Speaker 1: Again, the question here is about presuppositions, for sure, and
I've listed many things and many problems for the foundational's
approach that you're advocating. You replied with something to the
effect that, well, there's a trilemma that we could refer to,
and there's really not many other options here. Well, the
fact that you don't think there's many other options actually
doesn't count as a justification for the starting point. In
other words, you started with properly basic beliefs, and all
I have to ask you is that do you think
that the notion of properly basic beliefs themselves is self evident?
Speaker 2: Do you mean the idea properly basic belief?
Speaker 1: Well, if I said, only beliefs that are self evident
or encouragible or evident to the senses are properly basic,
the problem is that you're in an infinite circle of
regress because the proposition itself, in terms of you knowing it,
is not part of your sense data. Nor can you
show that it's properly basic without assuming it.
Speaker 2: Well, I would agree that the idea of a properly
basic belief may itself not be properly based, but one could.
Speaker 1: Just have no, self, that's not what I asked.
Speaker 2: Okay, what did you.
Speaker 1: Ask the proposition itself about properly basic belief Is it
properly basic.
Speaker 2: The proposition? There are properly basic beliefs.
Speaker 1: The proposition only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible
or evident to the senses are properly basic.
Speaker 2: Well, I would just I would say that it's true.
You're saying, how do I know what properly basic beliefs?
Speaker 1: And it's true. I'm asking, is that notion itself properly basic?
Speaker 2: So you're okay. So you're saying that if it is
properly basic, could create some kind of circularity if I say.
Speaker 1: That, yes, okay.
Speaker 2: Well, as I said before, I don't know if the
description of an idea might be properly basic, but the
experience itself is, and then we then we have terms
to describe what the experience is.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how you redefine it, because the point
is that there's no self evident origin or incorrigible proposition
like that found in sense data. M So what's the
justification for that?
Speaker 2: The justification is that there are some there are some
propositions that we encounter, and upon entertaining the proposition, the
justification is also immediately apparent, and so it is.
Speaker 1: That's circularity. That's what that's the problem of properly basic beliefs.
Speaker 2: No, it's not just you just.
Speaker 1: Said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity.
Speaker 2: No, because the question, okay, it's it's not that because
if I say, for example, I am having an experience
right now, I am just reporting something that is happening.
Speaker 1: To you, all you're doing. No, I gave you multiple
examples what you said I didn't do in critiquing the Kogito,
Like what of all the metaphysical things that are assumed
in the sentence?
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if I don't understand all the concepts
that are involved, we can also doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: This is about justifying the beliefs. Okay.
Speaker 2: So what you're so it sounds like you're saying to
me natural theology is false because there are no self
evident truths.
Speaker 1: I'm creating your position of a strong foundationalism.
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if someone picked a weaker form of foundationalism,
I think a lot of you Okay, what I would
what I would say.
Speaker 1: That's not that a position you defended five minutes ago.
Speaker 2: Okay, but even the position that I have, I would
just say a lot of people, even people who are
non believers or atheists, would agree there are just basic
facts about existence that we have agreement on. So you're
from there, we can build.
Speaker 1: You're going to appeal to the master. That's actually a fallacy.
It's not a justification.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's justification.
So what's the just The problem is I gave you
a justification, but your system just won't allow it because afations.
Speaker 1: Those are fallacies. No.
Speaker 2: I told you that some propositions that we immediate that
we encounter is immedia and we do not have to
infer them.
Speaker 1: I'm asking for the justification. You're just saying that it's immediate.
But that's just I would rest that rests on the
assumption that the external world is properly caused to impress
upon your senshi Wou.
Speaker 2: I would say the justification that the self evident truths
in my epistemology are true would be the same as
whatever justification, let you know, leads you to believe that
the God of Christian orthodoxy on the foundation I'm.
Speaker 1: Not subject to that problem. I don't make the strong
foundations claim that you just did, so I don't have
that problem. I admit circularity at this level.
Speaker 2: Okay, but but only at that level.
Speaker 1: Right, because it's a metallogical question where circularity is unavoidable.
That's the point was set theory, and the incompleteness is.
Speaker 2: Therem Okay, are there any other circular so circular reasoning
with God being the ultimate foundation of reality that is
not invalid? Are there any other kind of the nature
of the system itself? Okay, so it's not invalid. Are
there any other kinds of circular reasoning apart from God,
have nothing to do with God that are also not invalid?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Sure, The categories themselves have to be presupposed for
the possibility of knowledge. So in other words, the way
I make the argument is just simply that knowledge presupposed
to the categories. The categories themselves are grounded in God.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the categories themselves, their foundation is not circular.
Their foundation is in God.
Speaker 1: Well, they're circular when we're considering whether we can justify
them at the human level.
Speaker 2: So we can't say that logic is true because the
laws of logic themselves show that they're true. It sounds
like you're saying circucular Yeah, it sounds like you're saying
circular reasoning is invalid, except when we're talking about God
being the foundation of the universe.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that every system at root is circular, and
that's what I'm demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism,
and I'm showing that that's not going to be. Then
how we justify or explain the different systems themselves. It's
a comparison of systems and not a comparison of evidence.
Speaker 2: Well, Jay, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to using logic,
knowledge and morality to show God exists or even these
even a kind of transcendental argument. My concern is the
specificity of the presupposition, because your case seemed to be
very negative to natural theology. It's inability to prove a
rigid designator that the triune God of Christianity.
Speaker 1: No I do I agree.
Speaker 2: So my question for you is what would prevent Why
couldn't I take your exact same presuppositionalism, swap out the
God of orthodox Christian faith put in the Catholic divine
simplicity God or William or Cornelius Vantil taking his Protestant
view of God using the same argument. What breaks the
symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others.
Speaker 1: Because in this case, what I'm the way I would
make the argument is that the Trinity is actually the
ground not just of epistemology or logic or things like that,
but actually the entire paradigm. In other words, it's an
argument for the entirety of the Christian paradigm, not merely
an argument for this or that piece of it. So
the Trinity comes with in terms of Orthodox theology as
I understand it, Saint Maximus's grand metaphysic, It actually comes
with a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding
of the natural world itself. So it's not just an
argument for an abstract concept or some logical thing. It's
the entire Christian paradigm and the metaphysics of the Trinitarian
theology that we have as Orthodox, which is unique to us.
And this is why one last point, this is why,
in for example, Questions and Doubts, Saint Maximus goes to
great links to show that there are natural proofs for
the Trinity. He actually thinks the existence of the world,
the modal existence of the world itself, is triadic and
is a proof, not an adamiration or a trace, but
an actual proof of the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Okay, but why I didn't hear a reason? Why are
why is our presupposition going to be a trinity versus
a unity a unitarian God?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Why that's point one and point two? Why your concept
of the Trinity as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant concept. Why?
Speaker 1: Well, because, first of all, the the the Triune God
is not just posited. I'm actually saying that God and
the Christian world in the Christian Orthodox paradigm, gives an
account for the metaphysical problems, for the one and the many,
for the universals, for the for the you know, logical categories,
the Aristotelian categories that you know maximums basically squishes into
natural contemplation. I'm saying that the structure of the world,
as well as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, all of that is
justified given an account for and grounded in a specific
triune God and the specific revelation of what he says
about how the world's constructed. So it's a revelatory theism
and a justification via revelation as opposed to autonomous Uh,
you know, the unaided reasoning approach that you're defending.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that we should presuppose the God of
Eastern Orthodox Christian theism. Correct, because the God of Eastern
Orthodox Christian Theism has revealed we ought to presuppose him.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that we should presuppose him precisely because
the self revelatory declaration gives an account for the problems
of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology that I keep raising.
Speaker 2: Why is it?
Speaker 1: Why solves those problems?
Speaker 2: Why does only Orthodox Christians? So so I guess what, I'm.
Speaker 1: Trying to make revelatory character of the Trinity and Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 2: Right, But Protestants and Catholics also believe in the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you don't have it because you have heterodox
versions of it. Not I'm not I'm personally attacking you,
but I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying that that's fine. But okay, So we would we
would say your conception of theism is the only one
that explains reality, because we would deploy arguments of reason
to show that the competitors are false or don't succeed.
Speaker 1: Correct. But that's a category error. But because I'm not
just because I'm using arguments from reason doesn't mean that
they have logical or or epistemic orontological priority. That's a
category error that Thomas, that Thomas constantly make that because
I'm using an argument that it therefore has epistemic orontological priority,
or did I use it first in a chain? Okay,
it doesn't.
Speaker 2: With this also include we only got a few seconds
here My question earlier did did did Abraham believe God?
Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?
Speaker 1: Yes, and say Maximus, as he did?
Speaker 2: Okay, so he knew the father son only is all right?
Speaker 1: All right? So I think that what I really wanted
to get to here was the epistemic problems of an
approach that Trent has to strong foundationalism, which you affirmed
early on regarding the way that we go about doing
natural theology. What I heard from Trent throughout the debate,
in many many instances was actually equivocating and word concept
fallacy shift between natural law, moral law, the revelation of
God in nature and his tomistic conception of natural theology.
My whole point in this debate was that those things
are not equivalent. But multiple times of debate, Trent seemed
to switch back between these different things which are very
specific and nuance, as if they're all just talking about
the same thing. Of course, my questioning here is to
raise that very quick I'm questioning that very assumption right
there that I don't think those are all talking about
the same thing. I wanted to really stress that this
approach that Trent's doing is an empirical approach. I didn't
say Trent or Aquinas was an empiricist. I said the
approach is empirically based. And that's not in doubt because
in de Veritati, Aquinas clearly says that there's nothing in
the intellect that's not also in the senses. He also
affirms the distinction between what is better known in itself
and what is better known by us. And this is
really the basis of the foundationalist approach that we have here.
If we're gonna take that approach, we have a series
of problems that I raised one as an example of
properly basic beliefs in terms of the section when I
was questioning Trent about circularity of properly basic beliefs. This
is just one problem for any empirically based epistemology, and
make no bones about it, Trent's natural theology isn't empirically
based natural theology. So he's going to have to demonstrate
the justification for the empirical argumentation that he's doing to
say natural theology is a case when I am saying
that natural theology isn't the case because I can come
to the table and critique the presubpositions in the exact
same way that human kant do that you're gonna have
to give an account for And why do you have
to give an account for it in that way? Because
of the nature of your presubpositions and the foundationalism itself.
Foundationalism is saying these are self evident, these are the
things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What
does it matter how many people agree with something or
disagree with it. That's a appeal to the masses fallacy,
And so if Trent's going to have a foundationalist of pistemology,
He's going to have to answer not just that, but
the questions of what is the metaphysical content of all
the words that you're listing here in terms of this
sense data. What is the status of the external world
that you're presupposing in these metaphysical claims. What is the
certitude that you have that the sense data matches up
to the objects in the external world? How do you
solve Sellers problem of the myth of the given? How
do you resolve the underdetermination of data? How do you
account for the fact that the paraphetic axiom itself is
not in sense data? How if that's the case, do
you account for induction and deduction on an empirical basis?
What are the primary what are the properly basic beliefs?
Given the fact that I don't think the ones that
you listed are actually properly basic beliefs, given the critique
that I gave of Descartes cogito. If that's the case
and we start with induction, how do we get to
the justification of universals right from induction? So if deduction
is a problem, excuse mean. If the induction is the problem,
deduction also goes What is the justification for the epistemic
bootstrapping project at the outset that Trent is involved in,
Given that as I tried to show there are no
properly basic beliefs, and also given the fact that things
like the uniformity of nature, that logic works and operates
in an external world, or that the external world actually
has a causal relationship that it imprints data upon Trent's mind.
Nothing in that was a affirmation or an accusation that
Trent is a human empiricist, or that a Quitas is
an empiricist. I never said that, so Trent was replying
to a strong man. I simply said, how does Trent
reply as a foundationalist to these classic problems? For any
foundationalist system, it really doesn't matter which one we pick.
One thing that I really wanted to conclude with was
about the arguments of Saint Maximus for the Trinity, and
I'll just run through these really quick. Maximus thinks that
the modes of natural contemplation lead us to the low gee,
which to the logos. The logos is a rigid designator,
not for generic reasoning or Marcus Aurelius's logos, but in fact,
for as Trent said, the wisdom literature logos of Ecclesiasticus,
Proverbs and John One, who is the second person of
the Godhead. It's a rigid designator creation that, according to
Saint Maximus, is fundamentally chrystological and fundamentally triadic. And big
Ue ten shows that creation is a veil for the logos.
The creative world, Maximus says, is a book. It's a
book that's the same as the logos in terms of
the Bible book, right Maximus. This goes on, of course
to say that the created order is a theophany. And
my main point here is that natural theology posits a
deity that does not allow the created world to actually
be a theophany. And I think the tomism demonstrates that
Matt Frad and Trent Horn are we not supposed to
be Orthodox?
Speaker 2: And for me, the papacy is a gift that God
has given the church. That makes sense. It's one of
the important things in being Catholic.
Speaker 1: If the papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy
such an issue of contention right now in the Roman
Catholic world, and especially since the time of attic in two.
I mean again, you'll find that they always just appeal
to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it
just makes sense. Look it's just gonna help with unity. Look,
it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually
do that? No, it doesn't. Remember ninety percent of their
apologetic of these guys is you need this office because
it's going to solve all the problems that you have.
Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find
that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do.
It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact,
if you remember when we did the for the two
four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent,
remember that right got a lot of views on that.
We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how
to make sense of And here's your various ways to
interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have
to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be
a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even
have to have the pope clarifying the basic morals which
are now ambiguous, which related to quote natural justice in
the traditional Roman cality view. But remember what's he doing here?
Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier Oh,
it'll just make it easy. Oh, it'll make it simple,
it'll solve the problems. Again, the last seventy years of
Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that chaos, collapse,
lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater
moral revulsion, especially when it comes to to Rome itself
on quote clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that
the selling points that these guys always fall back on
are the very things that they're also always having to
deal with that it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything,
it's not making anything better, it's not producing unity. And
this is they're apologetic, is what papal lawyering.
Speaker 3: We debate these guys, they are always like on following Peter,
and by Peter they mean the papacy, right, because we
believe to see if Peter's in every bishop and bring
up for the audience your argument from indefectibility.
Speaker 1: It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially, what we've gotten
to in modern day Roman cathloch Apologists that are in
this sphere is the idea that rather than I'm gonna,
you know, to move away from the question of infallibility,
not that you can't debate infallibility. I think it's funny
and you can go down that route. But they'll just
always have this out where they'll just say, well, but
he's only infallible in xyz cases, and I will tell
you when that is right. So every individual Catholic will
have their own list of when he's being fallible when
he's not being infallible. And so the better way to
construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility. And this
is better because we know Vatican one is teaching very
clearly that the Roman Sea will never defect from the
faith until the end of the world. It will contain
valid successors until the return of Christ. Vatican One says
the Sea of Rome is indefectible until he defects, which
is to say nothing, so basically a meaningless statement which
allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply say that I
will accept and reject the papacy insofar as it applies
to my own version of papalism. And that's why every
single Roman Catholic will have a different list of what
the infallible teachings actually are. And again, this whole system
should at least give us the list. What do the
Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where's
your list of Douglas, where's your list of dogmas? Oh,
they don't have it? Exactly what do they have? They
have a couple criteria of categories to rank the authority
of the various teachings and dogmas, which is then up
to every individual Catholic to apply and to try to
make sense with mental gymnastics, how the system isn't chaos
and nonsense?
Speaker 2: And Orthodox counsel of just the Orthodox bishops, well, one
guy can always just kind of they can't, and so
you're not able to address you don't have that unity
that a person who is given a special authority from
Christ to be the first among bishops, and the Orthodox
say the BOE has that title, but it doesn't really
mean much.
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting because if this is the case, then
why does Ratzinger and by extension, the post Vatican too
Vatican why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has
preserved its faith and it's doctrines, it's unity for the
last thousand years. So that's an admission that we preserve
this without the papacy for a thousand years. So the
papacy actually isn't necessary. So your own popes admit that
we don't need the pope. I mean, this is in
Ratzinger's books. Now you might disagree with that, but my
point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize that,
let's not an infallible statement. I don't have to acceipt that, Okay,
so what right? This is? All they do is spur
out and go to this arbitrary of when it's infallible
when it's non infallible, which again they're going to have
to have an infallible criteria when they say what isn't
isn't infallible or else. That whole system falls apart into
the contradiction. But as we've seen, they're not very good
at logic and epistemology.
Speaker 2: But when you go back to the New Testament, it
seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic
commenters that Peter was given special.
Speaker 1: In the yearly. So here we go again. The only
things that matter to them are Matthew sixteen, right, So
it's like they don't care about the Bible at all
until they want to do is to Jesus with Isaiah
twenty two in Matthew sixteen. They don't care about anything
else to do. They go to Acts fifteen where Peter
is not the voice of God and the final authority
where it's James. No, they don't do that, or they
do this stupid thing where they try to argue that
it's a different Peter in Galatians one or in Acts fifteen.
I mean, just silly mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing.
But I'll use the Bible for when it backs up
the Papa seat. The rest of the time, I don't
care what the Bible says, and they don't, especially the trads.
I mean they even say that they're happy that they
don't read the Bible. Many of the trads that they're
said on Twitter all the time, right, Reading the Bible
is a Protestant thing. They think the sell delusional and
idiotic these people are. But I mean, these are just
terrible arguments. This is this is car salesmanship.
Speaker 2: Paul will stand for the truth and he'll even stand
up to Peter.
Speaker 1: Oh really, sound like Vatican one, Trent.
Speaker 2: Now, why why does you make note of Peter? Because
Peter has the most authority, right, I will even oppose Peter.
Speaker 1: So mouthpiece authority. None of that equates to Vatican One. Again,
all non sequitors. The whole thing is bait and switch,
just telling you that because there is this place, because
Rome has this pre eminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman
Catholic doctions are all true. It doesn't follow. In other words,
there's an Orthodox read, and maybe the Orthodox reading is wrong, right,
But my point is that there's an orthodox reading of
all of this stuff, and it's ignored because the idea
is just that look at all these quote minds, look
at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff, and
therefore Vatican one. That's essentially what he's saying, even though
he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican One,
but he knows that Vatican one is the counsel about
the papacy. So the whole point of this text of
Paul is that even Peter can be rebuked if he
errs this is all spun to be the opposite in
their exegesis, to be that Paul went to Peter to
see if he was correct, and Paul found out, oh oops,
Peter made a gaff. He just kind of messed up.
Is that what he says? No, he says that he
departed from the Gospel. That equates to defecting from the faith.
That is the very thing that Vatican One says Rome
can never do. Peter is Rome their exegesis proves he
departed from the faith in Galatians. It's like, did they
even read the text or did he just read quote
minds from other Roman Catholic apologists or did he actually
even read Galatians? Is he just repeating Dahlgreen in Hest's book.
Speaker 2: Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people
have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just
giving God all the honor God is due, and.
Speaker 1: That is not what worship essentially is. That's a very
broad statement that you could say, Okay, yeah, we give
God the honor, but how do we give God the
honor in the way that God lays down. This is
why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants that Protestants are
essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic
altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on
the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have
discarded that eucharistic centrality to worship that's ongoing at an altar,
and to most pop apologists in the Roman Calic sphere,
they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do
not really worship God. They might have a mental assent,
but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person,
the entire being of the person. This is why the liturgy,
both in the East and the West includes the whole man.
It's not just a mental assent. It's also actually eating God,
it's actually partaking of it's bowing down, it's crossing yourself.
It's all of these actions that are including the physical
body just as much as the mind, and Romancalolics don't
even have this for Orthodox the heart. Keep in mind,
in the Roman Catholic system there is no noose or
heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They believe in the
Augustinian and Thomistic idea that its body and soul, and
for them, soul is essentially primarily identified with the intellect.
So for them's salivation is ultimately an intellectual vision of
the divine essence. This is known as the beatific vision.
This is why for them, when they talk about worship,
it's in that context of a mental assent to a
vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the highest form of worship.
For the Orthodox, that is not the highest form of worship.
We do agree that there is an intellectual faculty in man,
but we think that as Romans One says, man's heart,
as a result of the fall, is darkened, and the
heart is not identical to the intellect or the mind.
The heart is the innermost being, the spirit in man,
which is why Paul talks about body, soul, and spirit.
He lists three things. Roman Catholics they only believe it two.
So the whole man is deified. The whole man participates
in worship, which is why we taste and see that
the Lord is good, the fountain of immortality as we
see in the liturgy, and why the whole body is
involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing. All of these
things go into the holistic element of man being involved
in worship, which is because the resurrection is not just
an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of body and soul
and spirit coming back together after death. Thus, the body
plays a key role in the escaton and in the
resurrected state these people don't really realize that, because for them,
the eschatological state is an intellectual vision of the divine essence.
For the Orthodox, there's a new heavens and a new Earth,
and it's mirrored and patterned on the resurrected body that
you see at the end of the Gospel of John
that Jesus possesses. Jesus has a new body that walks
through walls, and that can appear and disappear, and yet
he can still eat and it still has physical reality,
even though it's deified flesh. According to Saint Cyril of Alexandria,
that's the deified flesh that we're eating in the Eucharist, which,
by the way, disproves the Roman Catholics in the debate
with Father Deacon Antonius, because they argue that you don't
actually taste and see God in the Eucharist, because they're
being consistent with their Toumistic theology that it's all created
causal effects and not the actual uncreated divinity that you're
participating in. I hope you see this, because this all
of this nonsense the last two weeks three weeks is
simply illustrating the vast differences between the Orthodox view and
these other pagan systems, and I will include Rome in
the pagan systems. It should be evident now and on
display for everyone all the things that I've been telling
you for the last ten years. The entire internet e
religious world is able to now see this that Rome
has a severely heretical and de efficient position on all
of these topics.
Speaker 2: Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing
to honor each of these persons as God means a
nontrinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible
teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,
and that Pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore,
they say, Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have
to be careful about taking a few proof texts and
using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor
do not exist, and if they have any effect on
the world, that's just the work of demons. And John
says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father, but in the
same letter he also says he who loves is born
of God and know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms of being
in the covenant and having the love of God. So
just saying that anyone that loves is of God is
not the sense that John means it in One John.
He's not saying that anyone, even a say Satanists, who
loves their spouse or their husband is of God. That's
completely false.
Speaker 2: Knows God. A person might not have God as a
covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have
God as the creator to whom they must give worship.
Speaker 1: For the wrath of God is revealed against all on
goodness and unrusouness of men who suppressed the truth and unrightousness.
So notice that in the pagan world the truth is
not revealed, it is not acknowledged, it is suppressed. Why well,
it is manifest within them. Notice he's not talking about
external reasonings at this point, about syllogisms or Aristotle having
a really supreme high IQ intellect. And that's why he
got a lot further than the Amazon tribesmen did about
who God is. Right. It's nothing to do with syllogisms
and reasoning out in some Hellenic philosophic Plato aristotl sense.
It's about the universal world of idolatry, that all the
nations fell into after the fall except for the Covenant
people who maintained the true worship of God, the only
acceptable worship of God, by the way, and he says
that these people had a manifest witness to them in creation,
that they should have come to the conclusion that there
is only one true God, and that he lives and
exists and so forth. But did they come to that conclusion. No,
Paul says, they are without any excuse. According to the
Roman Catholics, they're all excused. Paul says, they're without excuse.
Roman Catholics say, well, but they didn't know God, but
they reason from creatures to a creator, so they are
given a free pass. Paul says, they're without excuse. Even
though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. Now,
I think there's different ways you could exeitute this passage.
Some people might exitute this as if Paul is talking
about any individual pagan at any point in their life.
I think Paul's talking about the original connection that man
had to God in Adam, and that all of Adam's
sons should have had to God had they been faithful.
But since they felt they are patterned and live after
their father Adam and not after Christ. And so what
happens then is that there's a sense in which back
to Adam, man knew God and had a relationship with God,
but the fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship
of the demonic and anything other than God. And so
that's the sense in which at one time man knew God,
but we have all then fallen from that uh oh,
and have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now,
this right here refutes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse
and invisible invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well,
in the case of Pagans, they're still worshiping God, they
still acknowledge a creator. But Paul is saying that even
if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're
not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts.
I mentioned the word triad in passing, and Trent Horne
assumed as the original tweet shows that he thought this
meant something to do with arianism. I said that, you know,
in our debate, you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact
that Abraham worshiped the Trinity. Trent thought this was mind blowing.
How no natural theology teaches me that they worshiped a
Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then he says,
I asked if they knew that God, would trinity Jewish
multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin to proto arianism. No.
In fact, the very point of why would argue that
the Old Testament teaches the triad is to prove that
they were trinitarian Trent. So, as you can see, his
initial reply is quite literally a fundamental misunderstanding of the
basics that every Orthodox Christian knows by looking at the
ruble of Icon that the Old Testament saints worshiped the Triad.
And Trent says, you even had to use the word
triad to describe it, but you would say that modern
people that worship triad as in Jehovah's witnesses are not
worshiping the One True God. So notice that very clearly
Trent didn't even understand the very common terminology amongst the
Greek fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the very theologians who dogmatized
and solidified and explicated the Trinity Cappadocians, Saint Maximus, etc.
For Trent, he thinks this is somehow bound up with Arianism,
even though Trent attended, according to his own description, for
many years, or presumably for many years, the Eastern Right.
The Eastern Right hails Palamas as a saint, which actually
makes no sense given the fact that he was considered
a damnable heretic for many centuries, and to notice that
the most famous work that he has is called the Triads.
A simple search would tell you that amongst the Orthodox world,
Triad refers to Trinity. Does Trent simply say, oh, I misunderstood,
you're correct? No, He doubles down because it shows that
he's not even familiar with basic terminology in the very
Fathers that dogmatize the Trinity. Doubles down and says, no,
this is an Egyptian term. What the word can be
synonymous with Trinity, but it's more common as a grouping
of deities. Look at the nineteen ninety six Egyptology book
from John Griffith. Now the more common use is not
some of them from an obscure egyptologist Trent. The more
common use is what you should know from the Uniate world.
In the Orthodox world of triad and meaning trinity. This
is just silly. Now, Trent doubles down again and says
that Old Testament Jews did not worship the Trinity. He
says it right here, did the faithful Jews who live
before christ incarnation worship God? If they did, then they
must have worshiped the same God or the Trinity of
the Christians. Even though they didn't worship. Trent does not
believe that the Old Testament saints worship the triad, even
though Jesus and John five through nine says that they
worshiped the Father, his Angel, and his Spirit. So Trent
doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the triad. Now,
I pointed this out in at the time of the debate,
and after all we had our debate, and Trent and
other people tried to save face and tried to do
damage control. He says right here, literally a few seconds ago,
that they didn't believe in the Trinity. So do you
understand that Roman Catholics do not understand the Trinity? And
I don't mean in terms of an intellectual comprehension. They
fundamentally have ridiculous, stupid theology and in order to save
face and defend his natural theology. Alla Vaticant's no stratat
Trent is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God,
the very thing that I said was the problem in
the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people
believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So
this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat
here saying that that's not what true means. Why do
Roman Catholics feel the need to lie and how could
you be this silly in your theology to be so
ignorant of the Old Testament? Again proving my point in
the debate that how would you argue against a Muslim?
Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires
going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity. I
even showed a video that was my opening statement in
the day on Hookie getch you debate to Trent, which
apparently he hasn't watched because it refutes his stupid heresy
in Acts seventeen. In no way says that they worshiped
a Unitarian God. It's just like this guy is on
another planet and doesn't even understand what the debate is,
and now the libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude,
I sent you the link. There's no reason why you
can't hop on this debate. It's an open chat. You
wanted to debate. Now you're saying he can't get on here.
Give me a break. Here you are you hopped on here?
Now where's the actual video? I hope you guys understand
that this means that Roman Catholics don't have the basics
of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure that trinity is a
pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent say that
in the tweet that he just put up the very
thing that all of his defenders were saying he didn't mean.
He says it again. Now, let's remind ourselves of a
few moments of the debate with Daniel Hoikikachu, because it
turns out Trent and Daniel have the same god, the
Unitarian generic God of natural Theism. Now, I know that
Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and the
deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's got
two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he doubled
and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter on
this so I repeat again, did the Old Testament saints
worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that Trent
and Roman Catholicisms are taughte Entrent just now within the
last five minutes reaffirmed, Or do they worship the triad
as every Orthodox person knows. You're saying that this is
fundamental to us, and they're still wandering around, groping in
the dark like the Pagans of Acts seventeen, not understanding
that it's a triad in the very beginning, because their
theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why. Because
they're in a giant machine that they have to make
all of these pieces work and make this giant algorithm
that's a giant contradictions fit together, and they don't. They
don't even know what recapitulation is. They don't even know
what monarchical trinitarianism is. If you've read Justin Martyr against
Tripho the Jew is Trent even aware that Justin Martyr
argues from the Old Testament Theophanies to prove the deedy
of Christ and his attempt at proving Triad It's like
Trent's never talked to a Muslim or never read these
church fathers. Oh but wait a minute, Trent didn't know
what the word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan,
anti Trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern
Church fathers. So now Trent is doubling down, as we said,
tripling down that the Old Testament saints did not worship
the Trinity. They worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he never
read John five through nine? Has he not read Second
Corinthians three, where Paul says that Moses looked face to
face with Jesus. If no man sees the Father at
any time, as Jesus argues in John to the Pharisees,
and then who was Moses talking to? This is the
point of Jesus' argument to the Pharisees. I don't think
Trent knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly
not the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows
a lot of pop apologetics, because remember Trent was not
too long ago a Deist who converted to Roman Catholicism,
and so I don't think Trent knows the.
Speaker 2: Trinity a Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined
could be in error.
Speaker 1: Interesting, but you said a minute ago it was authoritative.
So even if it's not been infallibly defined. Trent earlier
said Leo's normative teaching is authoritative. What does that mean, Trent?
What is authoritative non infallible teaching? Does that mean you
can reject it? And Trent? What are the ex cathedral statements?
Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? And to
make this again a very devastating epistemological argument, if we have,
for the sake of argument, say ten ex cathedral statements,
I need to know where the list is that is
also ex cathedral because if the list of ex Cathedra
statements can be wrong, then you're in the same dilemma
as the Protestant on the canon question. You make the
same argument epistemically to Protestants about knowing the canon of Scripture.
Apply that same argument to your claim about knowing the
ex cathedrals statements. Where is the infallible decree of the
infallible list of ex cathedra statements you just reputed yourself.
Speaker 2: But they are not all infallible because the Catholic code
of canon law says, no doctrine is understood is defined
infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Speaker 1: So his answer is, the things that are infallible are
the ones that are manifestly of You can't make this up.
This is the stupidest most This is T Jump level.
He's literally T Jump reality is reality. The ones that
are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident as infallible.
This should end this whole retarded system and Trent Horn's career.
This is so stupid, And imagine Trent Horn saying the
same thing as t Jump. Let's replay that, because this
was better than I hope this was, Like, this is
funnier than I expected. Let's go back. Trent Horn's epistemic
criteria is to go to by the way, canon law,
Trent is canon law infallible. Most Roman Catholics would argue
that canon law is not infallible. So wait a minute.
The thing that Trent goes to to know the canon
what's infallible is itself fallible. You can't make this on.
This is what you get when you don't know basic
epistemic questions and basic epistemology. Do you remember in the
debate with Trent, I said, Trent, tell me the things
that are self evident. He said, descartes cogito. What dude,
that's been savage by philosophers for centuries. It's laughable. And
that's what every person who takes in epistemology one on
one class. That's like the first thing they think.
Speaker 4: Dude, like descartes cogito. Man, It's like I, I look,
I exist or whatever. Right, It's like, I think therefore
I am uh so that's why it's self opened or whatever, right.
Speaker 1: And then the professor in your first class or first
day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally
what Trent argued in the debate with me. To show
what's self evident, descartes cogitoe, What are you serious, dude?
Is so easy to it's not even self evident. First
of all, it relies on time determination. Has Descartes proven
time yet? No? It relies on language and words having meaning.
It relies on the existence of a self, which has
not been proven yet. It relies on the existence of
logical inferences. Has Descartes proven logical inferences yet? Okay, so
if it relies on all these other things to be
the case, to say, the sentence of the Cogito, then
it's not self evident. Anything that relies on another thing
Trent isn't self evident. Look up the criterion problem. But again,
I cannot believe that this goober, in order to show
what things are ex Cathedra, actually goes to a thing
that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now, maybe there's
a Roman Catholic trid who will argue that ken law
is infallible. Uh, I've not seen that. Maybe they do.
It's similar to their approach to the Catechism, the Catechism
of the Calogy Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I
don't think most Roman Catholics would argue that everything in
the Catechism is infallible. There would be differences of levels
and whatnot. Okay, fine, so is canon law infallible? Most
Roman Catholics would say, probably not, because it's changeable and
it can, you know, move around, and it deals with
a lot of practical stuff that's not eternal, divine revelation,
divine law. Right, Okay, So if it's fallible and changeable
and mutable, then how are you going to the thing
that is changeable and fallible to tell me where I
identify the infallible. This is so simple. This is epismology
one O.
Speaker 2: One says, no doctrine is understood, is defined infallibly, unless
this is manifestly evident. That's why I said Jay's complaint
about the Second Vatican Council saying Muslims worship God does
not disprove Catholicism as a whole, because even if that
teaching were false, it's not an infallible definition.
Speaker 1: H No, even if it's not infallible, you are still
bound Trent by what we saw here to the normative
teaching of the papacy, and all of the documents of
Vatican two are normative and binding. So that means you
are now bound by the Roman see to error. That's
the point. You don't get to reject more telling no state,
because as we see here five places in Denzinger that
say that you have to support all of the normative
ordinary teachings, even if it's not infallible. You are still
bound by religious submission of intellect and will to the
ordinary teaching. That's Canon seven fifty two.
Speaker 2: Or a dogma that cannot possibly be false. And in
some cases Jay complains about statements from the Vatican that aren't.
Speaker 1: That like, as if we can't say the Vatican, I mean,
does he not realize that the Vatican is not merely
the papacy but also the Roman College. When the Roman
College makes decisions, for example, the election of a pope,
does the pope decide who the pope is? No, the
Roman College decides the pope. So yeah, it's correct to
talk about the Vatican.
Speaker 2: Trent aren't even church teachings at all.
Speaker 1: The actual Vatican source that loft Dog mc Lofdog pulled
up which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit the guys,
the Church is at work in the religions. The universal
presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence
in the Church. Although one cannot exclude the it's alf
value of the false religions. This is the nineteen ninety
seven Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two.
So notice they don't explain things the paup apologist because
they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously
a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.
Speaker 2: The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without.
Speaker 1: Oh but Trent, the theological commissions just got approved by
the Pope, so they reflect Leo's mind. We just saw
that with the Theological Commission on the Eastern Churches. So
you understand, this is so great that Leo, Leo is
now going to be the great apologist like Francis because
they were able to handwave they tried to handwave for
the last several years and Alexandria by saying that it's
just a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome. Oh
but now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of
Kiati and Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his
desire and his mind. So notice when I go to
the same documents that Loten uses against Trent and Tim Gordon,
that document that Trent was talking about, the Theological Commission
is approved by the Vatican, and then Trent says it's
just a theological commission document, it's not binding. Oh but
wait a minute, Leo has now approved the Theological Commission.
It reflects his mind right here. It doesn't matter it's
not binding anymore. I don't have to follow it, I
can reject it. How do you know what? What did
he say at the beginning of his video? He said,
Leo's teachings, even if they're not infallible, can be authoritative.
Watch Trent contradict himself right here. Watch this.
Speaker 2: As they don't falsify Orthodoxy, but Catholicism teaches that the
Pope only acts with the charism of infallibility on very
rare occasions. Most of the time when he teaches, he
teaches authoritatively but not infallibly.
Speaker 1: What does that mean, then, Trent, that it's authoritative but
not infallible. Are you bound by it? Are you bound
by the Apostolic journey letter that you should joyously embrace
what Kiati and Alexandria say. Are you now supporting Leo
in dropping the philioque just the recitation, not the theology.
Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is?
This is the most talmudic ridiculous. Like it's like rabbis
writing documents to refute documents, to make documents work with
other refutations of docum to then refute and make the
document where it's just crazy level insanity. And that's why
it only appeals to SuDS and I don't know people
with you, Froze, I don't know, Like who finds this appealing?
What in this system do you get? Trent? What are
you getting out of this other than your paycheck? I
think Trent is also mad because I asked him if
because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote
stabbies during KOUF. I asked Trent, was that the case?
Trent said no, But I think that might have been
what prompted this angry Trent video here.
Speaker 2: So so if the pope were to instead, it publishes
permitted opinions that have gained a consensus among members of
the MAGISTI yeah.
Speaker 1: But Trent now, Leo affirms Kat and Alexandria and.
Speaker 2: The document JA Sites is not an error on the
point J raises, because it says salvation quote is not
produced independently of Christ in his church.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs
through the false religions.
Speaker 2: It also does not outright say other religions have Salvavic value.
Speaker 1: It does it says that salvation can occur by Christ
saving them through Islam.
Speaker 2: It discusses the question of whether we can say, non
Christian religions that predispose people to truth have Salvavic value.
This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility
of the existence of Salvavic elements.
Speaker 1: And so look at those ridiculous kazustri just word games. Well,
it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in
those religions. That discuss the possibility of them being saved
to those.
Speaker 2: Religions as whether the religions as such can have Salvavic
value is a point that remains open.
Speaker 1: Oh, it says that it is possible.
Speaker 2: So that document doesn't say what Jay claims.
Speaker 1: It says. That's why Lofton is actually correct here saying
that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity between themselves
and they're apop apologist, refute one another every single day.
What the papal teaching is on castid CANUBII and marital
relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy, right, Tim Gordon.
But then the top Catholic apologists are calling themselves male
feminists because they say Tim Gordon is wrong. Well, I
thought it's clear. So if we're gonna make the argument
that the papacy provides clarity. How come the top apologists
completely disagree over fundamental questions about salvific roles of false religions.
You can't even get that right now. I'm not saying
that itself is a defeater of the system. That's just
an observation, an anecdotal observation of the absurdity of the
claim that the papacy provides unity, clarity, and moral guidance.
Where the unity and clarity and moral guidance on a
basic issue of whether or not I can be saved
in Hinduism or not? You and Lofton and Tim Gordon
can't even tell me that.
Speaker 2: And it isn't even an official teaching of the church.
Speaker 1: What's the official teaching Trent? Where's the list?
Speaker 2: In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed
by orthodox theologians that Jay or other online apologists might
disagree with but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay is correct
that Catholics must submit even to the non infallible teachings
of the.
Speaker 1: Church, oh really.
Speaker 2: Including the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But since
those teachings are not infallible, that means in rare cases
a Catholic could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to
accept these teachings.
Speaker 1: If notice the level of like how they're saving the system.
Now when Vatican two teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just
privately keep that to yourself because you have to submit
to the pope Canond seven fifty two. So I mean,
I think you get what you deserve. So the people
that want to follow this, the forty thousand idiots that
are over here supporting this and loving this, like you this,
you get what you deserve. You want a giant organized
crime syndicate Operation Gladio thing running your life and ruining
your life, and you want to take your kids to
be around these creeps. You deserve what you get.
Speaker 2: If they have a proportionate, serious reason for doing so,
and such an act would not constitute the grave sin
of heresy.
Speaker 1: Oh really, so private theologian random dude Trent Horn, who
was a Unitarian not too many years ago now is
an expert in canon law and identifying when it's magisterial
how what's what was Trent's I gotta go back to
this because this was the best thing in the whole thing,
the best thing in the whole discussion.
Speaker 2: All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible,
because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine
is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Speaker 1: This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've
ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular
than this? Now you say, wait a minute, Jaye, don't
you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing
and self recursive. Yes, that's why I'm a presubpositionalist. That's
why I believe in trance in all argumentation. That's why
I don't believe in Trent's classical foundationalism. But do you
notice what Trent is doing here? The papal epistemology is
forcing him to commit a vicious circle, which he said
in our or debate should be rejected. All vicious circularity
is rejected according to Trent Horne. Oh really, Trent, how
do I know what's ex cathedral? It's the ones that
are manifestly evident as ex cathedral