Speaker 1: H So where do we get the Bible from? Did
you even read the cannons?
Speaker 2: There is only one charge. You are in occult.
Speaker 1: You're a gobbling the demon, a bull merchard you saw me.
Speaker 2: I'm your dude.
Speaker 1: Is this your person of the webs? I attended?
Speaker 3: You can't take it?
Speaker 4: So to your boys on your dude, plus one plus
one equal free.
Speaker 2: It comes out the doll the tree.
Speaker 1: Why do you pray eat the dead people?
Speaker 2: That's the traditions A man new heretic.
Speaker 1: Wow, wow, mr dude, is this your person.
Speaker 5: On a web?
Speaker 6: Cha?
Speaker 7: I need a I can't take it.
Speaker 2: He's little.
Speaker 1: To your boys, I'm your dude, andiic.
Speaker 7: Justification with you.
Speaker 5: I remember when Lofton was engaged in pushing all of
these stories and especially the idea that there's going to
be thousands and thousands of Roman Orthodox coming into the
Roman Catholic Church in the near future. Well none of
that happened, and rather the opposite happened. We've seen mass
conversions out of Protestantism and out of Orthodox, out of
Rome into Orthodoxy, and they are in kind of a
delusion phase of acting like in gaslighting, that nobody's converted.
This doesn't exist. It's made up. I remember William Albrecht
said that there was no Orthodox discord. I didn't have it.
It doesn't have have twelve thousand people in it. At
the time it was five thousand. It was all made up,
doesn't exist. We saw Ibarra not do very well against
Ubi and his debate. In fact, on the very issues
of the debate, he admitted, I don't have a sufficient
answer for that question, and I ain't got one yet,
didn't I have to get back to your own which
was one of the topics of the debate, the papacy
of Virgilius. So now we have a person claiming on
Twitter who you got it won't come debate, that he
no longer is Orthodox, he's converted to Rome. And then
it turns out when people started asking him, were you
actually Orthodox, he never replies, and eventually it says I
never said I was your brother in Orthodoxy. I said
I was your brother in Christ. It's very pious of him,
but in actuality that's an admission that no, he never
was Orthodox. But the tweet that is going viral ish
many viral, two hundred thousand views. I no longer believe Orthodoxy,
but you weren't Orthodox, you were an e inquir investigator.
You didn't actually, as far as we can tell, become
a cdech human. You weren't received into the church. And
yet he puts up a post, just some random, probably
twenty year old guy. Maybe he's what does he say
he is? Zoomer? Oh, I was a Lutheran and I
listened to Luigi a little bit and now decide I'm
going to Rome. And then of course there was no
evidence that he was ever Orthodox, and then he admits
that he wasn't. And the Roman Catholics is saying, he
doesn't owe anything to you. He doesn't owe anything to you,
has nothing. It's nothing to do with owing, has nothing
to do with the debt, has to do with whether
or not you're telling the true truth or not. And no,
you can't just it's just dishonest. But it's weird. I
think in the gen Z like they don't care about
this kind of stuff, like it's okay to just be dishonest,
which is weird because they're hyper moral to but they
don't really see any problem with pretending and presenting yourself
as something that you're not. Many of them, for example,
will claim that they are translators, that they're linguistic translators,
no degree, no qualifications, They're using AI and they think
that makes them a translator. They think that they are
educated on topics because they watched YouTube videos and many
of them don't even read books. So it's just a
really weird era to be in when people have really
no problem with a form of con artistry. Really, if
you don't have qualifications, if you're not studying a subject,
you don't front like you are on the internet. But unfortunately,
one of the downsides of the Internet is that it
gives everybody the ability to put up a persona that
they have qualifications and that they know what they're talking about.
And I mean, thank you. That's just I guess, part
of the downside of the world of the internet. But
here we are, so they're all saying, oh. And then
the other thing that was funny was that he said, oh,
I never actually listened to any of your content, Jay exactly.
And then he says, you say dumb things. Well, I'd
like for him to come defend his position, but he says, no,
I won't debate. So this is the standard sort of
just cowardice from people that don't have any actual arguments.
I bet he was happy to virtue signal though that
he wasn't a member of my audience. He actually says,
I actually avoided your content. I watched it sometimes, but
you said dumb stuff. What's the dumb stuff. I'd love
to hear what you think was dumb. I love to
hear a good argument from you as to why we
should be Roman Catholic, especially given the craziness of Francis.
But given that he basically lied and admits that he
lied and says that, well, I wasn't really ever orthodox,
but I'm no longer orthodox. Should we be surprised at
any of this? I don't guess we should. It's just
really I don't know. It reinforces that. I mean, he'll
do well in Rome. He'll he'll go far in Rome
with this early track record of deception and lying, and
maybe he'll find home with his Skittles friends. I'm sure
he has a lot of Skittles friends. That is probably
that's people will always overlook, like their motivations for why
people turn to something like Rome. I mean, sometimes people
are genuinely looking into the intellectual issues, but in a
lot of cases it may just be because they have
a boyfriend, you know, maybe he has a boyfriend in Rome.
Maybe he has a girlfriend in Rome, And those kind
of motivations are far more overlooked than the kind of
identifiers and indicators that we're talking about in the intellectual realm.
And a lot of times the intellectual things are just
sort of excuses that people make because really it's something else, right, girlfriend, boyfriend,
homo erotic tryst, whatever fits the Roman system more appropriately.
So we're going to open it up today. Originally I
put Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, but I don't think anybody. I mean,
last night it was the most pitiful show of Muslims
I've ever seen. I mean, I couldn't believe that with me, God,
Logic and Sam Shamun we had that low tier. I mean,
it was just wild. I've kind of felt sorry for
the guys calling in last night because some of them
seem like just normal dudes. But just like with Rome
and just like with Islam, it really seems like people
are there's something just about these religions that appeal. I mean,
they do both have some intellectual people, but there's something
about these two religions that appeal to not very smart people.
And I fully understand that it's not all about intellect.
It's ultimately about you know, do we humble ourselves and
submit ourselves to truth first and set aside our intellect
and not let our intellect get in the way. I
totally understand all that. But at the same time, it's
like there is an element of intellect that is involved
in this. And with all those guys that called in
who were former quote Catholics who become Muslims. Isn't that
interesting last night if you watch that long strain that
we did. One of the commonalities that I see amongst
the people who say leave Rome orly Orthodoxy and become
Roman Catholic, or who leave Catholicism and become Muslim is
they leave and become those things for really bad reasons,
and they might appear to that person to be good reasons.
And this is where logic and fallacies are so important.
I mean, you can literally f up your life by
not knowing basic fallacies. And there's some balance that we
have to strike here because I'm not saying it's all intellect,
obviously it's not. But there is an element of critical
thinking and reasoning that you have to engage in or
you're gonna get duped. You're gonna believe just stupid stuff
for stupid reasons that you think are good reasons. Let
me think of an example of you know, some of
the common things that we hear between say a Roman
Catholic or a sam Mormon, is how they feel when
they prayed this or that Marian prayer. Identical argument that
the Mormon makes when they talk about the whatever the
Mormon version of burning in the bosom prayer the Mormon,
you know, alter call whatever it is. They'll literally say
something like, well, when I prayed the Rosary, I just
had this overwhelming feeling of peace. I just had this
I felt like Mary was speaking to me. I've literally
heard multiple people, well guys and girls, say this is
what convinced them of Catholicism over Orthodoxy. And I'm like,
what would you say to a Mormon who says the
exact same thing When I prayed the Mormon prayer and
I felt the burning in my bosom?
Speaker 8: What can't hear you?
Speaker 5: Well, Jamie's saying, maybe they're being given drugs. Well, it
might have been drugs back in the days of what
maybe Joseph Smith figured out, you know, some kind of
drug that he gave people that made him feel good
or something. But this is a very common experience that
Mormon missionaries have with people that they're trying to recruit
in the mission field. Right, Mormon missionaries go out, they'll
go door to door, and when they find a perspective convert,
they will do the whole you know, prayer, burning in
the bosom thing. And then if you feel something, which
could be anything, right, could be uh, your emotions on
the on the on the spot. It could be pizza
that you ate last night, you know, giving you bubble guts.
It could be a demon, you know, making you feel
some some kind of way. It could be all kinds
of things causing a feeling. And so that's why we
cannot make our religious decisions, our life decisions on the
basis of feelings. I mean, it could be all kinds
of things. It's the same as like and even sometimes
we can have a correct belief that we have bad
reasons for. We always use example, you know, oh, why
do you own bitcoin? A whole bitcoin? Oh well, I
listened to my dreams. Bill Cosby came to me in
a dream and he said, by the big coins and
they went up. So therefore I can trust my dreams
and I can listen to the spirit of Bill Cosby,
and my dreams tell me to buy bitcoin and see
bitcoin went up. So let's proof, Well, that bitcoin went
up does not necessarily connect to your Bill Cosby bitcoin dream.
So that would be a bad reason for believing in
something that turned out to be true, that bitcoin would
go up over time. Right, So you don't just need
reasons that happened to be correlated with something true that happened,
or you actually need good reasons, not just any old reasons.
And I don't think this. I think this guy listed
a few of his reasons, and shocker, he wasn't familiar
with any of the argumentation that we do. I mean, already,
this whole profile just screams like annoying virtue signaler. Anybody
who puts the picture of Jesus as their profile picture
and all this religious imagery as their proof, as the
icons as their profile, they're almost always insufferable virtue signalers.
It's just a kind of a weird delusion. And so
he's Jay's talking about me on the stream right now,
I'm getting spammed by diary he's freaking out right now
because I'm actually talking about him. Only of reason I'm
talking about your case is because it's a pattern example
of the few instances that we've seen where people accept
Rome and I'm trying to find your bad loft and level.
They're literally loft in level reasonings I'm trying to find out.
I thought he had a post that explained there are
many reasons why, but I will always be your brother
in Christ. It doesn't work like that, Like you don't
get to be an acumenist. I guess in Rome you
to being a cumenist, but that doesn't mean that it's
consistent anyway. I don't even see his reasons for why
he became Caligi over Orthodox. People are saying in the
chat that elsewhere he explains that his reasons are just
kind of like basic Michael Lofton level kind of stuff.
And you'll notice in you know, in the Ubie debate,
the debate over the papal stuff gets nuanced and really
deep and really historical, and it's unfortunate that it is
that way. I wish it wasn't a situation where there
was you know, reading that was necessary and whatnot. But
really the only reason that all that reading is necessary
is that people don't pay attention to the obvious. And
when I say the obvious, I mean if you had
a basic introduction to the history of the Church in
the first thousand years, say from Pelicon, or even from
a Roman Catholic like de Vornik, you would note that
sentidality collegiality is pretty much universally admitted. Rome admits this.
Now the idea that the Church was governed in this
Vatican one paper way is just no longer believed and
admitted to be true by the Vatican itself. So it
says we now have the Vatican admitting that this was
an evolution in the Chiad and Alexandria documents. You would
think that it would just kind of be obvious, And
then you would think it would be obvious that when
people see the insanity of what the the papacy does
on almost a daily basis of post Vatican two, you
would think they have discernment. But they don't. And the
reason that we don't have discernment is because we are
not number one close to God, because we would have
discernment were we close to God, we would be able
to see the true and the false. We would be
praying and asking for the gift of discernment, which is
one of the gifts of the spirit. According to Paul,
we would be able to tell the truth from the false.
We'd be able to discern the spirits. As John says
in his letters, and as Paul talks about right just
understanding and knowing the truth from the false spirits. John says,
you have an anointing, and therefore you will know the
true and the false. Well, people that are being duped
by this stuff, that tells me that they don't have
the anointing and they're lacking that gift of discernment. And
I can also say from experience that I've made a
lot of these same mistakes. So I'm not trying to
be mean or rude to people that are making them
the same mistakes I did. But you'll notice that these
people are not interested in hearing or listening to anyone else.
It's odd to me that people who make this decision,
and by the way, it's not common. It's actually pretty rare,
I would say, And you know this because the Rumancalics
will trumpet this all over the place. Right, They didn't
even bother to look into whether this guy actually was Orthodox.
As soon as somebody says on the internet, like the
sock puppets of you Know twenty eighteen claiming that Lofton
was mass converting people to roam from Orthodoxy, nobody actually
checks into these They just run with the claims. Then
when you when you actually dig into it, well, he
wasn't actually Orthodox, he was just e inquiring. Yeah, but
that doesn't mean you're Orthodox with you if you e inquire.
But everybody's under this delusion that you can kind of
just make yourself be whatever you want on the internet
and then everybody should just accept it. All the Roman
Catholics in the comments that are replying to me on
his posts, he doesn't owe you anything. He doesn't have
to defend himself to you. He just owe you. There's
nothing to do with own with whether or not you're
telling the truth or not. And if I was genuinely
unclear on this topic, wouldn't you want to go to
the people who are known to be the top defenders
or debaters on that subject. And so, in other words,
they're making choices not based on like who actually has
good arguments, who actually has the best apologetic defense and critique.
You know, he says in his comments, I don't listen
to your stuff. I don't really care about you say
dumb stuff like no examples of it, just some kind
of lame, low tier jab But no, but they don't
actually go to the people literally known for being like
the top debaters. Even if you disagreed, wouldn't you want
to know what the top debaters in this or that
field say? And he said, well, I listened to elite
Luigi for a few months. Now. I'm not dissing Luigi.
Luigi's a great debater, but I mean, Luigi is not
familiar with all the pre Vatican two post Vatican two
dogmatic contradiction material. Maybe he will be eventually. I'm not sure.
I'm not dissing Luigi at all. But you know, Luigi's
done really well in his two debates. But luigis is
also a fairly new convert. Why would you hang everything
supposedly on Luigi? And now, oh, he's only fourteen years old.
I don't know people's age. People are publicly saying all
kinds of stuff, and the whole Roman Catholic world is
you know, two hundred thousand people now are looking at
this tweet as if this is some sort of like
we gotcha, we could have finally owned the Ortho bros.
Like this is some giant win for all the Roman
Catholic world, even if he is a fourteen or fifty
year old dude. That's even worse for the Roman Catholics
for touting some fourteen year old guy who doesn't know
the arguments, who hasn't studied this stuff, as if that's
like a win against the Orthodox. This is all so ridiculous,
like everything about all of this stuff online, with all
of this domain and people who pretend to be like
it's just so ridiculous. I mean, half of the Internet
right now, half a freaking X thinks drones are aliens.
This is how stupid everyone is. There's literally I just
send a message to Tristan like it's literally a drone
that crashed. People are you can see that it's a
drone and like people think that this is aliens. I mean,
I don't know what to say. I mean, people are
just dumb, dude, They're just totally out to lunch. They
don't have any discernment. I mean, did anyone hear the
last night's debate? I mean of the donation sound is
too loud. Let me fix that alert box. It's supposed
to be pretty low, so maybe maybe that's better now.
Half the time this sound resets the on this computer,
and then I never know what's going on with the
sound settings. So yep, of course the input volume is
all the way down in the alert box. Music is
all the way up as usual, so that should be better.
Maybe you can hear me better now. I don't know
why it does that. Just Mac always resets. Oh, I
know why it is if I go on I know
what it is. When I go on streamly Ardyard. Stream
Yard has the auto volume setting, so because God Logic
does everything on stream Yard, whenever I go on those shows,
it resets my internal setting because that's stupid estra. I
hate stream Yard. I don't understand why everybody uses the
stream yards. It's so annoying. But that's why it always
does this. Anytime I go on a stream yard stream
it resets on my audio crap automatically. You can't stop it.
If you try to change it in the midst of
a stream Yard st knocks it back down to like zero.
It's so stupid anyway, and stream Yard tries to make
you sign in from your Facebook. I mean, dude, who
is even using Facebook? What kind of boomer crap is
this stream yard? Nobody uses Facebook? Face boomer maybe sign
in with Facebook? Is that for uncles uncle's roadster stream?
I mean, come on, who what Facebook people are streaming
anyway except your uncle's roadster stream?
Speaker 3: D six engine to nerve, I'm a live stream working
on my chopper support Israel and Mud.
Speaker 5: Now, somebody sent me three fat super chats here Jen
Lamp fifty dollars, and then we're going to open it
up to debate here in a second. Thank you Enigo
Montoya for your great work. I love you and Jamie's stuff.
God bless you. Thank you, Jen Lamp fifty dollars. Again,
here's another part of this donation, and you go buy
you thank you for everything. But I'm curious what your
thoughts are on the Voynash manuscript. Also, can you do
a weekly Billy Corson check in? Well, Billy cart If
I checked in every week on Billy Corson, he threatened
to sue me. So I'm too scared. Now I gotta
I gotta run. I'm scared. Remember when Lofton threatened assuming
you guys remember the lawsuit, because I said that there
was soccer accounts that are saying that Lofton was the
greatest apologists ever, which literally there was like the soccer
accounts were saying I converted from Orthodoxy to Rome because
of the beautiful, brilliant work of the greatest apologists of
all time, Michael loft It was just so ridiculous and
obviously fake sock accounts that were just created. He's a dog,
you know, a top talking about lawyer by normal Sue.
I got the email where he threatens to assume me.
By the way, Jen lamp here's another donation. Oh, the
Voyage Manuscript. I mean, the only thing I remember reading
about that is the chapter in g Hancock's book, like
ten years ago. What's it called? I forget the everybody's
familiar with this Graham Hancock, but not the one about
the Ark of the Covenant, the other one about the
Pyramids and the lay lines and all that, and I just,
I mean, it's interesting. I don't know what the real
story about the Voyenans Manuscript is, but I think a
lot of that ancient mystical, you know, civilization stuff is
really fascinating. But once, like one thing, you realize that
if you start to read about a bunch of that
is like there's just really no conclusive any you can
never get anything conclusive about that. It's kind of like
all these so called UFO videos. It's like, what is
this blurry light? I don't know and you can never
figure it out, you know what I mean? What's this
blurry creature? Who is that bigfoot? How come it's always blurry?
Like you can never so it never goes anywhere. So
I don't I haven't thought about the Voyeness manuscript maybe
ten years, but it is interesting. Jen Lamb says, for
fifty dollars, sorry, here's another donation for my atonement. Your atonement.
You don't have to atone. To me, you're thinking of
the papal system. I'm catching up on all your videos.
I can honestly say that people just don't want to
hear the truth. I've tried turning even my friends onto
your material and they can't take it. That's what I'm
talking about. We're well, I mean, I guess that means
we're hardcore over here. People just can't take it. They
just can't take it. I hope we get some oh,
he says, I've learned my theology from a lot of
different theological arguments. Okay, I'm about ready to just block this, dude.
This is a waste of everybody's time. And none of
these people are ever gonna come to debate. We know
that already. They never do. I mean, good grief, dude,
did anybody here last night's stream? It was just on
real Whenever you think like you've heard the worst, like
the can always come through to top everybody in just
pitiful argumentation. And it's just sad man. Because and by
the way, it's what we're going to be contending with
in the future is not Frank and his Skittles cult. Okay,
that's dying out. And don't believe these idiot Roman Catholics
who act like it's growing. Frank's Skittles cult is dying out.
Where we're going to be dealing with is Islam. That's
what's coming. A few months ago, when Jamie and I
drove to Las Vegas, which was a huge mistake to
drive the Las Vegas by the way, what did I
see all across the country that I've never seen before,
even on Indian reservations, mosques, Indian reservations now have mosques
built on them, and the Tate sphere and all these
goobers and the Mohammed hjabsphere. They're all part of this
push to convert this country to the idiot religion of Islam,
and the dumber everybody gets, the more likely people will
be to convert to that. Gazoro ten dollars? Will you
ever look into debating Needgod dot net? Is that that evangelical,
goofy guy that Kyle tried to debate? I mean, anybody
can hop on these streams and debate if they want
to at any time. It's always open for him. I
don't know if I would even I mean, because I
can already tell you what's gonna happen, Like I'm gonna
be really, you know, serious and focused and make a
bunch of arguments, and it's going to turn into I'll
say something and then his soft evangelical you know, Skittle's
heart will be hurt, and then it'll turn into how
I'm a bad person and I'm mean all this nonsense.
So I don't even know if it's worth it. Blood
du Boy twenty dollars. Did you see Tim Gordon's new
video about why he thinks orthodoxy fails. Actually, if we
didn't get many people popping into the Q and A here,
I was actually going to respond to that today. I
might pop over there and check out of that here
in a minute. By the way, if you want to
follow me on X, be sure and follow me right here.
But I mean, if that guy's a fourteen year old dude,
I don't know if he is. But if he is,
isn't that like ridiculous? The whole Roman Catholic world's like
tweeting this kid as if this is like some kind
of big win, because like he spent a couple of
months listening to Luigi and Orthodox Kyle, but and then
he chose Rome. I mean, come on, uh, Kyle already
talked to need God dot net and the guy didn't listen. Yeah,
I remember that debate when that happened a while back.
It was a kind of a goofy debate. Let's see
where is how long was Tim's stream? I want to
open it up. I don't know if we want to.
I don't know if I want to spend Did you
do a like a two hour stream on orthodoxy? Why
orthodoxy fails? Let's see it. What's Part one, Welcome to
rules for retrogrades. I've not seen it yet, but what
I've heard is everybody says that it's like just like
loft in tier like low tier arguments, which doesn't surprise me,
not because Tim's dumb, but if you talk to Tim,
and if you listen to Tim, he'll always tell you, like,
I don't know that theology in the Church history that well,
he'll just say straight up, all I study is aristotomism.
So it's not surprising to me that if he were
to say why he's not Orthodox, it would be kind
of the pop sphere stuff. So it looks like there's
just two videos thirty minutes.
Speaker 9: Ye help.
Speaker 5: But I mean, I mean I saw a couple of
the quote minds that Tim put up, and they were like,
come on, this is like this is weak tier stuff
that doesn't prove Vatican One. So basically, as you might imagine,
as many Roman Catholics do, they just quote mind a
bunch of things about Rome in the first thousand years,
and then they read into that Vatican One when none
of those quotes actually address or prove Vatican one claims,
and they don't deal with the problems to the Vatican
one claims in the first thousand years, or the contradictions
involved in the claims of the papacy quote never airing,
never defecting, never, you know, failing to preserve the faith
aka as Ubi brings up in the debate, Well, you
have one pope deposing and excommunicating the previous pope in
the case of Vigilius. So did Rome air and defect
when the previous pope was condemned or was Virgilius wrong
in condemning his predecessor? It was the very thing that
Ubi asks a bar in the debate, and Eric said,
I don't got good intro to and uh, I don't
have to give back to your own debate voice of reason. Bro,
all these people that everybody's asking, like I've already asked
all these people debate, he just ignored it. And boys,
the reason already debated. Luisian lost. So and by the way,
all these people can come to this stream if they want,
really want a debate, So why don't they come and
to hop in my stream they can have all the
time they want. All right, let's open it up to
anybody who disagrees. If we don't get I might play
some of this Tim stuff here and see what his
arguments against Orthodoxy Warrior, we'll respond to them. Low Pan
says for ten dollars. This is off topic, but check
out special Interest, the State and the Anglo American Alliance.
It is a ruttlish publication. Yeah. Actually I put that
on my two gif book list. I think thank you
for that. That was probably you that recommended that. Low
Pan appreciate it. An emotional appeal. Tim Gordon one dollars. Tim,
No rigor Gordon needs to be put to rest with
these bad arguments. I'm tired of all his misleading presentation.
Well we'll look at some of these then and see
where he went with it. I guess I do need
to respond to it. Frankish Melkite five dollars, blessings. Jay.
I had a question about Orthodoxy and your understanding of imputation.
You had a debate with an event Jelica one time.
It was arguing that Romans four said that it was imputation,
and you said, there is a kind of imputation, but
in an Orthodox sense. Yeah, in the Orthodox view, there's
no such thing as a purely legal standing that's not
based in ontological reality. In other words, you couldn't be
legally righteous with an imputed covering of righteousness while you
are in actual reality quote, filthy, rags and wicked. That
would make God a liar. So anytime there is a
pronunciation of you being righteous, it is because you are
in fact righteous. That simple and Protestanism had to have
nominalism be the case to be the case philosophically for
there to be a divorce between the pronunciation of being
righteous and the actual ontological status of being righteous. Literally,
Protestantism solo fid a doctrine is built on that, and
if that's not true, then that doctrine falls apart. And
it also is a historical because nobody in the ancient
medieval world was a nominalist, the tel nominalism in the
Middle Ages, so they did not and could not have
conceived of a purely legal, fictional imputational righteous status that
does not correspond to actually ontologically being righteous aka having
the Divine life in you dose Vader, fifteen dollars, do
you intend to drop Vatican two and the related documents
to disprove Sam schimun I would be down to call
in and tell him about Vatican two. Well, if we
do that, roundtable. Obviously, I'll be bringing up all those documents. Sure,
I don't know to what degree Sam Shimun is familiar
with those documents. But I don't think Sam's idea is
to have him and Allbrech versus me and Ubi. Sam
claims that it's going to be a roundtable of me
and Ubi and somebody and yah See and Albrecht or something.
I think that's what Sam has in money, Robney five dollars. Well,
are you tried about Christian Christianity and the Christian herishies
of Syria after the takeover? I mean, I just shared
Kovork Elmasian's video on that that followed John White for
shared I've followed Kovork's stuff off and on. I did
actually realized he was Christian or that his family was.
Maybe he isn't. I don't know, but I mean, I
don't I don't know what to say about. I mean,
I've been talking, we've been talking about Syria and the
CIA's operations in Syria and all of that geopolitically, going
back to when I was writing for twenty first Century
a while with Patrick Henningson in twenty fourteen. So, I mean,
I don't know what else what what do you want
me to say? Like, yeah, the CIA and the State
of Israel support things like isis of course, duh. I
mean we've been talking about that for years, over a decade.
So where the apology is for like, you know, me
talking about this or other people said it was a
crazy conspiracy theorist for talking about this since twenty fourteen
Aqi Lara's five dollars. I'm not trying to be I'm
not trying to be insensitive to you know, Christians in Syria,
but like, what what are we supposed to do? Like
you can only go so far on YouTube. I mean,
I don't know, I don't know what the answer is.
Maybe the answer is to defeat the heresy of dispensationalism
so that people in America stop believing this stupid, idiotic
heresy where whereby they basically think the Nation of Israel
is the Church, which is just looney bins. But somebody,
Luigi I think, was calling out one of these evangelical
pastors who has like the nation State of Israel flag
and his profile, like he doesn't even have a Christian
flag in his profile. It's like, okay, so you're actually
not Christian exactly. It's just it is weird how many
people believe this dispensationalist heresy, and it's so easy to refute.
You know, we did this that stream of Jimbo I've
been polish. I though it turned out to be a
really good stream. It is long, it's four hours, but
I mean it took four hours to thoroughly demolish. I
think every aspect and angle of dispensationalism, from its history
to its theology, to its deep state geopolitical promotion and implications.
I mean, we went through all of it. So, I mean,
I think to have an effect in the Middle East
requires a change in American foreign policy. To have a
change in American war policy requires time and effort to
refute the stupid dispensationalist Premillennials heresy. And so that's going
to happen for people becoming Orthodox. So I don't know
what other route to take. Aculars five dollars, Jay, I'm
a longtime viewer and I'm now at Orthodox kind of
human things thanks to you. Would you how would your
Aply somebody says they believe in morals in a higher power,
but I'm not a Christian. Basically, their deists. How would
you respond to that? Well, I mean, this is really
just kind of an empty phrase and statement. I mean,
what does it even mean to say I believe in
morals and a higher power? What if I believe the
higher power Satan and the morals that he gives me
are to you know, steal, kill and destroy? Right? What
does Conan say that he can't wait to hit that
advantation of the women to you know whatever Conan's phrased? Like,
what if those are the morals?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 5: Why is that wrong? So, in other words, it's not
good enough to just say that quote there's a higher
power in morals.
Speaker 9: This is like.
Speaker 5: Alcoholics anonymous level theology, which is basically just meaningless. I mean,
what does that mean? So you got to have some
kind of content to who the deity is and what
the worldview is. So I would just critique the worldview
at that kind of presubsisitional level. Guy M ten dollars,
thank you for everything that you do. I looked into
the early Church and I ended up leaving Calvinism before
Constant and Nope, I started attending an Antiochian Orthodox Church.
The liturgy is definitely the biggest event that I've ever attended.
I can't believe I ever felt for Calvinism. I fell
for Calvinism. It's okay. I mean, you know, we're all
going to be making these mistakes. We can't help what
we were raised with. So we got to be open
to hearing new information. But also there's a weird balance.
I don't know what the right answer is, but like
you know, we're in this era where there's an infinite
sea of information on the Internet, and we're always going
to be hearing new arguments, new challenges, new information. So
there's got to be some kind of balance we strike
between having an open mind to hear new arguments, new information,
and not being blown about by every wind of doctrine
like the New Testament says. So hopefully we can strike
some kind of balance there. And I think that anybody
who truly honestly seeks the truth, I think Christ will
lead them to the truth. Albanian Dude ninety eight one
dollars Do you think that some UFOs are demonic in origin? Yeah,
I think there is a demonic element to it. Even
some of the secular theorists like Jacques Vlaie admit there's
some kind of sinister, nefarious element to it. Do you
think the government knows and is in on it? I
mean to it. I mean I think the government absolutely
knows about the black ops, you know, alien deception crap
that they push, and that all the people from the
deep state, the aviary, you know all these you know
m J twelve con men, Richard Dody and go watch
mirage men. That's obvious. Are the drones piloted by demons? No,
I don't think the drunes are piloted by demons. That
sounds kind of funny though. Still go a our five
dollars your name will be more deep Jay, thank you
for the stream. I'm looking at orthodoxy. I'm a Jewish
believer in Jesus. I have a question by the influence
of Hellenism on Christianity and Judaism as a negative or positive. Well,
I think you have to be more precise, because sometimes
Hellenism just means Greek culture, Greek language. I don't think
Christianity would have spread had there not been coin a
Greek spoke throughout the Empire, which is an element of Hellenism.
If you talk about Hellenism in terms of like Greek
philosophy and metaphysics, that's a two edged sword that can
be a basis for people falling into heresies. Most of
the heresy arcs in the Seven Ecamenical Councils had some
kind of Greek metaphysical assumption that they were importing into
the theology, whether it's areas, whether it's Eunomius who's literally
a Neoplatonist, whether it's Origin, or even all the way
up into Severus. Severus himself had Neoplatonic assumption. So I
mean just depends on what you mean. There's also harmless
cultural elements of quote Hellenism that are part of the
Church's tradition little tea tradition. For example, the style of
the vestiments is not just Hebrew and origin out of
coming out of the Jewish priesthood, but it also bears
a Byzantine stamp to the vestiments. And so obviously the
Church is going to have it's kind of unique history
that influences the Hebrew origins. So I think there's a
both and flexibility going on here. But no, we don't
want the degenerate elements of Hellenic culture, which the Book
of maccabeeest for example, calls out, you know, like naked
men and bathroom stalls and naked men wrestling. That's all
Hellenic Greek cultures, you know stuff. So no, we don't
want none of that. We don't know. We don't know
skittle soldiers like the three hundred or whatever. But using
ideas or toolkits from Greek philosophy can help theology. That's
part of the Church's tradition. Anonymous, five dollars. We're both open.
There's a last two super jets. What would you say
about your use of tag and precept as a substance
of logic rather than a self evident given from a
worldview without any transcental justification. What would you what would
you say that your use of tag and precept is
the substance of logic? I don't know if i'd say that.
I would just say that the point of pre subpositional
argumentation or transcendenttal augmentation is simply to talk about the
possibility of doing logic, the possibility of knowing at all,
the possibility of having metaphysics at all. So there are
arguments about the necessary preconditions. I don't know if I
would call the necessary precondition quote the substance of logic,
but I do agree that it is fundamentally opposed to
the idea of something strictly literally being self evident. I
think we can have a colloquial sense of something being
self evident, like does tuplus to equal four? Yeah, we
kind of intuitively apprehend that without much investments. We don't
have to investigate every time we add two plus two
to see if, in fact it does all wes equal four.
We kind of have this eventual, kind of instantaneous apprehension
that it is correct. And so, in that limited sense,
kind of a mundane colloquial sense, you could call something
self evident, but in a strict epistemic sense, know, how
could something I mean, anytime people try to argue for this,
they just really end up missing the point and just
restating the problem and you know, relying on something else,
which then makes the first thing not self evident. If
it's relying on something, it's not self evident. If it's
self evident, we need to know why it's self evident.
We need to solve the criterion problem, et cetera. Et cetera.
Public Cort says, one dollar orthodox that downplay the Eastern fathers,
who would this be like weird Latin Western right people.
I don't know the ones that exults. You're talking about
Western right people.
Speaker 9: Out.
Speaker 5: You just have a sentence. It's not a question, so
I'm not sure what the question is. Yeah, I'm not
a huge fan of the Western right, so I don't
I'm not sure what the question is. Jorda on five dollars.
I love to stream, yes, what they do with Sam.
I'm assuming you're talking about that and God Logic. Would
you do a stream with God Logic on PSA and
the Protestant doctrines? Sure, I'm always open to any kind
of chat like that. Nicholas Palomas one dollar. Did you
see Chris Plants gave up on being intellectually rigorous because
he did a short video summary of Ubi and Abara debate. No,
I didn't see. I haven't kept up with what Chris
Plants was talking about. I'm not trying to be mean,
but you know, it felt like when we had that
sort of debate that.
Speaker 10: I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 5: What else to say. All Right, we're gonna open it up.
I'm gonna get priority to people who disagree. If you're
a Catholic, if you're a Protestant, if you're Muslim, if
you're atheist, you go to the head of the line.
If you have questions about you know, other stuff FAQ questions,
please save those till later. Uh, don't rush to the
head of line with you know, questions that literally you
could get your priest to answer in catechistus. I mean
not trying to be rude. It's just we always get
people piling in with you know, what's the problem with
penal substitution? What is the Orthodox feel and Balmintism. We're
going to open it up now to let's see inquisitor.
We got We've got an inquisitor. We got a Spanish inquisitor.
Queen Isabella has sent our destruction into the chat. What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 5: Got on mute and he ran away? Good job. So
there's our first Roman Catholic an inquisitor who literally just
ran away. Now maybe he dropped out, and if he
dropped out, he's welcome to come back. But I make
one joke. Here it comes he's back. Come on, inquisitor general,
what's up? Man, Let's have an auto de fay. Put
me burn me up, baby, Auto de fay right now,
got unmute? You have to unmute?
Speaker 11: Oh man, I had to have the power buttons?
Speaker 7: After all?
Speaker 9: Am I being heard?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 9: J J?
Speaker 7: First and foremost?
Speaker 12: Man, Hey, you.
Speaker 11: Don't want to give you your props. Just generally speaking,
I think you've been a tremendous course for good. The
question I have for you, Jay is, you know, I think,
for like you know, somebody seeking the truth, they're gonna
end up apostolic, right.
Speaker 5: And I don't know what that means.
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 5: I don't, I mean I don't. We don't accept that
there are or all of these Apostolic churches that are
in schism.
Speaker 7: You know there's two ja, come on you trump?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean you that you claim that, but that
doesn't mean that you are, because once you go into
heresy you're not Apostolic anymore.
Speaker 11: Well you could trade your churches back to our Lord.
Speaker 5: Wright or once you adopt heresy. And by the way,
this is actually the traditional Roman Catholic position too, you
are no longer a member of the mystical body agreed greed?
Speaker 7: Okay, you believe?
Speaker 5: How could you how could you agree to that when
that is contrary to what you just said?
Speaker 7: What do you mean it's a country? Wait? Wait, the
only thing that I have.
Speaker 11: Said, Jay, to be clear, is that somebody seeking the
truth is going to seek for something that you know,
reaches back to our Lord, a church that our Lord founded.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's just presupposing the Roman Catholic position that apostolic
means anybody who possesses Apostolic succession. And I just argued
against that, and that your own tradition doesn't hold that you.
Speaker 13: Could have a put it this way, Jay's made this argument,
and I was, so you could make uh oh, okay,
Jay's quantum doppelganger.
Speaker 9: In a multiverse.
Speaker 12: Anyways, So think about how silly this is.
Speaker 10: So a group can become Satanist and as long as
they you know, and they they skis them out of
the Roman Catholic Church, but as long as they just
trace their lineage back like then it's a historic church.
I mean, this is how absurd the conclusion would get.
Speaker 5: It's not actually absurd. In fact, Roman Catholicism actually says
that if you've become ordained and you become a Satanist
that day, you still have Apostolic succession.
Speaker 11: Hey, Jay, I haven't even asked my question, and you
guys are I.
Speaker 5: Mean, what you said, you're you already said something that's
simply not true and assumes your position. So I'm not
sure to be mean to you. I'm just pointing out that, like,
how do you you're assuming that Orthodox and Catholicism are
quote Apostolic churches and that's not our position.
Speaker 11: So all right, fair enough, Jay my God coming out
firing with.
Speaker 7: The with the.
Speaker 5: Well, you're an inquisitor and it says it's a debate stream.
Speaker 11: So I'm a lay inquisitor, not a professional one.
Speaker 7: Well listen.
Speaker 11: But the question that I had for you was, you know,
I mean going back to this question, which I think
you already kind of sabotaged the question. But in anyhows,
you know, but somebody, somebody looking for the truths, they're
going to land well hopefully they would land on it.
But the question that I had for you is is
your heritage east or west of Berlin? And if it's
west of Berlin, how did you land an Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: Yeah? This is it's such a mean I'm not I'm
not trying to be mean to you. It's just so
many Roman Catholics think this way. I literally have I
do not understand this thought process. How does the historical
geopolitical settings of the Cold War or the Byzantine Empire.
How does that have anything to do with which position
is true?
Speaker 7: A J.
Speaker 11: I'm not sure if you're looking for a rebuttal, but
I'm just trying to hear you out, just because I figured,
you know people, you know men.
Speaker 4: I can understand.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's like you guys almost always think the
religion is your heritage. It makes no that makes no sense,
like that's nothing to do with whether it's true or false.
Speaker 7: No, we think it's universal. We think it's universal.
Speaker 5: But you just literally argued that why did I end
up Orthodox if it's not my uh geopolitical heritage.
Speaker 11: Well, the thing is that I could understand somebody being Eastern.
Speaker 12: European, uh, you know, going back to.
Speaker 11: Orthodoxy, because you know, they kind of trace back and
that's where they land. But I wasn't sure.
Speaker 9: If you were.
Speaker 5: You want to know the real answer. Their answer is
because I'm an Eastern European KGB sorcerer. That's why I
worked for the KGB. Everybody thought we went away, but
actually redeem Zuomer is correct. Putin is the one that's
running a giant syop that Orthodox that people are converty
Orthodoxy in the West, and I'm the head of it.
Speaker 4: Well, I'll say this much. Putin is probably.
Speaker 11: I mean, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say it.
I think Putin is probably the most sound and based
had a state, even though he's not ours, speaking for
those of us in the US, kind of like some other.
Speaker 7: Uncle might have been in the early thirties.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have a question for you. I have a
question for you. Do you think that, let's say, winning
a giant battle, does that make Catholicism true in your mind?
Speaker 7: No? No, no, no.
Speaker 11: I think the truth is the truth, regardless of one.
Speaker 9: True lost battle.
Speaker 5: Does that have an in truth?
Speaker 9: Are you making fun of my accent?
Speaker 5: I didn't know you had an accent? Are you saying
you had an accent?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 7: You know I'm Spanish?
Speaker 9: What do you want waiting on from your man?
Speaker 14: Come on, man?
Speaker 5: You called yourself inquisitor. I don't know you. Could you
call me? You call me an Eastern European? You call
me an Eastern European.
Speaker 7: I didn't. I was wondering if you were, because.
Speaker 5: I mean, if you're like, can't you tell I'm a Serb?
I'm Serbian? There you go all right, thank you. I'm
just joking.
Speaker 7: Western European countries. Uh, many of them were Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Well, that was what he was saying. He's like, I
don't know, I don't know what that guy was saying.
That trying me mean to him. But Eli, what's up, dude? Eli?
What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 5: Don't sit on any don't sit on any walls up high.
You might fall over.
Speaker 7: Hey man, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 7: Great? Great? First of all, I just want to say
thank you for your hard work. Man. I listened to
you as as much as I can. If you're doing
the large work.
Speaker 15: Brothers.
Speaker 14: I just wanted to know what I should look for
when choosing an Orthodox church because I'm going.
Speaker 7: To make UH. I want to cover from being a.
Speaker 10: Protestant to Orthodoxy because of you and Andrew Wilson's So.
Speaker 5: I would say, you know, uh, try to find UH.
I would visit all the Orthodox churches around you. I
wouldn't immediately worry so much about what jurisdiction is.
Speaker 2: UH.
Speaker 5: See which one you detect tis the most uh conservative
types of views, the priest that's the best you know
person for you personally, and make the decision in that way.
I wouldn't worry too much about the other subjects, but
definitely just check out what's around you. Franken Nader, Uh,
we got a rebellious bastard atheist. He's gonna set us straight.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 5: I got an apparently, I got an honorary serb title
from some of the people in the chat. Serbs love me, dude. Well,
serbs are always like reaching out. Have some kind of
serb kindred. I don't know what's going on?
Speaker 8: What's up? Man?
Speaker 5: Got on you? What's up?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 7: So that is anthidats he owns the.
Speaker 5: You call me from a toll booth. You call me
from a phone booth. No, no, it sounds like a
phone booth.
Speaker 9: Man.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: If it doesn't sound.
Speaker 5: Good, you call him fro nineteen eighty seven on the
phone booth. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: My question is orthodoxy?
Speaker 12: I told thee of scripture? Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Not maybe basically yeah, but not in like the
kjav only type of mindset.
Speaker 14: Well, just honest questions.
Speaker 16: How do you reconcile the factual?
Speaker 12: Inerrants he's a scripture?
Speaker 5: Well, there are so.
Speaker 16: Diverges from known fact, right, like, for instance, the flood
that never happened.
Speaker 5: Or hold on, how do you know there was no
flood when ancient writing Let's say this.
Speaker 7: Hold on, let's say this science says it didn't happen.
Speaker 5: How do you know that science is correct? As if
science is one entity that speaks with one authoritative voice.
So you have an assumption that you can.
Speaker 7: Justify verifiable data, right.
Speaker 5: How do you what does that even mean? To verify?
How do you know that it's verified? Have you actually verified?
Are you trusting the quote science?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 17: I guess you have to do the best you can
to understand the size and make your own conclusion.
Speaker 5: Okay, so we all got to get PhDs and engineering
degrees in every field to know absolutely not.
Speaker 4: You don't have to have a PhD.
Speaker 5: Oh, so you rely on experts. So you rely on experts,
of course. Okay, so how do you know which experts
are right.
Speaker 7: The ones that can be verified?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 5: So, well, but you said that we follow the experts.
That's just you just made a circular argument, So we
follow the experts.
Speaker 12: Here's what I'm asking. I'm asking if you are basing
your belief in street sure solely on scripture?
Speaker 5: No, I'm not. I believe that there's logical arguments that
are prior to science, that I base it on prior.
Speaker 18: Okay, that's my only question.
Speaker 7: I have a question.
Speaker 9: A good thing good.
Speaker 12: There's a lot that don't.
Speaker 2: Do you?
Speaker 10: You do know that science can't even from science, get
to any knowledge claims.
Speaker 5: How do you figure how does science verify the scientific method?
Because it works, so anything that works as so anything
that works. So here we go. So this is a
people have no idea what they're talking about. It's not
even worth talking to this guy. It's a waste of time, right, clan,
see what's up? That's not going to go anywhere. Welcome everybody.
We're having open for him.
Speaker 7: Hellocan guys here.
Speaker 5: Tom Clinton, So what's up?
Speaker 4: Tom Clancy?
Speaker 14: So I'm new to orthodoxy, so give me some grace
that this is a bit of a basic question.
Speaker 7: But I have heard you use curse words before, and
so doesn't the Bible tell us to stay.
Speaker 2: Away from fillow language and profanity.
Speaker 5: Yes, and that's why you should not listen to me,
and you should go find the pious men that you support. Steven,
what's up? I'm gonna say a curse worrid poop. Oh,
I just did it. I just just got wrecked? What's
up by? Like, where in the Bible are there quote
curse words they might know? Can you show me the
verse where there's curse words? Did you know that in
the King James Bible it says that people piss it
against a wall? So I'm confused. Is that a curse
word or what? What is it about the letters s
h I T that are evil letters? Versus is the
letters pop which are acceptable letters? Go ahead? Stuff on?
What's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 5: You have to unmute.
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 11: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 12: Sir oh hi, sir h.
Speaker 19: I'm gonna listen to some debates, and it seems like
a lot of Christians kind of agree on the same things,
but they may disagree on specifics, like I guess with
the Orthodoxy when it comes to the Holy Ghost. Now
my question is it's not exactly about the Holy Ghost,
but it seems like these debates is like, well, scripture
says this, and they reconfirmed the scripture with scripture and scripture.
So I'm kind of curious, like do all verses carry
the same weight. So let's say, for instance, well, the
Holy Ghost says this thing and it's backed up, and
the orthodox will back it up with five scriptures, but
that the Catholics will say, the Holy Ghost says this,
but it's backed up with four scriptures.
Speaker 5: Like I mean, it has nothing to do with the
number of verses or this or that. It has to
do with the interpretation of the verses. So the verses
don't like self interpret or self authenticate. You have to
interpret the verses. So you're talking about a question of
like piling up numbers of verses and the fact that
Orthodox disagree with Catholics, Like, none of that has anything
to do with which positions true or false. So that's
really I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm
just saying that has nothing to do with which positions right,
who's got more quotes or using more quotes or.
Speaker 19: Whatever, Because it seems like when these debates happen, they're like, well,
we got all these scriptures to back up.
Speaker 12: What I'm saying, and then I got all these scriptures
back up.
Speaker 7: What I'm saying.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but that has nothing to do with which positions
to or false?
Speaker 12: So what Well, I was kind of curious.
Speaker 19: So let's say, for instance, like Jesus says something right,
but then someone would say, well, Paul and Peter and
Timothy said this, that kind of contradicts what Jesus says.
So whose verse or whose word has the most weight
would be Jesus or three other authors.
Speaker 5: We don't think there's any contradictions between Jesus and his apostle.
We think that Jesus inspired and taught his apostles what
to teach and providentially guided them to not teach error.
So there's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul or whatever.
Speaker 19: I mustn't necessarily saying contradictions, but maybe a little difference.
Speaker 5: Well, I would say, I would say that in the
Orthodox position, we do take the Gospels to have a
higher status and honor in the liturgy, but that doesn't
mean that they're like different than the teaching of Paul.
Speaker 19: Okay, okay, Yeah, So I saw this debate with Trent
horn In, a Protestant about once say it and always say,
then they're going to do a scripture, and it's like,
you know, I see so much people pine on scripture
on top of each other and stuff, and I just like,
I agree with you, and that's probably where the church
comes in.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, I would agree, I would agree with you
that you can't like, a lot of times these disputes
are not going to be solved in an evidentialist stack
them up manner. But Trent Horn is an evidentialist, and
so he thinks that you just stack up one two
evidences and then people will just look at the evidences
and they'll just choose because we're all honest and we're
all neutral. When I don't think that that's true at all.
None of that's true.
Speaker 12: Yeah, So that's that's been my big struggle.
Speaker 19: I'm pretty much agnostic, and I've listened to you guys,
and you guys like totally crushed the choice of becoming
a Muslim or Jehovah witnesses or Mormon.
Speaker 12: You guys definitely pointed me towards the trinity.
Speaker 5: So well, we crushed the Roman position too.
Speaker 12: Well, I see that too, But I'm going back. I'm
trying to do my due diligence on the homework.
Speaker 19: And that's why I was thinking, like, well, we got
these two Christians, you know, having a differential opinion on specifics,
and I was kind of wondering, well, what does term is?
Speaker 12: What's more specific?
Speaker 19: Pilon on scripture on top of each other, or see
who which author or Jesus as a word has more
weight to when they speak. Now, I see what you're
saying that what Jesus and the apostles are on.
Speaker 12: The same page, So I'm just kind of curious.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I don't think I actually I understand your question.
I just don't think either of those things is really
going to be the solution, because, you know, if it's
like a debate between an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic,
usually those debates involve so much history, so much you know,
biblical material, that they're not going to solve it or
convince people typically unless they're really low tier lo tier voters,
low information voters. They're only going to convince those people
with really low tiers because usually it's going to take
like knowing all the Bible and knowing a lot of
the Church fathers. And so that's the difficult part is
the learning curve that's involved, and most of the time
people are just kind of approaching these hotly contested issues
with little to no knowledge at all, and so they
just oftentimes fall for unfortunately very bad arguments. And what
you're talking about stack whoever quotes stacks the most proofs,
but the proofs are only as good as the accuracy
of the interpretation. I mean, I could stack up a
bunch of proofs from Muslim and Job's witness websites to
give the impression that Jesus is subordinate to the Father
and a creature, but you would quickly find out, as
if you investigated that, that those texts are misinterpreted and
not in harmony with all the other texts that talk
about not just the distinction between the father and son,
but also the equality between the father and sons. It's
a both and but a lot of heresies. You're actually
correct rely on actually picking one verse, and that's the
lynchpin of everything. Every other verse in scripture hangs on
their interpretation of you know, classic example, Jesus says, you know,
no one is good but God, the Father. You know,
there's one God, the Father, et cetera. So that mess
must mean therefore that Jesus isn't divine, and that's just
simply not true. Ten full hat, what's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 5: You got it? I'm mute. Thank you guys for the
super chests. Appreciate that you gotta. I'm mute, man, Frank,
I mean Fred, excuse me, fred X instead of fed
X that Fred, do you want to talk?
Speaker 7: All right?
Speaker 5: Fred doesn't want to talk?
Speaker 13: Hello?
Speaker 5: Hello, Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 9: Hey? Hey?
Speaker 20: You don I was just wondering, do you think Orthodoxy
is Catholicism for hipsters?
Speaker 5: I mean, was it Catholicism for hipsters in the first
thousand years of Christianity?
Speaker 20: I don't have And also, do you think the drones
are an attempt to start a cargo cult?
Speaker 5: Start of what cargo cult? A cargo cult? That's funny. Yeah,
that was a good one. Fada. By the way, we
got twelve hundred people and three hundred likes. Y'all don't
like this dream? If you like this dream, why don't
you like it? I don't understand what what we got?
Is it all three hundred likers and seven eight hundred
and twelve hundred haters? What's going on? Fata? What's up?
I'm you? Why are you raising your hand?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I'm raising my hand because I'm European, I'm Greek,
so I tried to be polite. I've been in some spaces, well,
entering the space Jay. However, I asked in the bubble
or whatever you call it, the chat, what's the debate
about I see Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, mostly Matheists versus Jay Dyer,
and I asked, what's the debate about? Because I couldn't
figure out. I'm here for fifteen minutes, now are against you?
Speaker 5: The topics that are listed are the topics of the
churches and their theology and the religion.
Speaker 4: So yes, okay, all right? Then if I may introduce
another religion of which I'm not part anymore as a church,
but I'm part of it as a as a person
who used common sense and show that uh, the observations
not teachings exactly of that man. That man was Ellen Hubbard.
You probably know him, and I have been into scientology,
which is another religion.
Speaker 5: It's an interesting you're the Greek scientology guy. I've be
called in here before.
Speaker 4: I don't remember if I was here with you before
I had you as a follower.
Speaker 5: Okay, So why why would we believe a guy who
comes out of Crowley's colt?
Speaker 4: So sorry, sorry, why would we believe.
Speaker 5: A guy who comes out of Alistair Crowley's cult?
Speaker 4: Because I think that the whole debate here is based
on on remarks by people and not on actual data.
Well that that you probably know.
Speaker 5: Okay, so is that is out that I also create
a cult where it's a grad school to create your
own cult? Is that true or false?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: That's totally false because what I know has nothing to
do with that Crawley.
Speaker 5: But wait a minute, al Ron Hubbard went through the
ranks of Crowley's cult and then start his cult. That's
what I'm saying. Yeah, okay, so it has nothing to
do with Crowley. I just okay, no.
Speaker 4: But but look, first of all, I just don't want
to you know, either hijack or the space or whatever.
I just wanted to mention that scientology is, indeed a
very more promising religion though it has been.
Speaker 5: How do you know it's true.
Speaker 4: Because I've I've done it for thirty or more.
Speaker 5: Yes, you've done it is the proof that it's true.
Speaker 4: No, No, Look, if you if you want to discuss
some in the chat topic, if you want to discuss sorry,
I'm a foreign language speaker, so sometimes I miss some things.
If you want to talk a little bit slower so
I can fully do.
Speaker 5: How do you know that it's true? What's the argument
for scientology being true?
Speaker 4: Funny, Well, it's like it's like I'm asking you, how
do you know the Bible is true?
Speaker 5: I'm happy to answer that question. I'm happy to give
an answer that question.
Speaker 9: Question.
Speaker 4: Huh, Well, tell me why? Why is the Bible truth?
Speaker 5: I'll go to that when we when we get the
answer from you first, all.
Speaker 4: Right, it's not true. An answer to me, why is
the Bible truth?
Speaker 5: Then I'm happy to address that issue, and I'm going
to use the transcendental argument. But before we get to that,
I want to know why scientology is.
Speaker 4: True because for me it has worked. It has worked.
Speaker 5: Do you think you think that's a good argument for
something to be true? Because it's subjectively what works for you.
I could say that about anything. I could. I could
say I could say that the uh, I don't know,
the motor oil that goes into my car works for me.
So does that make it true you as a religion?
Speaker 4: Well, I think the metaphor is a little bit shallow.
So let's let's get a little bit of realistic here, because.
Speaker 5: You well, it's a fallacy, is what I'm trying to say.
It's a fallacy to say that because it quote works,
that it's therefore true. Look, yes, I have.
Speaker 4: Done five TV shows on the Greek television.
Speaker 5: I don't care how many TVs like I give a
ship about how many TV shows you do?
Speaker 4: Could you? Could you listen and not interrupting.
Speaker 5: It has nothing to do with your TV show productions,
have nothing to do with weather scientology.
Speaker 4: The spaces remind me of the TV show Nobody Can Talk,
Nobody Can make.
Speaker 5: This is just like crazy person gn what's up?
Speaker 7: Hello, Jack?
Speaker 21: Hey, I sent you some DMS regarding this interesting KI
theology that people been creating on blockchain, and it's pretty
heavily funded by a lot of prominent tech investors that
are getting recent notoriety.
Speaker 7: Because of all the Trump election stuff.
Speaker 12: So I wanted to bring that up.
Speaker 9: But other than that, you check it out.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 21: I have a fortunate of being baptized and raised Greek Orthodox,
and so it's it's been interesting because I've I've always
considered it to be the truth daith and I've never
had to really argue against it. So it's interesting to
hear the debates and the argument for it. So I
will appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, appreciate your information there. I'll check it out.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thanks man, I'm.
Speaker 5: Blocking that boomer Rick. What's up? People that like like
that like they just they'll just yap the entire time,
they'll sap all the energy and the whole conversation, and
that they'll never listen to what you're saying. They have
no idea what a debate is. They don't know what
policies are, they don't care. It's just yapping NonStop. What's up?
Speaker 2: Rick?
Speaker 5: I'm mute. I will give him credit. He's the first
scientologist who's ever come to a space to quote debate,
even though he didn't want a debate. I'm sorry people
think that coming to a debate is preaching. What's up?
Speaker 7: Rick? Hey, how you doing well?
Speaker 9: I I was.
Speaker 7: The debate is.
Speaker 20: What Catholic, Orthodox, biasid Muslims and atheists are religions?
Speaker 7: Or which is the best?
Speaker 5: Can you turn your TV down over? I can't hear you, man?
Speaker 9: Oh sure, okay, sorry, okay, yeah.
Speaker 5: The debate. The debate is which of these is correct?
And people from those positions debating each other. I'm Orthodox,
so I defend that position.
Speaker 9: Oh okay, well, I got nothing arguing with you about us.
Speaker 18: Okay, right, thanks, Rick, appreciate it. Warren Warren, what's up man?
Speaker 5: Warren? G nay dog?
Speaker 2: War So I just wanted to ask you a question,
paras time.
Speaker 5: What is the topic of the debate today?
Speaker 2: Yes, but they're really this topic.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you for coming with absolutely nothing wrong of
my good job. Three d Anton, what's up? Go watch
my videos on the subject.
Speaker 9: Hey, So I'm not particularly interested in a debate, but
I I wanted to ask a question. I guess that
just occurred to me while I was listening. So I
am a person of no faith, right, and I have
always had trouble when people want to ask people to, like,
you know, explain the Trinity, right, because I just don't
understand it. I think there's you know, like an identity
claim being made here that just seems incoherent, right and
any But the problem is, anytime I ask someone to
explain it to me, they they usually just say like, oh,
it's it's complicated, go study it or something.
Speaker 5: But what do you mean an identity claim?
Speaker 9: Right? So? I mean the claim that you know, like
Jesus and Nazareth is identical to God and you know.
Speaker 5: Uh, well, I mean that's the revelation that's given a
script for us, so right, right.
Speaker 9: So so I just mean, I just mean, this is
like it seems fairly incoherent to me.
Speaker 5: And so why why is it incoherent?
Speaker 9: Because obviously Jesus has a lot of properties like Jesus
and Nazareth is finite, he's contingent, he's a human being.
Speaker 5: Well, those are properties that is human nature, so that wouldn't.
Speaker 9: Have a So this is what I mean, though, this
is this doesn't really make sense to me. How does
that work?
Speaker 5: Well, that's a fallacy because something doesn't make sense to
you that it's there for false. That has nothing to
do with whether it's true fault.
Speaker 9: But this is, this is what I'm asking, though I'm
not like I.
Speaker 5: Mean, I'm trying to answer, and you keep interrupting every
time I now here we go. Yeah, So why is
it a problem to say that his human nature, which
if something is created as human nature, is it's going
to have the properties of being a creature? Why was that?
Why would that be a quote contradiction or contrary to
divinity taking on and having a both and versus an
either or So your assumption is that has to be
either or either Jesus is no longer divine and becomes finite,
and that it can't be both, and why.
Speaker 9: Because that I mean at that point, you're just not
You're no longer making the claim that Jesus is identical.
Speaker 5: To God, right if if he has no he's the
second person of the Godhead, the son taking on human nature.
Speaker 9: How that actually works though? Right? So, so like, are
you making an identity claim here or are you not right?
Speaker 5: He is the son of God, he is fully divine,
He's the second person of the Godhead. So you're saying that,
I guess your argument is that the Trinity itself is
in coherent.
Speaker 9: Why, Well, this is what I came to talk to
you about, right, I Like, I'm just saying when I
ask people about it, usually they tell me to go
study it is complicated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm happy to address and make the argument for
the trinity. So I want to know first why something
being one in many is? Why is something being one
in many incoherent?
Speaker 9: Because again that that just obviously seems like a contradiction.
Speaker 5: Okay, because you call it obviously a contradiction. Okay, So
the numbers, the number, you know, the number three is
both one and three at the same time. Is that
therefore a contradiction.
Speaker 9: That I just denied the claim? Like, I don't think
the number three, number one. I'm not I'm not a
numerical realist, right, so I don't think the numbers.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter whether you think that it has objected.
I didn't even ask you about the ontological status of
the number. I just simply said, whatever you have, why
you keep interrupting me when I do? Why do you?
Because I'm using it as an example. Even if you
think that it's not an ontologically real thing, whatever realness
it has or lack thereof, it is both three and
one at the same time. Likewise, objects in the natural
world have multiple reality. They have a multiplicity to them
at the same time as being a unity. So there's
nothing inherently contradictory about something being one and many.
Speaker 9: So can you give an example of something in the
natural world that's the appropriate.
Speaker 5: Any object in the natural world has a unit of
aspect to it to make of that object as well
as the whole the parts that make it up. So
all mariology which is partial relationships.
Speaker 9: But usually when I try, and you know, suggest that
to people who believe in the trinity, that's a harrisy
called modalism, right or isn't it?
Speaker 5: Or no, I'm not arguing that there's a one to
one correspondence between the created object and God. I'm saying
that there's nothing inherently contradictive about something being one and
many at the same time, right, And so then your
original contention doesn't work for the trinity being a contradiction.
Speaker 9: Let me let me talk.
Speaker 5: Okay, now, you let me talk. You're on my stream
and you keep interrupting me every time I give you
an answer to here you go get what's the problem
with the one of the many?
Speaker 9: Right? So the issue is when I suggest that the
relation between you know, the persons of the Godhead and
the God right, what it might be like the relation
between you know, a whole and it's compositive.
Speaker 5: There's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 9: And that's not what they're saying, right, that's a heresy.
Speaker 5: Called motiv No, you're misunderstanding. That's why I just told you.
It's not a one to one correspondence. I'm saying that
even in the work that it does, it does know,
it works to show that there's nothing inherently contradictory about
something being one and many because it's true.
Speaker 9: In the it's.
Speaker 5: True in the if it's true in the shut up.
It is like it it's an analogy. You don't know
what an analogy is. You don't think I can make
an analogy.
Speaker 9: The analogy, but you just a mission. The analogy doesn't
work because.
Speaker 5: It's you're not even listening to what I'm saying. I'm
saying that it's not inherently contradictory in the cre created realm,
and so therefore you can't say that it's therefore contradictory
in any other realm.
Speaker 9: That's the point I'm as.
Speaker 5: I just refuted your point. Did you not hear what
I said? I'm asking can you restate what my argument was?
Can you restate it? Can you re say.
Speaker 9: That you agreed with me that this is not actually.
Speaker 5: I said, it's an analogy, not one to one correspondence.
Speaker 9: Okay, so then how is that supposed to help me
understand it?
Speaker 5: Because if it's not a contradiction in the created realm,
there's no basis to say it's therefore a contradiction against.
Speaker 9: On God, I'm trying to understand the cling, though I'm not.
I'm not saying that it's a contradiction.
Speaker 7: Right man.
Speaker 5: If the problem of that you did know, now you're
lying because you said at the beginning. It was a contradiction.
You said the Trinity was a contradiction at the beginning,
and I'm showing you that there's no necessity.
Speaker 9: You don't get it.
Speaker 5: You're wasting our time. Yeah, because you're not listening to
the argument, and you're not addressing what I'm telling you.
You just keep stating your original position over and over. Yeah,
he ran away. I didn't block him. He ran away. Joe, right,
I just want to hear my voice talk and talk
ARETI believe numbers are real. He argued at the very
beginning that the Trinity is contradictory and incoherent. By the way,
if something is incoherent, then by extension it's a contradiction.
And then he's saying I never said it with a contradiction.
Itheists are such liars, dude. I can't stand these people.
Go ahead, But I mean, if you're an atheist or
is nothing wrong with line?
Speaker 7: Go ahead?
Speaker 5: What's up? Joe Hey?
Speaker 9: Hello? Hello hearing? Yes, Okay, sorry, I was just wondering.
Speaker 15: Obviously you're orthodox anti papists. Inquotation marks the whole first
millennium Church had absolutely succession of popes from Peter. So
I'm just I haven't heard your argument as to I mean,
there's been a valid pope since Peter, Right.
Speaker 5: Maybe it would befit you to actually learn some of
the basics of the positions before bringing something like that.
I mean, you don't think that we know that? Do
you not know that there's three patron seas according to
people in the West like Gregory the Great? Do you
know what the three patron seas are? No, So why
would you come with this kind of argument if you
don't even know that? Well, not necessarily, it's basic church history, man.
Speaker 4: Okay, So maybe what.
Speaker 5: Three seeds did Peter found? What three seeds did Peter found?
Speaker 15: You're saying the three churches room?
Speaker 12: What was the Antioch?
Speaker 5: Yeah? And the other one Alexandria. Okay, Peter didn't found.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Sorry, I was guessing on that third one.
Speaker 4: But if you could just, I don't know.
Speaker 5: Give me a yeah. I So, if those are all
petrine seas as late as Pope Saint Gregory the Great,
you have the burden of proof to tell me why
I'm supposed to believe the vatican One view of the
papacy in the first millennium, which the Vatican now admits
in the chi eighty and Alexandria documents was not the
view of the first millennium.
Speaker 15: Okay, okay, I see, so I was just trying to
get you to clarify your position.
Speaker 9: Warm So really the problem is with Vatican one and two.
Speaker 5: Well, the problem is that your church evolved to have
all these wild claims like in the Middle Ages, when
the Dictatus Pope and when I'm Sanctum documents claim that
the Pope is the world emperor and that if you
don't believe the Pope is the world emperor, you're damned.
Do you believe that?
Speaker 15: I've been raised Catholic? So yeah, right, we submits to
the pope.
Speaker 5: And okay, so you think that it's okay for the
Pope to say you have to believe that I'm the
world emperor and if you don't believe in that, you're damned.
Speaker 15: Well, I do believe believe that there's one true holy
as What did.
Speaker 5: I just ask you? Why are you changing the subject?
You said you do you believe what Unum sucked them
and Dictatus pape say that the Pope is the world
emperor and that you must believe that to be saved.
Speaker 9: That's really where I'm at Jay.
Speaker 4: You you are the leading you I am I am.
Speaker 5: Can you not tell me where you believe that?
Speaker 15: I don't know, because that's where I'm at.
Speaker 9: Is what I'm saying is between Catholic and Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Okay, So if you go and read these documents like
Unum sunk them. I'm not making the argument. I'm not
trying to be mean to you, but I don't understand
why Roman Catholics always think I'm saying that that this
is some argument about whether or not you got to
be in the Roman calol Church to be saved. No, no, no,
this is about the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop, which,
by the time of yeah, that you have to believe
that he is a world emperor to be saved. That's
another thing to believe. To be said, that's crazy. Do
you think anybody in the first thousand years of Christianity
believed that the pope was a world emperor and that
you had to believe that to be saved?
Speaker 12: I have I have to agree with you.
Speaker 15: It does seem like the Roman Empire kind of push that, right, Well, it's.
Speaker 5: Not the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire becomes Byzantium. This
is pushed by the Franco Papal Church of the West,
not the not the Roman, not the Byzantine Empire.
Speaker 9: Right right now, I see what you're saying there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what was that?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: Two articles Dictatus Pope and unam sunktum okay I will
and when I'm sang, Tom says that you have to
believe that the pope is the world emperor to be saved.
Not just that you have to be in Rome to
be saved. You must also believe that the Pope is
King of kings and Emperor of emperors, or else you're
not saved.
Speaker 2: Jamie, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I just had a quick question.
Speaker 16: I was watching one of your past live streams, and
I think you mentioned something about priests that went to
seminary at the one in New York.
Speaker 4: I think it's like Saint Vladimir.
Speaker 16: Would you recommend steering away from churches that have priests
that went to that seminary?
Speaker 5: No, not necessarily. I mean a lot of Orthodox people
have gone to Sin Vladimir, So that itself is not
going to tell you anything good or bad. It's just
that there was a period when they got pretty liberal.
The last I heard was that they were moving in
the right direction. But I don't know. I don't keep
up with Saint Latimir's But no, I would not say
that that necessarily means that somebody's going to be, you know,
liberal or something. So today we're looking for who disagree.
So we've got a lot of people now in the chat,
fifteen people in line. If you're here for frequently asked
catechumen questions, please do not do that today. This is
not FAQ day. I want people who disagree. That's why
it says debate Kathy arth problem was on atheist, So
please don't clog it up. If you just want your
FAQ catechumen questions answered, well, trum be mean to you.
It's just like this never fails the real JSP. What's up.
Speaker 7: Jay there?
Speaker 14: Yes, sir, so, uh, you can go a couple of
different ways ahead of it.
Speaker 5: Sounds like we're about to have a fight, and you're like, listen, man,
it's about to go a couple of different ways. While
here you're going to get a step up and get
your ass beat. Now go ahead.
Speaker 14: Well, we can have a theological discussion of more of
an epistemic one sure, whatever, But so well, first, this
is really simple. Your boy Dugan claims that Trump is
the cat coult.
Speaker 7: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 5: How is my boy? How is Dugan my boy?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 14: Well, let's just say that was a throwaway description just
based on similarities. I've noticed you mentioned him a lot
and certain things that sounded.
Speaker 5: I mentioned a lot. When was the last time I
mentioned Dugan? Seven years ago?
Speaker 7: You that often? Oh? No, it's quite more recent than that.
But oh really do you disagree? Though?
Speaker 5: Where are the examples of me pushing Dugan?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 7: I didn't say you push him.
Speaker 5: You just said I mentioned him quite a lot.
Speaker 14: So yeah, that's not really pushing though, right. Just uh,
I've seen you at least three times in the past.
I certainly don't have a yeah, so again.
Speaker 5: Podcasts from twenty seventeen twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7: I'm pretty sure you.
Speaker 14: Mentioned one Jones a couple of times recently.
Speaker 5: No, not sure, Okay, So never mentioned Alexander Dugan on
Jones that I recall, So what if I didn't mention him.
I've made multiple times clear where I disagree with Alexander Dugan,
particularly his gnostic chapters at the end of his book.
So this is just like low tier, like trying to
poison the well. Crap that people bring all the time
where they act like I'm a Duganist, which is just
dumb because I literal really have like countless live streams.
I literally have countless live streams refuting gnosticism. So to
come in here and call me a duganus is just silly.
Speaker 14: I think you're overstating what you know the statement you're
a boy.
Speaker 7: So do you think Trump catech rightly?
Speaker 5: No, I've never made this argument. No, I don't know
what you're talking about. Next argument.
Speaker 7: So you and your own Brook had a discussion somewhat.
Speaker 14: I mean Brook kind of misrepresents Ran pretty often.
Speaker 5: But oh, so you're an atheist.
Speaker 7: I am an atheist. I'm former minister. I really want
to ask you a sincere question. We could talk about
the like metaphysic.
Speaker 5: That's why you came with the poisoning of the well,
the bullshitted dugan because you want to ask sincere questions.
Speaker 14: I really think I think you're imputing some ill will.
I'm more of a curious.
Speaker 5: No, it's a it's a passive aggressive thing that I
can reckon is right away. I mean I've had this
a million times. Do you think I can't recognize this
with your condescending giggles. Yeah, yeah, I'm really insecure. Yeah,
that's why I'm letting you yap.
Speaker 7: I mean aggressive. I'm trying to have a No.
Speaker 5: You're not. This bullshit doesn't work with me, dude, Come on,
get to your point. No, enough with the condescending giggle. Dude,
it's just it's just it's just worthy of being made
fun of.
Speaker 7: Okay, do you.
Speaker 5: Have an argument?
Speaker 14: I was going to ask you a sincere question.
Speaker 5: Okay, what's the argument?
Speaker 7: What uses your faith given that you will suffer.
Speaker 14: And die under the human condition like every other person
who ever walked the sirs?
Speaker 5: Is this this is your high tier high i Q
atheist argument.
Speaker 7: It's a question about why you choose faith.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't. So you don't even understand my position.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I believe
that that revelation is so he's not gonna let me talk,
He's just gonna yap. I believe the divine revelation is
the ground of reason. So that's totally different from what
you're arguing.
Speaker 14: So you don't you don't accept that faith? Is it
a somehow an epistemic justifier.
Speaker 5: No, revelation is the epistemic justifier for logic and reasoning.
So with the transcendental argument, the very thing I argue
to your own books in that debate.
Speaker 7: So all right, I'm sorry constraction. Yeah, so you you're
what does your your faith offer you? What does your belief.
Speaker 5: In Well, for one, it offers a justification for the
possibility of reasoning at all.
Speaker 14: The possibility of reasoning is not really something that's in
need of that type of justific case.
Speaker 5: Well, how do you know that? Tell me what episomic
justification is.
Speaker 7: So which part of it you want to know?
Speaker 5: Well, you said it's not it's not as an apply
to that, then you would know then what epistemic justification
is and where it applies. So tell me.
Speaker 14: Yeah, So epistemic justification is about the positive grounds of knowledge, right.
Speaker 5: So what's the positive grounds for believing in reason?
Speaker 14: Well we can go through the relationship of perception to
abstraction and which one precedes which.
Speaker 5: How do you know that? How do you know that
perception relates to abstractions at all?
Speaker 7: Because of the logic. First of all, there's a logical relation, but.
Speaker 5: There's also no But I ask you how you know
there's a relation. You said there's a logical relation. I'm
asking you how you know that. To tell me there's
a relation, doesn't tell me how you know that?
Speaker 14: Because you started to discuss self evidence before.
Speaker 5: Oh interesting, So how do we know what's self evident?
So for me, for you, So it's not universal, it's
just for you, it's objective.
Speaker 14: No, what I think is the correct term that applies
to everyone is my premise.
Speaker 7: You know, I think you know the difference.
Speaker 5: How do you know it's self evident?
Speaker 14: So I was gonna say, what is self evident is
related to direct experience.
Speaker 7: We don't justify direct experience, so I.
Speaker 5: Can disclaim anything. So I can disclaim anything as direct experience,
and on how to justify it? So God is direct
experience for men? On how justify it? Would you accept that?
Speaker 14: I would say that the term God is meaningless, that
anyone who wants to use it as a theoretical object
would have to lay out their argument.
Speaker 5: Or So what's your answer to hum? Okay? Then then
what's your answer to human skepticism?
Speaker 9: In what regard?
Speaker 7: You mean?
Speaker 5: Like you're saying that you just follow your perception. You
follow your perception of the relates somehow to abstractions. What's
the justification that any perception relates to anything at all?
Speaker 14: My process and my view of justification, it would be
arbitrary to dismiss the basis of attracted from experience, of
the relation ship of something to its pattern.
Speaker 5: In other words, that's just begging the question that there
is a pattern. So that there's a pattern presupposes that
you're perceiving accurately information in the external world. I'm asking
for the justification for that. You said it's self evident.
Speaker 7: How do we know that?
Speaker 14: Because there's nothing else to ground it?
Speaker 5: In other words, so that's also a fallacy that you
claim that you're not aware of anything else to ground
it doesn't mean that it's grounded. How do you know
that I know.
Speaker 7: What I'm saying.
Speaker 14: I can go on to say, when we start to
analyze concepts, if we in fact have a system for
determining what's a good concept, right, we can see.
Speaker 5: How do you know the system is accurate? You're just
telling me all these different things, like you're asserting all
this stuff. What's the system that analyzes.
Speaker 14: Because the reference the content of the words reduced to
a perceptual reference, and so when have you.
Speaker 5: Ever read Vickenstein? You know't know how Sully? This argument is,
what's the how do you reduce numbers to perceptions? Where
where in your perception is the number seven?
Speaker 7: Very simple?
Speaker 14: Very The concept one is synonymous and reduces to the
concept entity.
Speaker 7: We perceive bounded particulars directly?
Speaker 5: How do you know that you perceive bound in particulars?
What is the epistemic justification for saying that you that
you perceive bound in particulars.
Speaker 14: If you in other words, the the epistemic justification must
terminate in perception because you cannot get underneath that.
Speaker 5: So, in other words, because it must be so. So
it's a dogmatic assertion that you can't justify. You just
literally restated the original possession.
Speaker 7: What mean what we mean by existence? Right, we're going
to stop.
Speaker 5: So you're just making more metaphysical assertions. I want to
know how that's the case.
Speaker 14: You just keep a certain saying I'm saying that the
content of any concept.
Speaker 5: Is how do you know that you keep stating some
metaphysical claim and you don't tell me how you know
that that's the case.
Speaker 14: So you know, how do I know it's the case
that existence is primary.
Speaker 5: Any of your assertions that you've made in the last
five minutes. You just keep asserting things and I'm asking you,
how do we know that that's the case. What's the
justification for that? And you said it's still fevident because
of the perception. Is this is reality? Reality? Is that
what you're saying? Reality is reality?
Speaker 7: Bro? No, I'm asking you. Let me ask you this
would No.
Speaker 5: I've been asking you, where's the answer to the to
the question? You're not you're gonna ask me a question.
Speaker 14: Well, I'm not asserting the positive. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 5: I've asked you for what reasoning is. You're told me
it's perception. I'm asking you how do you know that?
And you just keep asserting that.
Speaker 7: I didn't say reasoning is perception.
Speaker 5: I said, well, how do we justify reasoning? You so
there has to be this grounded out perception of objects
and abstractions, And I'm asking how do you know that?
Speaker 7: Pretty sure is how you freeze it. But anyway, so, what.
Speaker 14: I'm saying is that when we analyze concepts, if we infect.
Speaker 5: You're begging the question because you're assuming that there is
a meaningful concept to be analyzed and I'm asking you
how you know that.
Speaker 14: I told you because I experienced the reference.
Speaker 5: Oh so you're asserting the circle because it's so, because
I experienced it, because it's there, because it's substrategical. You
don't understand that's a circle, your very diagram, your your
PfP is a circle.
Speaker 14: That axioms are irreducibly implicit.
Speaker 5: That that's I'm calling that into question. How do you
know that that's the case?
Speaker 4: To question?
Speaker 7: You want a question?
Speaker 5: So your argument is there's no way to question it.
That's that's so dombinude.
Speaker 14: No, no, no, there's no way to question it without
presupposing its truth.
Speaker 5: That doesn't mean that it's justified.
Speaker 7: So what deny grounds concepts? You have to say? What
is it?
Speaker 2: Just?
Speaker 5: You saying that it has to be that way doesn't
make it. So it's not a justification.
Speaker 14: I'm saying that you can't make a statement.
Speaker 5: That doesn't Maybe we can't make statements.
Speaker 7: I mean, that's why you deny axioms. So you either
have no I.
Speaker 5: Just don't think that there's self evident axioms. So what's
the answer to the criterion problem? Do you know what
the criterion problem is?
Speaker 4: I mean, we can.
Speaker 5: Do you know what the criterion problem is?
Speaker 7: The criterion for what?
Speaker 5: In epistemology. It's one of the most famous problems in epistemology.
Do you know what it is?
Speaker 14: I don't know exactly you're referring to, but if you.
Speaker 5: Want to know, I'm asking you variations on the criterion problem.
So I'm asking you if you even know what the
problem is.
Speaker 7: I don't. I don't know what you mean by the criteria.
Speaker 5: Okay, so you have been You've been sitting here yapping
and you don't even know the basic questions I'm asking you,
which shows that you don't understand the problem. Yeah, right,
I made it up, right, it's one. It's a pistemology.
Want on when I made it up?
Speaker 14: I'm saying, I can't know what you mean if if
I don't, if I haven't experienced before.
Speaker 7: So if I go to Japan a guy is talking
about green, no, it just.
Speaker 5: Shows me that you don't know the discipline in the
in the arena that you're trying to speak to.
Speaker 7: So does that mean I won't be able to answer you?
Speaker 5: If it does? Yes, it does, because if I don't
if if modern secular epistemologists haven't solved this. You just now.
Speaker 7: Learning it or not fealous. I'm not just not learning
it just because.
Speaker 5: Wait a minute, you said you didn't know what it was.
Speaker 14: Now you do saying, oh, you mean if you explain
to me what you mean by the criterion problem that
I won't be able to answer a question related to it.
Speaker 8: Dude, This is stupid, Josh, Dude.
Speaker 5: If you explain it to me that I'll know what
it is and I'll be able to answer It's a fallacy.
If you say that I can't answer it? What is it?
The t dun't level stuff. I'm you.
Speaker 7: Hey, Jay a lot.
Speaker 17: I watched all your shows and uh, your boomer impressions
are hilarious. My questions kind of related a little bit
to the prior speaker, but I'll.
Speaker 2: Try to do the best I can.
Speaker 17: How do how does it Christian or Orthodox Christian or
Catholics solve for solesism? I know you say that the
starting point for knowledge has to first begin with God's
existence and his divine revelation.
Speaker 5: Solism is self refuting. You use knowledge is not possible
in a sense of justifying it if solvetism is true
and if solcism is true. You could never know that
it's true because if Solvetism is the case, and everything
that you're learning is also part of the mental illusion
fantasy world, dream world, whatever, and so therefore it's not
quote true.
Speaker 9: So is it this might be ignorant question?
Speaker 4: Is it possible? For is it possible that.
Speaker 17: A Christian is just making this all this up in
his mind?
Speaker 5: What I just said is that if that's the case,
then you couldn't know it, and the knowledge of that
claim is also unjustifiable. So it's a defeater for the
possibility of knowledge if Soltism is true. Not trying to
be rude to you, I mean to you, but go
look up the critiques that I've done of the Kogito
or whatever Aiden al Doorbana five dollars. You should look
up the channel YouTube scripture tradition by Father j M.
He's Catholic, but he's trying to convert Juice to Christianity
while he's wasting his time. Because Francis says not to
converge jus as did the other Vatican Two documents. They
had a huge row of Francis said multiple times, not
too what's up man, Aiden? I just bought your metad
there his book. I'm looking forward to reading it. Thank you, man,
I appreciate that. James VEGGI five dollars. I was going
to request you to debate, but like a hero, you
came through for the people. Thank you. It looks like
Aiden's having a hard time connecting, so maybe pop back out,
pop back in. We'll go back to you, Tony. He's
got a picture of David Hume, so I'm sure he's
going to set it straight.
Speaker 2: Hello, yep, hold a, I can't hear you anymore?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Oh wait, okay, I hear Can you hear me? Oh?
Speaker 6: Okay? So I have some several questions I would like
to present to you regarding tag and so specifically, why
like can we question divine revelation?
Speaker 2: Because you say that divine revelation.
Speaker 6: Is the ground for epistemology, you know, metaphysics and ethics
and reason itself.
Speaker 2: But can we question it certain?
Speaker 5: I mean you can. There's nothing stopping you from existentially
questioning everything.
Speaker 6: Uh So, like if I ask you, how do you
know divine revelation is like actually reliable or true? Would
I still have to present like a justification for that?
Or because I don't. I don't get how Like you
say that divine revelation is the ground is the justification
for our epistol homology, right, But then when we try
to justify God using the transcendental argument, we're using vison itself.
Speaker 5: So I feel like that's a category error. The fact
that you're using something doesn't have anything to do with
whether it's justified or not.
Speaker 6: No, but like, okay, the justification for God is the
transcendental argument.
Speaker 5: Correct, It's not a justification for God. It's a justification
for the possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Okay, justification for the possibility.
Speaker 5: Of God is the only type of being that could
ground the possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Okay. So another question I probably would ask is I.
Speaker 5: Mean I could make a transcendental argument from a pencil.
That doesn't mean that God's existence relies on a pencil.
It doesn't matter what object that you choose to argue
up from, Like the thing itself is just a thing
that you're picking. It doesn't mean that it has ontological priority.
So using red doesn't mean that reasoning comes before God.
It's just logical ordering is different from metaphysical ordering. That's
why it's called a category error. If I make if
I make an argument from time, that doesn't mean I
think that time is superior to God because I'm putting
it first in an argument.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see, all right, thank you.
Speaker 6: Also another question would be, like, because I know you
mentioned about identity over time for objects, what is the
orthodox position of that, because I know Aristotle's theory is like,
you know, objects are matter and force.
Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, we believe that God created things with
natures and that they there are secondary causes, and that
you know, humans have natures. Animals have the natures that
they have, so that's why they have identity over time.
But in philosophy, the problem of identity over time is
in the domain of metaphysics and epistemology. And that's why
David Hume called it into question on the basis of
a pure empiricist philosophy. If pure empiricism or naive empiricism
is true, there's not a justification for identity over time.
We don't have that problem because we're not radical empiricists, Okay.
Speaker 6: And so my last two questions would probably be it's
another objection to tag it says that it only proves
conceptual existence instead of ontological existence because like.
Speaker 5: Well, number one, if you prove that something existed conceptually,
that's still also a metaphysical statement. You're saying that it
has the metaphysical ontological status of conceptual existence, so it's
still metaphysical. But no, the argument is not just arguing
for conceptual things. The argument is about worldviews. And that's
why I always make the worldview argument.
Speaker 6: Oh I seek oh, because like universals must have an
ontological existence and therefore something.
Speaker 5: That you're just picking one thing. I mean, you can
make the argument from pencils, from universals, from math. It
doesn't matter like which thing you pick. Like, it's ultimately
an argue for a holistic worldview. It's not an argument
for universals. Okay, it's an argument for the Christian paradigm
explaining universals. It's not an argument for universals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, thank you, thank you, jam.
Speaker 5: Those are great questions. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's one more.
Speaker 6: It's Laurence Bonjours rational a priory insights. Why can't an
atheist like whenever you ask them, can you what's the
justification for logic metaphase? Like you present the problem with
the criterion, right, like what's your epistemic criteria?
Speaker 2: Why can't they just say.
Speaker 6: That they have like a rational a priory insight to
it that justifies it.
Speaker 5: Well, just just asserting a rational a priori just insight
isn't a justification, and that's an assertion. So we need
to know why and how that's a justification. And also
how does that actually solve the criteria problem by asserting
that to be the case.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Bonjour says, it's like a rational force that you know,
like we have to grasp the necessary truth.
Speaker 4: Well maybe that's problem.
Speaker 5: Why do we have to do that? I mean it
so who I mean again, it's just it's really I mean,
I'm not saying that you're wrong for bring it up,
but it's kind of not addressing the question because it's
quite like if we think about the for those that
don't know the audience, if we think about the criterion problem. Basically,
the idea is just this, if I say that I
have knowledge of something, it doesn't matter what I haven't.
I have knowledge that I think is true, justified whatever,
just what true belief? And that also assumes some criteria
of knowledge, right, because to say that you have true
knowledge versus false knowledge requires some kind of criteria to
adjudicate between them. But if I say that I have knowledge,
it's assuming a criteria knowledge. But how do I have
knowledge without their criteria? But if I say that I
have the criteria first, that's also a knowledge claim. And
so it's a seemingly irresolvable problem. That's the criteria problem.
That's what I was asking. That goofy atheist guy had
no idea what it was.
Speaker 6: Earlier, Pat sure Roderick Chisholm said that methodism in particulars
they both beg the question, no matter.
Speaker 5: What, Yeah, exactly there you are. So that's what the
problem is. And what I'm saying is that when you
say to try to solve it something like well we
just kind of have some kind of a priori force
or whatever, but like that doesn't tell me that that's
the case, And it also begs the question because that's
another knowledge claim.
Speaker 2: I see. Oh, okay, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Sure No, there's a great question. Appreciate it. Thank you, Xenodrome.
That's a cool name. David Atlas ten dollars mer Christmas Jay, Hey,
thank you, David Adlas. Appreciate that mery, Christmas to you too.
Jingle Jingle, jingle,