34,000 --> 00:32:37,000
Paul says, they are without any excuse. According to the

567
00:32:37,039 --> 00:32:41,960
Roman Catholics, they're all excused. Paul says, they're without excuse.

568
00:32:42,279 --> 00:32:45,759
Roman Catholics say, well, but they didn't know God, but

569
00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:49,839
they reason from creatures to a creator, so they are

570
00:32:50,119 --> 00:32:55,240
given a free pass. Paul says, they're without excuse. Even

571
00:32:55,279 --> 00:32:59,200
though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. Now,

572
00:32:59,319 --> 00:33:02,680
I think there's different ways you could exeitute this passage.

573
00:33:02,799 --> 00:33:06,759
Some people might exitute this as if Paul is talking

574
00:33:06,759 --> 00:33:11,039
about any individual pagan at any point in their life.

575
00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:16,359
I think Paul's talking about the original connection that man

576
00:33:16,440 --> 00:33:19,880
had to God in Adam, and that all of Adam's

577
00:33:19,880 --> 00:33:23,559
sons should have had to God had they been faithful.

578
00:33:23,880 --> 00:33:27,440
But since they felt they are patterned and live after

579
00:33:27,519 --> 00:33:31,079
their father Adam and not after Christ. And so what

580
00:33:31,160 --> 00:33:34,720
happens then is that there's a sense in which back

581
00:33:34,759 --> 00:33:38,640
to Adam, man knew God and had a relationship with God,

582
00:33:39,400 --> 00:33:44,720
but the fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship

583
00:33:44,799 --> 00:33:48,400
of the demonic and anything other than God. And so

584
00:33:48,519 --> 00:33:52,000
that's the sense in which at one time man knew God,

585
00:33:52,640 --> 00:33:56,839
but we have all then fallen from that uh oh,

586
00:33:58,519 --> 00:34:02,119
and have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now,

587
00:34:02,200 --> 00:34:09,840
this right here refutes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse

588
00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:14,199
and invisible invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well,

589
00:34:14,239 --> 00:34:17,159
in the case of Pagans, they're still worshiping God, they

590
00:34:17,239 --> 00:34:20,840
still acknowledge a creator. But Paul is saying that even

591
00:34:20,840 --> 00:34:24,440
if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're

592
00:34:24,559 --> 00:34:29,239
not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts.

593
00:34:29,559 --> 00:34:33,960
I mentioned the word triad in passing, and Trent Horne

594
00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:40,480
assumed as the original tweet shows that he thought this

595
00:34:40,559 --> 00:34:43,920
meant something to do with arianism. I said that, you know,

596
00:34:43,960 --> 00:34:47,559
in our debate, you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact

597
00:34:47,599 --> 00:34:51,840
that Abraham worshiped the Trinity. Trent thought this was mind blowing.

598
00:34:52,239 --> 00:34:55,800
How no natural theology teaches me that they worshiped a

599
00:34:55,920 --> 00:34:58,519
Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then he says,

600
00:34:58,559 --> 00:35:01,519
I asked if they knew that God, would trinity Jewish

601
00:35:01,599 --> 00:35:06,199
multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin to proto arianism. No.

602
00:35:06,519 --> 00:35:09,440
In fact, the very point of why would argue that

603
00:35:09,480 --> 00:35:12,039
the Old Testament teaches the triad is to prove that

604
00:35:12,079 --> 00:35:15,559
they were trinitarian Trent. So, as you can see, his

605
00:35:15,679 --> 00:35:20,639
initial reply is quite literally a fundamental misunderstanding of the

606
00:35:20,679 --> 00:35:23,119
basics that every Orthodox Christian knows by looking at the

607
00:35:23,199 --> 00:35:26,400
ruble of Icon that the Old Testament saints worshiped the Triad.

608
00:35:26,760 --> 00:35:29,639
And Trent says, you even had to use the word

609
00:35:29,679 --> 00:35:33,159
triad to describe it, but you would say that modern

610
00:35:33,199 --> 00:35:36,519
people that worship triad as in Jehovah's witnesses are not

611
00:35:36,599 --> 00:35:39,519
worshiping the One True God. So notice that very clearly

612
00:35:39,840 --> 00:35:45,159
Trent didn't even understand the very common terminology amongst the

613
00:35:45,199 --> 00:35:50,360
Greek fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the very theologians who dogmatized

614
00:35:50,360 --> 00:35:55,199
and solidified and explicated the Trinity Cappadocians, Saint Maximus, etc.

615
00:35:55,960 --> 00:36:01,079
For Trent, he thinks this is somehow bound up with Arianism,

616
00:36:01,599 --> 00:36:06,119
even though Trent attended, according to his own description, for

617
00:36:06,239 --> 00:36:09,079
many years, or presumably for many years, the Eastern Right.

618
00:36:09,559 --> 00:36:12,639
The Eastern Right hails Palamas as a saint, which actually

619
00:36:12,639 --> 00:36:14,760
makes no sense given the fact that he was considered

620
00:36:14,760 --> 00:36:17,360
a damnable heretic for many centuries, and to notice that

621
00:36:18,039 --> 00:36:20,679
the most famous work that he has is called the Triads.

622
00:36:21,119 --> 00:36:24,440
A simple search would tell you that amongst the Orthodox world,

623
00:36:25,000 --> 00:36:30,039
Triad refers to Trinity. Does Trent simply say, oh, I misunderstood,

624
00:36:30,639 --> 00:36:35,440
you're correct? No, He doubles down because it shows that

625
00:36:35,480 --> 00:36:39,360
he's not even familiar with basic terminology in the very

626
00:36:39,440 --> 00:36:43,679
Fathers that dogmatize the Trinity. Doubles down and says, no,

627
00:36:45,039 --> 00:36:48,760
this is an Egyptian term. What the word can be

628
00:36:48,800 --> 00:36:52,159
synonymous with Trinity, but it's more common as a grouping

629
00:36:52,199 --> 00:36:56,280
of deities. Look at the nineteen ninety six Egyptology book

630
00:36:56,320 --> 00:36:59,840
from John Griffith. Now the more common use is not

631
00:37:00,039 --> 00:37:03,320
some of them from an obscure egyptologist Trent. The more

632
00:37:03,320 --> 00:37:06,599
common use is what you should know from the Uniate world.

633
00:37:06,599 --> 00:37:09,719
In the Orthodox world of triad and meaning trinity. This

634
00:37:09,880 --> 00:37:13,440
is just silly. Now, Trent doubles down again and says

635
00:37:13,440 --> 00:37:17,079
that Old Testament Jews did not worship the Trinity. He

636
00:37:17,119 --> 00:37:19,760
says it right here, did the faithful Jews who live

637
00:37:19,840 --> 00:37:23,440
before christ incarnation worship God? If they did, then they

638
00:37:23,480 --> 00:37:25,199
must have worshiped the same God or the Trinity of

639
00:37:25,239 --> 00:37:28,079
the Christians. Even though they didn't worship. Trent does not

640
00:37:28,239 --> 00:37:31,920
believe that the Old Testament saints worship the triad, even

641
00:37:31,960 --> 00:37:36,280
though Jesus and John five through nine says that they

642
00:37:36,320 --> 00:37:41,199
worshiped the Father, his Angel, and his Spirit. So Trent

643
00:37:41,280 --> 00:37:44,880
doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the triad. Now,

644
00:37:44,880 --> 00:37:48,639
I pointed this out in at the time of the debate,

645
00:37:48,639 --> 00:37:51,920
and after all we had our debate, and Trent and

646
00:37:52,039 --> 00:37:55,039
other people tried to save face and tried to do

647
00:37:55,119 --> 00:37:59,360
damage control. He says right here, literally a few seconds ago,

648
00:38:00,079 --> 00:38:02,559
that they didn't believe in the Trinity. So do you

649
00:38:02,639 --> 00:38:07,320
understand that Roman Catholics do not understand the Trinity? And

650
00:38:07,360 --> 00:38:10,559
I don't mean in terms of an intellectual comprehension. They

651
00:38:10,639 --> 00:38:16,440
fundamentally have ridiculous, stupid theology and in order to save

652
00:38:16,519 --> 00:38:20,320
face and defend his natural theology. Alla Vaticant's no stratat

653
00:38:20,760 --> 00:38:24,880
Trent is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God,

654
00:38:25,079 --> 00:38:28,320
the very thing that I said was the problem in

655
00:38:28,360 --> 00:38:31,760
the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people

656
00:38:32,000 --> 00:38:35,840
believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So

657
00:38:35,920 --> 00:38:38,960
this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat

658
00:38:39,000 --> 00:38:42,000
here saying that that's not what true means. Why do

659
00:38:42,199 --> 00:38:45,239
Roman Catholics feel the need to lie and how could

660
00:38:45,280 --> 00:38:47,800
you be this silly in your theology to be so

661
00:38:47,880 --> 00:38:51,039
ignorant of the Old Testament? Again proving my point in

662
00:38:51,079 --> 00:38:54,280
the debate that how would you argue against a Muslim?

663
00:38:54,679 --> 00:38:58,199
Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires

664
00:38:58,599 --> 00:39:01,639
going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity. I

665
00:39:01,840 --> 00:39:05,840
even showed a video that was my opening statement in

666
00:39:05,840 --> 00:39:07,559
the day on Hookie getch you debate to Trent, which

667
00:39:07,559 --> 00:39:11,000
apparently he hasn't watched because it refutes his stupid heresy

668
00:39:11,400 --> 00:39:14,719
in Acts seventeen. In no way says that they worshiped

669
00:39:14,719 --> 00:39:16,760
a Unitarian God. It's just like this guy is on

670
00:39:16,800 --> 00:39:20,480
another planet and doesn't even understand what the debate is,

671
00:39:21,039 --> 00:39:23,880
and now the libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude,

672
00:39:23,920 --> 00:39:25,800
I sent you the link. There's no reason why you

673
00:39:25,800 --> 00:39:28,800
can't hop on this debate. It's an open chat. You

674
00:39:28,880 --> 00:39:31,280
wanted to debate. Now you're saying he can't get on here.

675
00:39:31,320 --> 00:39:33,559
Give me a break. Here you are you hopped on here?

676
00:39:34,039 --> 00:39:37,559
Now where's the actual video? I hope you guys understand

677
00:39:37,559 --> 00:39:41,360
that this means that Roman Catholics don't have the basics

678
00:39:41,400 --> 00:39:44,039
of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure that trinity is a

679
00:39:44,039 --> 00:39:47,400
pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent say that

680
00:39:47,519 --> 00:39:50,880
in the tweet that he just put up the very

681
00:39:50,920 --> 00:39:53,239
thing that all of his defenders were saying he didn't mean.

682
00:39:54,119 --> 00:39:57,800
He says it again. Now, let's remind ourselves of a

683
00:39:57,840 --> 00:40:02,159
few moments of the debate with Daniel Hoikikachu, because it

684
00:40:02,199 --> 00:40:06,079
turns out Trent and Daniel have the same god, the

685
00:40:06,360 --> 00:40:09,960
Unitarian generic God of natural Theism. Now, I know that

686
00:40:09,960 --> 00:40:12,159
Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and the

687
00:40:12,159 --> 00:40:15,079
deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's got

688
00:40:15,079 --> 00:40:19,000
two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he doubled

689
00:40:19,039 --> 00:40:21,679
and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter on

690
00:40:21,719 --> 00:40:25,440
this so I repeat again, did the Old Testament saints

691
00:40:25,519 --> 00:40:28,239
worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that Trent

692
00:40:28,920 --> 00:40:31,760
and Roman Catholicisms are taughte Entrent just now within the

693
00:40:31,800 --> 00:40:34,679
last five minutes reaffirmed, Or do they worship the triad

694
00:40:34,719 --> 00:40:37,079
as every Orthodox person knows. You're saying that this is

695
00:40:37,119 --> 00:40:41,039
fundamental to us, and they're still wandering around, groping in

696
00:40:41,079 --> 00:40:44,960
the dark like the Pagans of Acts seventeen, not understanding

697
00:40:45,239 --> 00:40:48,320
that it's a triad in the very beginning, because their

698
00:40:48,400 --> 00:40:52,599
theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why. Because

699
00:40:52,599 --> 00:40:55,079
they're in a giant machine that they have to make

700
00:40:55,119 --> 00:40:59,320
all of these pieces work and make this giant algorithm

701
00:40:59,360 --> 00:41:03,320
that's a giant contradictions fit together, and they don't. They

702
00:41:03,360 --> 00:41:06,159
don't even know what recapitulation is. They don't even know

703
00:41:06,559 --> 00:41:11,960
what monarchical trinitarianism is. If you've read Justin Martyr against

704
00:41:11,960 --> 00:41:16,159
Tripho the Jew is Trent even aware that Justin Martyr

705
00:41:16,280 --> 00:41:19,639
argues from the Old Testament Theophanies to prove the deedy

706
00:41:19,639 --> 00:41:23,480
of Christ and his attempt at proving Triad It's like

707
00:41:23,559 --> 00:41:26,400
Trent's never talked to a Muslim or never read these

708
00:41:26,440 --> 00:41:28,400
church fathers. Oh but wait a minute, Trent didn't know

709
00:41:28,800 --> 00:41:31,639
what the word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan,

710
00:41:31,679 --> 00:41:35,800
anti Trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern

711
00:41:35,840 --> 00:41:39,360
Church fathers. So now Trent is doubling down, as we said,

712
00:41:39,400 --> 00:41:43,079
tripling down that the Old Testament saints did not worship

713
00:41:43,119 --> 00:41:47,039
the Trinity. They worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he never

714
00:41:47,119 --> 00:41:49,920
read John five through nine? Has he not read Second

715
00:41:49,920 --> 00:41:52,679
Corinthians three, where Paul says that Moses looked face to

716
00:41:52,719 --> 00:41:56,440
face with Jesus. If no man sees the Father at

717
00:41:56,519 --> 00:41:59,559
any time, as Jesus argues in John to the Pharisees,

718
00:41:59,599 --> 00:42:03,840
and then who was Moses talking to? This is the

719
00:42:03,840 --> 00:42:06,880
point of Jesus' argument to the Pharisees. I don't think

720
00:42:06,960 --> 00:42:10,119
Trent knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly

721
00:42:10,119 --> 00:42:13,360
not the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows

722
00:42:13,400 --> 00:42:17,719
a lot of pop apologetics, because remember Trent was not

723
00:42:17,800 --> 00:42:21,119
too long ago a Deist who converted to Roman Catholicism,

724
00:42:21,480 --> 00:42:22,760
and so I don't think Trent knows the.

725
00:42:22,760 --> 00:42:27,239
Speaker 2: Trinity a Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined

726
00:42:27,599 --> 00:42:28,639
could be in error.

727
00:42:29,119 --> 00:42:32,719
Speaker 1: Interesting, but you said a minute ago it was authoritative.

728
00:42:33,360 --> 00:42:36,639
So even if it's not been infallibly defined. Trent earlier

729
00:42:36,719 --> 00:42:41,480
said Leo's normative teaching is authoritative. What does that mean, Trent?

730
00:42:42,360 --> 00:42:47,760
What is authoritative non infallible teaching? Does that mean you

731
00:42:47,760 --> 00:42:52,400
can reject it? And Trent? What are the ex cathedral statements?

732
00:42:52,679 --> 00:42:55,480
Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? And to

733
00:42:55,519 --> 00:43:00,800
make this again a very devastating epistemological argument, if we have,

734
00:43:01,519 --> 00:43:04,679
for the sake of argument, say ten ex cathedral statements,

735
00:43:06,199 --> 00:43:09,559
I need to know where the list is that is

736
00:43:09,760 --> 00:43:13,719
also ex cathedral because if the list of ex Cathedra

737
00:43:13,760 --> 00:43:17,639
statements can be wrong, then you're in the same dilemma

738
00:43:17,800 --> 00:43:21,639
as the Protestant on the canon question. You make the

739
00:43:21,679 --> 00:43:25,679
same argument epistemically to Protestants about knowing the canon of Scripture.

740
00:43:26,360 --> 00:43:30,840
Apply that same argument to your claim about knowing the

741
00:43:30,880 --> 00:43:35,880
ex cathedrals statements. Where is the infallible decree of the

742
00:43:35,920 --> 00:43:40,559
infallible list of ex cathedra statements you just reputed yourself.

743
00:43:40,639 --> 00:43:43,880
Speaker 2: But they are not all infallible because the Catholic code

744
00:43:43,920 --> 00:43:48,000
of canon law says, no doctrine is understood is defined

745
00:43:48,039 --> 00:43:52,039
infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

746
00:43:55,639 --> 00:43:58,639
Speaker 1: So his answer is, the things that are infallible are

747
00:43:58,639 --> 00:44:01,480
the ones that are manifestly of You can't make this up.

748
00:44:02,039 --> 00:44:05,320
This is the stupidest most This is T Jump level.

749
00:44:05,880 --> 00:44:09,119
He's literally T Jump reality is reality. The ones that

750
00:44:09,119 --> 00:44:11,840
are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident as infallible.

751
00:44:15,320 --> 00:44:19,440
This should end this whole retarded system and Trent Horn's career.

752
00:44:19,559 --> 00:44:23,800
This is so stupid, And imagine Trent Horn saying the

753
00:44:23,840 --> 00:44:30,159
same thing as t Jump. Let's replay that, because this

754
00:44:30,360 --> 00:44:33,159
was better than I hope this was, Like, this is

755
00:44:33,199 --> 00:44:37,519
funnier than I expected. Let's go back. Trent Horn's epistemic

756
00:44:37,559 --> 00:44:40,960
criteria is to go to by the way, canon law,

757
00:44:42,119 --> 00:44:46,760
Trent is canon law infallible. Most Roman Catholics would argue

758
00:44:46,760 --> 00:44:50,519
that canon law is not infallible. So wait a minute.

759
00:44:51,199 --> 00:44:54,960
The thing that Trent goes to to know the canon

760
00:44:55,280 --> 00:45:00,320
what's infallible is itself fallible. You can't make this on.

761
00:45:00,880 --> 00:45:04,639
This is what you get when you don't know basic

762
00:45:04,719 --> 00:45:07,960
epistemic questions and basic epistemology. Do you remember in the

763
00:45:07,960 --> 00:45:10,599
debate with Trent, I said, Trent, tell me the things

764
00:45:10,599 --> 00:45:16,440
that are self evident. He said, descartes cogito. What dude,

765
00:45:16,480 --> 00:45:21,559
that's been savage by philosophers for centuries. It's laughable. And

766
00:45:21,599 --> 00:45:24,320
that's what every person who takes in epistemology one on

767
00:45:24,360 --> 00:45:26,920
one class. That's like the first thing they think.

768
00:45:27,159 --> 00:45:31,840
Speaker 4: Dude, like descartes cogito. Man, It's like I, I look,

769
00:45:31,960 --> 00:45:35,559
I exist or whatever. Right, It's like, I think therefore

770
00:45:35,559 --> 00:45:40,519
I am uh so that's why it's self opened or whatever, right.

771
00:45:40,679 --> 00:45:42,880
Speaker 1: And then the professor in your first class or first

772
00:45:42,960 --> 00:45:49,760
day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally

773
00:45:49,760 --> 00:45:53,519
what Trent argued in the debate with me. To show

774
00:45:53,559 --> 00:45:58,639
what's self evident, descartes cogitoe, What are you serious, dude?

775
00:45:58,719 --> 00:46:02,400
Is so easy to it's not even self evident. First

776
00:46:02,440 --> 00:46:06,199
of all, it relies on time determination. Has Descartes proven

777
00:46:06,280 --> 00:46:11,440
time yet? No? It relies on language and words having meaning.

778
00:46:11,880 --> 00:46:13,760
It relies on the existence of a self, which has

779
00:46:13,800 --> 00:46:17,320
not been proven yet. It relies on the existence of

780
00:46:17,440 --> 00:46:23,480
logical inferences. Has Descartes proven logical inferences yet? Okay, so

781
00:46:23,599 --> 00:46:25,840
if it relies on all these other things to be

782
00:46:25,920 --> 00:46:28,800
the case, to say, the sentence of the Cogito, then

783
00:46:28,840 --> 00:46:32,079
it's not self evident. Anything that relies on another thing

784
00:46:32,280 --> 00:46:42,679
Trent isn't self evident. Look up the criterion problem. But again,

785
00:46:43,079 --> 00:46:48,800
I cannot believe that this goober, in order to show

786
00:46:49,639 --> 00:46:54,760
what things are ex Cathedra, actually goes to a thing

787
00:46:54,840 --> 00:46:58,320
that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now, maybe there's

788
00:46:58,320 --> 00:47:00,280
a Roman Catholic trid who will argue that ken law

789
00:47:00,320 --> 00:47:04,039
is infallible. Uh, I've not seen that. Maybe they do.

790
00:47:04,800 --> 00:47:07,599
It's similar to their approach to the Catechism, the Catechism

791
00:47:07,639 --> 00:47:10,559
of the Calogy Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I

792
00:47:10,599 --> 00:47:13,440
don't think most Roman Catholics would argue that everything in

793
00:47:13,480 --> 00:47:17,639
the Catechism is infallible. There would be differences of levels

794
00:47:17,679 --> 00:47:22,159
and whatnot. Okay, fine, so is canon law infallible? Most

795
00:47:22,280 --> 00:47:25,239
Roman Catholics would say, probably not, because it's changeable and

796
00:47:25,280 --> 00:47:27,880
it can, you know, move around, and it deals with

797
00:47:27,880 --> 00:47:31,639
a lot of practical stuff that's not eternal, divine revelation,

798
00:47:31,760 --> 00:47:36,199
divine law. Right, Okay, So if it's fallible and changeable

799
00:47:36,239 --> 00:47:39,760
and mutable, then how are you going to the thing

800
00:47:40,400 --> 00:47:44,679
that is changeable and fallible to tell me where I

801
00:47:44,679 --> 00:47:49,880
identify the infallible. This is so simple. This is epismology

802
00:47:49,960 --> 00:47:50,199
one O.

803
00:47:50,320 --> 00:47:55,840
Speaker 2: One says, no doctrine is understood, is defined infallibly, unless

804
00:47:55,880 --> 00:47:59,639
this is manifestly evident. That's why I said Jay's complaint

805
00:47:59,679 --> 00:48:03,559
about the Second Vatican Council saying Muslims worship God does

806
00:48:03,639 --> 00:48:07,440
not disprove Catholicism as a whole, because even if that

807
00:48:07,599 --> 00:48:11,239
teaching were false, it's not an infallible definition.

808
00:48:11,960 --> 00:48:15,760
Speaker 1: H No, even if it's not infallible, you are still

809
00:48:15,840 --> 00:48:20,880
bound Trent by what we saw here to the normative

810
00:48:20,920 --> 00:48:23,760
teaching of the papacy, and all of the documents of

811
00:48:23,800 --> 00:48:27,079
Vatican two are normative and binding. So that means you

812
00:48:27,119 --> 00:48:30,719
are now bound by the Roman see to error. That's

813
00:48:30,760 --> 00:48:37,599
the point. You don't get to reject more telling no state,

814
00:48:40,719 --> 00:48:45,039
because as we see here five places in Denzinger that

815
00:48:45,199 --> 00:48:48,000
say that you have to support all of the normative

816
00:48:48,079 --> 00:48:52,440
ordinary teachings, even if it's not infallible. You are still

817
00:48:52,440 --> 00:48:55,480
bound by religious submission of intellect and will to the

818
00:48:55,599 --> 00:49:01,760
ordinary teaching. That's Canon seven fifty two.

819
00:49:03,360 --> 00:49:06,960
Speaker 2: Or a dogma that cannot possibly be false. And in

820
00:49:07,000 --> 00:49:11,960
some cases Jay complains about statements from the Vatican that aren't.

821
00:49:12,079 --> 00:49:16,280
Speaker 1: That like, as if we can't say the Vatican, I mean,

822
00:49:16,320 --> 00:49:19,480
does he not realize that the Vatican is not merely

823
00:49:20,400 --> 00:49:23,960
the papacy but also the Roman College. When the Roman

824
00:49:24,039 --> 00:49:28,239
College makes decisions, for example, the election of a pope,

825
00:49:28,480 --> 00:49:31,199
does the pope decide who the pope is? No, the

826
00:49:31,400 --> 00:49:35,119
Roman College decides the pope. So yeah, it's correct to

827
00:49:35,199 --> 00:49:36,639
talk about the Vatican.

828
00:49:36,719 --> 00:49:40,119
Speaker 2: Trent aren't even church teachings at all.

829
00:49:40,239 --> 00:49:44,639
Speaker 1: The actual Vatican source that loft Dog mc Lofdog pulled

830
00:49:44,719 --> 00:49:50,039
up which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit the guys,

831
00:49:50,079 --> 00:49:52,800
the Church is at work in the religions. The universal

832
00:49:52,880 --> 00:49:56,119
presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence

833
00:49:56,159 --> 00:50:00,480
in the Church. Although one cannot exclude the it's alf

834
00:50:00,840 --> 00:50:04,920
value of the false religions. This is the nineteen ninety

835
00:50:04,920 --> 00:50:11,440
seven Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two.

836
00:50:12,440 --> 00:50:17,679
So notice they don't explain things the paup apologist because

837
00:50:17,679 --> 00:50:20,639
they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously

838
00:50:20,679 --> 00:50:24,159
a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.

839
00:50:24,320 --> 00:50:28,519
Speaker 2: The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without.

840
00:50:28,519 --> 00:50:35,800
Speaker 1: Oh but Trent, the theological commissions just got approved by

841
00:50:35,840 --> 00:50:41,840
the Pope, so they reflect Leo's mind. We just saw

842
00:50:41,880 --> 00:50:46,719
that with the Theological Commission on the Eastern Churches. So

843
00:50:46,920 --> 00:50:50,119
you understand, this is so great that Leo, Leo is

844
00:50:50,199 --> 00:50:54,840
now going to be the great apologist like Francis because

845
00:50:54,880 --> 00:50:58,559
they were able to handwave they tried to handwave for

846
00:50:58,639 --> 00:51:03,320
the last several years and Alexandria by saying that it's

847
00:51:03,360 --> 00:51:07,320
just a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome. Oh

848
00:51:07,360 --> 00:51:11,719
but now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of

849
00:51:11,800 --> 00:51:15,840
Kiati and Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his

850
00:51:15,920 --> 00:51:21,280
desire and his mind. So notice when I go to

851
00:51:21,320 --> 00:51:25,320
the same documents that Loten uses against Trent and Tim Gordon,

852
00:51:26,320 --> 00:51:29,480
that document that Trent was talking about, the Theological Commission

853
00:51:29,599 --> 00:51:33,480
is approved by the Vatican, and then Trent says it's

854
00:51:33,559 --> 00:51:37,199
just a theological commission document, it's not binding. Oh but

855
00:51:37,239 --> 00:51:42,280
wait a minute, Leo has now approved the Theological Commission.

856
00:51:42,320 --> 00:51:47,199
It reflects his mind right here. It doesn't matter it's

857
00:51:47,199 --> 00:51:49,440
not binding anymore. I don't have to follow it, I

858
00:51:49,480 --> 00:51:53,000
can reject it. How do you know what? What did

859
00:51:53,000 --> 00:51:55,159
he say at the beginning of his video? He said,

860
00:51:55,239 --> 00:52:00,400
Leo's teachings, even if they're not infallible, can be authoritative.

861
00:52:01,519 --> 00:52:03,719
Watch Trent contradict himself right here. Watch this.

862
00:52:05,920 --> 00:52:09,599
Speaker 2: As they don't falsify Orthodoxy, but Catholicism teaches that the

863
00:52:09,639 --> 00:52:13,440
Pope only acts with the charism of infallibility on very

864
00:52:13,559 --> 00:52:16,679
rare occasions. Most of the time when he teaches, he

865
00:52:16,760 --> 00:52:19,800
teaches authoritatively but not infallibly.

866
00:52:20,639 --> 00:52:23,760
Speaker 1: What does that mean, then, Trent, that it's authoritative but

867
00:52:23,840 --> 00:52:26,159
not infallible. Are you bound by it? Are you bound

868
00:52:26,239 --> 00:52:31,719
by the Apostolic journey letter that you should joyously embrace

869
00:52:31,880 --> 00:52:37,880
what Kiati and Alexandria say. Are you now supporting Leo

870
00:52:38,199 --> 00:52:45,280
in dropping the philioque just the recitation, not the theology.

871
00:52:45,360 --> 00:52:48,599
Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is?

872
00:52:48,679 --> 00:52:54,639
This is the most talmudic ridiculous. Like it's like rabbis

873
00:52:55,239 --> 00:52:58,840
writing documents to refute documents, to make documents work with

874
00:52:58,880 --> 00:53:01,519
other refutations of docum to then refute and make the

875
00:53:01,519 --> 00:53:05,679
document where it's just crazy level insanity. And that's why

876
00:53:05,719 --> 00:53:11,320
it only appeals to SuDS and I don't know people

877
00:53:11,360 --> 00:53:15,079
with you, Froze, I don't know, Like who finds this appealing?

878
00:53:15,239 --> 00:53:19,280
What in this system do you get? Trent? What are

879
00:53:19,280 --> 00:53:24,480
you getting out of this other than your paycheck? I

880
00:53:24,480 --> 00:53:27,599
think Trent is also mad because I asked him if

881
00:53:27,679 --> 00:53:31,320
because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote

882
00:53:31,360 --> 00:53:34,800
stabbies during KOUF. I asked Trent, was that the case?

883
00:53:34,920 --> 00:53:38,719
Trent said no, But I think that might have been

884
00:53:38,960 --> 00:53:42,039
what prompted this angry Trent video here.

885
00:53:42,679 --> 00:53:46,320
Speaker 2: So so if the pope were to instead, it publishes

886
00:53:46,440 --> 00:53:50,000
permitted opinions that have gained a consensus among members of

887
00:53:50,000 --> 00:53:51,519
the MAGISTI yeah.

888
00:53:51,360 --> 00:53:56,960
Speaker 1: But Trent now, Leo affirms Kat and Alexandria and.

889
00:53:56,920 --> 00:53:59,360
Speaker 2: The document JA Sites is not an error on the

890
00:53:59,400 --> 00:54:03,519
point J raises, because it says salvation quote is not

891
00:54:03,679 --> 00:54:06,760
produced independently of Christ in his church.

892
00:54:07,679 --> 00:54:10,679
Speaker 1: Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs

893
00:54:11,159 --> 00:54:12,559
through the false religions.

894
00:54:12,920 --> 00:54:17,119
Speaker 2: It also does not outright say other religions have Salvavic value.

895
00:54:17,280 --> 00:54:20,440
Speaker 1: It does it says that salvation can occur by Christ

896
00:54:20,519 --> 00:54:21,920
saving them through Islam.

897
00:54:22,320 --> 00:54:25,360
Speaker 2: It discusses the question of whether we can say, non

898
00:54:25,440 --> 00:54:29,440
Christian religions that predispose people to truth have Salvavic value.

899
00:54:29,719 --> 00:54:33,239
This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility

900
00:54:33,519 --> 00:54:35,519
of the existence of Salvavic elements.

901
00:54:35,760 --> 00:54:40,960
Speaker 1: And so look at those ridiculous kazustri just word games. Well,

902
00:54:41,039 --> 00:54:42,960
it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in

903
00:54:42,960 --> 00:54:45,519
those religions. That discuss the possibility of them being saved

904
00:54:45,559 --> 00:54:45,920
to those.

905
00:54:45,800 --> 00:54:49,360
Speaker 2: Religions as whether the religions as such can have Salvavic

906
00:54:49,480 --> 00:54:51,760
value is a point that remains open.

907
00:54:51,920 --> 00:54:54,360
Speaker 1: Oh, it says that it is possible.

908
00:54:54,639 --> 00:54:56,719
Speaker 2: So that document doesn't say what Jay claims.

909
00:54:56,719 --> 00:55:00,320
Speaker 1: It says. That's why Lofton is actually correct here saying

910
00:55:00,320 --> 00:55:03,960
that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity between themselves

911
00:55:04,000 --> 00:55:10,000
and they're apop apologist, refute one another every single day.

912
00:55:10,039 --> 00:55:14,119
What the papal teaching is on castid CANUBII and marital

913
00:55:14,159 --> 00:55:17,840
relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy, right, Tim Gordon.

914
00:55:18,159 --> 00:55:22,039
But then the top Catholic apologists are calling themselves male

915
00:55:22,119 --> 00:55:25,400
feminists because they say Tim Gordon is wrong. Well, I

916
00:55:25,400 --> 00:55:27,440
thought it's clear. So if we're gonna make the argument

917
00:55:27,480 --> 00:55:32,599
that the papacy provides clarity. How come the top apologists

918
00:55:32,679 --> 00:55:38,679
completely disagree over fundamental questions about salvific roles of false religions.

919
00:55:39,199 --> 00:55:42,960
You can't even get that right now. I'm not saying

920
00:55:43,039 --> 00:55:48,039
that itself is a defeater of the system. That's just

921
00:55:48,119 --> 00:55:53,840
an observation, an anecdotal observation of the absurdity of the

922
00:55:53,880 --> 00:55:58,639
claim that the papacy provides unity, clarity, and moral guidance.

923
00:55:59,639 --> 00:56:02,119
Where the unity and clarity and moral guidance on a

924
00:56:02,239 --> 00:56:04,920
basic issue of whether or not I can be saved

925
00:56:04,920 --> 00:56:08,519
in Hinduism or not? You and Lofton and Tim Gordon

926
00:56:08,599 --> 00:56:09,519
can't even tell me that.

927
00:56:12,800 --> 00:56:15,079
Speaker 2: And it isn't even an official teaching of the church.

928
00:56:16,320 --> 00:56:19,800
Speaker 1: What's the official teaching Trent? Where's the list?

929
00:56:21,000 --> 00:56:24,039
Speaker 2: In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed

930
00:56:24,039 --> 00:56:27,840
by orthodox theologians that Jay or other online apologists might

931
00:56:27,880 --> 00:56:32,400
disagree with but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay is correct

932
00:56:32,440 --> 00:56:36,400
that Catholics must submit even to the non infallible teachings

933
00:56:36,400 --> 00:56:36,559
of the.

934
00:56:36,599 --> 00:56:38,960
Speaker 1: Church, oh really.

935
00:56:39,280 --> 00:56:42,360
Speaker 2: Including the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But since

936
00:56:42,400 --> 00:56:46,559
those teachings are not infallible, that means in rare cases

937
00:56:47,000 --> 00:56:51,320
a Catholic could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to

938
00:56:51,400 --> 00:56:52,559
accept these teachings.

939
00:56:52,880 --> 00:56:56,400
Speaker 1: If notice the level of like how they're saving the system.

940
00:56:56,559 --> 00:57:01,599
Now when Vatican two teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just

941
00:57:01,760 --> 00:57:05,039
privately keep that to yourself because you have to submit

942
00:57:05,079 --> 00:57:08,280
to the pope Canond seven fifty two. So I mean,

943
00:57:09,679 --> 00:57:13,400
I think you get what you deserve. So the people

944
00:57:13,440 --> 00:57:16,800
that want to follow this, the forty thousand idiots that

945
00:57:16,840 --> 00:57:20,400
are over here supporting this and loving this, like you this,

946
00:57:20,719 --> 00:57:24,679
you get what you deserve. You want a giant organized

947
00:57:24,719 --> 00:57:30,960
crime syndicate Operation Gladio thing running your life and ruining

948
00:57:30,960 --> 00:57:33,960
your life, and you want to take your kids to

949
00:57:34,039 --> 00:57:38,079
be around these creeps. You deserve what you get.

950
00:57:38,039 --> 00:57:41,079
Speaker 2: If they have a proportionate, serious reason for doing so,

951
00:57:41,519 --> 00:57:44,199
and such an act would not constitute the grave sin

952
00:57:44,280 --> 00:57:44,880
of heresy.

953
00:57:45,400 --> 00:57:49,599
Speaker 1: Oh really, so private theologian random dude Trent Horn, who

954
00:57:49,639 --> 00:57:52,679
was a Unitarian not too many years ago now is

955
00:57:52,679 --> 00:57:57,039
an expert in canon law and identifying when it's magisterial

956
00:57:57,320 --> 00:58:00,719
how what's what was Trent's I gotta go back to

957
00:58:00,760 --> 00:58:02,679
this because this was the best thing in the whole thing,

958
00:58:04,360 --> 00:58:07,559
the best thing in the whole discussion.

959
00:58:10,719 --> 00:58:14,840
Speaker 2: All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible,

960
00:58:15,039 --> 00:58:19,039
because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine

961
00:58:19,079 --> 00:58:23,840
is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

962
00:58:24,719 --> 00:58:29,119
Speaker 1: This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've

963
00:58:29,199 --> 00:58:33,199
ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular

964
00:58:33,239 --> 00:58:35,679
than this? Now you say, wait a minute, Jaye, don't

965
00:58:35,679 --> 00:58:40,119
you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing

966
00:58:40,159 --> 00:58:45,599
and self recursive. Yes, that's why I'm a presubpositionalist. That's

967
00:58:45,599 --> 00:58:48,079
why I believe in trance in all argumentation. That's why

968
00:58:48,119 --> 00:58:51,800
I don't believe in Trent's classical foundationalism. But do you

969
00:58:51,840 --> 00:58:55,400
notice what Trent is doing here? The papal epistemology is

970
00:58:55,440 --> 00:58:59,760
forcing him to commit a vicious circle, which he said

971
00:58:59,760 --> 00:59:03,320
in our or debate should be rejected. All vicious circularity

972
00:59:03,360 --> 00:59:07,719
is rejected according to Trent Horne. Oh really, Trent, how

973
00:59:07,800 --> 00:59:10,920
do I know what's ex cathedral? It's the ones that

974
00:59:10,960 --> 00:59:12,800
are manifestly evident as ex cathedral