Read the orthobros

[Anonymous No.22707368]

I have heard of characters such as Jay Dyer and others that assert that Orthodox Christianity is the only logical and coherent philosophical system. They assert that if a man reasons hard enough and is genuine then they would eventually come to Orthodoxy. Of course this is a wild claim. However I am open to new ideas, especially if they concern the ultimate reality of the universe.

However these people make multitudes of videos that are hours long. And they don't seem to link the videos where their refutations are condensed and expressed clearly. I do not want to shift through hours of content on schizo shit just so I could potentially arrive at some half-baked arguments.

So what videos/articles/books condense their arguments for Orthodoxy and refute every other worldview or religion?

I predict that I am going to be hugely disappointed with the arguments and will find them to be shit. However it doesn't hurt to try.

[Anonymous No.22707392]

>>22707368
So christards who have adopted a semitic religion and rejected their own forefathers are now claiming that the semites who raped them were actual philosophers and shit lmao.

[Anonymous No.22707416]

>>22707368
Jay Dyer is an idiot. You can accept literally all of his arguments and still not arrive at Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

>materialism is incoherent
Ok I won’t be a materialist
>So is atheism
Ok I won’t be an atheist
>Oh the trinity is the only coherent version of God
Ok then I accept a Trinitarian God that’s not the Christian God
>uh-uh-uh *talks over you and spazzes out*

[Anonymous No.22707481]

>>22707416
I started watching his debate videos with Muslims and Christians and a little bit of his more theology oriented stuff. The man is obviously well educated and knows his stuff (he wins the debates every time, even though Muslim scholars don’t seem as well read on anything scholarly). At least he makes it clear that orthodoxy is the only way, in terms of doctrine and legitimacy. Not sure about the philosophical stuff he talks about since I have no clue so I can’t comment on that. I mainly watch him because his videos are educational since he goes through a lot of stuff in the Bible people use as evidence against the legitimacy of its teachings. I’m more sceptical about the evolution debates he has since it seems to me he critiques it from a philosophical (he studied philosophy so no wonder) point of view instead of a scientific one. All in all I like his content and he seems likable, even though I’m a pseud and most of the time I don’t really understand him

[Anonymous No.22707551]

>>22707481
His argument for orthodoxy is a bait and switch. He refutes materialism and claims it proves orthodoxy when it obviously doesn’t. Even if you agree with his argument that the trinity is necessary, you can reject Christianity and accept a Trinitarian god nevertheless. He wins debates because he screams over people and acts like a child.

[Anonymous No.22707591]

Has no one just made fun of him for being a nerd who believes in talking donkeys and magic and shit like that? Seems like that would make him cry on stream

[Anonymous No.22707609]

> I want the fullness of truth contained in a multi-millenia long tradition of cosmic understanding for which philosophizing and reason are only one tool to be used but which can never contain the fullness of truth and I want it in a nice little pamphlet sunmary

We could give you a whole library of books containing collectively the true and objective knowledge about everything in cosmos, but that wouldn’t satisfy you because you want the magic pill

[Anonymous No.22707616]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding by the way. Orthodox Christians believe that reason alone is insufficient. This is a complaint they often make about Western Christians. Their claim is that Westerners mistakenly believed they could reason their way to God when in reality man’s problem is not in his mind but in his heart.

[Anonymous No.22707620]

>>22707481
Why would someone who doesn’t subscribe to the scientific worldview critique evolution from the basis of science? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.22707628]

>>22707551
I’ve seen his videos as well and you’ve misunderstood his arguments. The refutation of atheism and the argument in favor of Orthodox Christianity are two separate arguments. Once one refutes atheism via the impossibility of knowledge, and the door is opened to theism, it’s a question of which theism makes the most sense. His argument is that of all the theisms, Orthodox Christianity is the only one that is coherent, non-contradictory, and gives a full account not only of what it knows but how it knows. If your denomination’s account of a triune God is contradictory, obviously, that is a problem. More or less agree about the shouting and whatnot though. The guy is more of an entertainer than philosopher/debater, even though he clearly is very intelligent and well-read.

[Anonymous No.22707646]

>>22707609
Yeah but most of Dyers content is Alex Jones type shit. It would be a bit uncharitable to hide the proofs in those videos. Yes I am willing to shift through hours of content and text. However I am just asking what should I shift through.

>>22707616
I am willing to follow the truth if it is true no matter how I feel about it. I also try to be as virtuous as possible. These are probably sufficient to start philosophizing. You say the problem is spiritual. However if I need to be spiritually solved(follow the correct religion) to figure out what is the correct religion then the problem is unsolvable.

[Anonymous No.22707660]

>>22707392
Is this the best way to own the churchers you could come up with

[Anonymous No.22707665]

>>22707646
I didn’t call on you to go watch all of some guy’s YouTube videos. I pointed out how dumb it is to expect what you’re looking for in a nice little summary. You’re also looking to rationalize your way to belief, but again, the problem is not your mind. Faith is going to be a requirement. Anyway, if you’re interested in this Dyer guy, I can tell you that I found a suggested reading list on his website in 5 minutes with good recommendations.

[Anonymous No.22707668]

>>22707392
Your forefathers were Christians you absolute buffoon

[Anonymous No.22707670]

>>22707416
If you accept the trinitarian conception of God, then you accept Christianity and each denomination has certain implications regarding their conception of the trinity. You just chose to stop at the trinity, and not at what exactly the details of that are.

[Anonymous No.22707686]

The need to rationally justify one’s religious beliefs is a sure sign of homosexuality and possible latent trannyism as well.

[Anonymous No.22707694]

>>22707686
Based. Just look at the cover of his book dude is clearly a fag.

[Anonymous No.22707709]

>>22707416
> >Oh the trinity is the only coherent version of God
Jay doesnt have any good argument that shows this to be true

He also is scared to debate or refuses to debate Vatican Catholic aka Peter Dimond, who put a video out claiming to BTFO Jay’s/othodoxy metaphysics

[γρηγορεύω !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22707713]

Why won't he debate Adam Green?

[Anonymous No.22707714]

>>22707709
Are you people retarded? I’ve watched like 5 videos and it’s clear that “the argument” in favor of the orthodox denomination, as opposed to the Catholic or Protestant or Oriental one or whatever, is a series of orthodox apologetics. The guy is pained to point out contradictions in all of these other denominations, but because he doesn’t make one single quick argument in favor of orthodoxy you think there is no argument at all? You must be dumb, or lazy. It’s one thing to not accept all of the arguments. I’m not sure I do. But it’s another thing entirely to pretend there is not even one argument for that position. That’s just a blatant lie.

[Anonymous No.22707716]

>>22707713
Adam Green is a /pol/-brained moron and not a serious person. I suspect that’s why.

[γρηγορεύω !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22707722]

>>22707716
Adam Green is intelligent and likeable.

[Anonymous No.22707724]

>>22707714
> I’ve watched like 5 videos and it’s clear that “the argument” in favor of the orthodox denomination, as opposed to the Catholic or Protestant or Oriental one or whatever
You called me retarded and yet it was you who failed to read and misunderstand my post, I said that Jay has no good argument which establishes that only a trinitarian conception of God is correct, my post didnt say anything about debating which Christian denomination is correct.

[Anonymous No.22707732]

>>22707722
I’m sure this is ironic but it’s hard to tell…

[Anonymous No.22707738]

>>22707628
I used to watch him quite a lot. Unless he’s changed his argument, he simply does not have a strong argument for Eastern Orthodoxy like he claims.

What he does is he claims that the Trinity is necessary because it avoids emanationism because God fully expresses his love in the Trinity without need for exterior creation. But even if we were to say that avoiding emanationism is something that is desirable or even necessary for the coherence of our worldview, that still does not bring us to Christianity, much less Eastern Orthodox Christianity. For one can simply say that one accepts a Trinitarian God for those philosophical reasons and yet rejects the God of Christianity — ie that God which became incarnate in Israel 2000 years ago and suffered and died on the cross and inspired the Bible.

Jay Dyer then claims that the essence-energies distinction is the only coherent doctrine of God. But once again, one can accept a Trinitarian God with the essence-energies distinction without accepting that Jesus died for our sins. In other words, Jay Dyer’s conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Christianity is a religion which affirms various contingent historical events, and these historical events are integral to Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, died on the cross for our sins, rose again, inspired the Bible, etc. etc.. It is not purely a philosophical system. There is no serious argument you can bring forward that would say unless you believe in these historical events you cannot have a consistent worldview. And yet Jay Dyer attempts to do just that.

Jay Dyer’s only response to this objection, which grants him all his arguments but points out that the conclusion does not follow, is absurd. The only response I’ve seen him make is to claim that “you can’t just construct a worldview divorced from historical tradition”. Or “you can’t just borrow all these concepts from us, the Trinity, the essence-energies distinction, etc., and not be Orthodox”. But that’s utterly retarded. Of course you can! If I am convinced of certain philosophical concepts that are prevalent in Christianity, but am not convinced that Jesus of Nazareth died for my sins and rose from the dead, why can’t I accept the former and reject the latter? Of course I can.

After watching so much of Jay Dyer, I don’t believe he is smart or wants the truth. He merely runs a script, borrowed from Protestant philosophers such as Bansen and Van Til, which applies extreme epistemic skepticism to any worldview which is not their particular brand of Christianity. Now this works against atheistic-materialists, since their worldview is indeed incoherent, but it positively does not work to establish Christianity since there are non-materialistic non-atheistic philosophies that are not harmed by the arguments they like to bring forward.

Dyer is an example of a man who reads a lot but cannot think for himself. He spazzes out when people go off script.

[Anonymous No.22707743]

>>22707724
Hold on. Maybe I did misread you, but you’re still not being clear. So you accept that this guy had good arguments that refute atheism, and you accept that this guy had good arguments that in so far as you accept a triune God that orthodoxy is the coherent account, but you don’t accept that middle territory, between conviction that atheism is false and conviction that orthodoxy trinitarianism, is true? I just searched quickly on YouTube and found the guy addressing monism, Platonism, polytheism, Buddhism, Islam. So what exactly is that middle territory that you think is left unaddressed?

[Anonymous No.22707746]

>>22707368
>Jay Dyer
Christians aren't serious about their faith. You can just tell by his youtube thumbnails and clothing. Some might say that religion is of the heart, not of the body, but this is an appalingly secular view, which you wouldn't have if you were actually religious.

To enter into religion is not only to believe, but also to take upon the outward symbols of religion. And no, your faggy "orthobro" aesthetic doesn't count

[Anonymous No.22707760]

>>22707738
Dumbest reply yet. You’ve literally said in other words “I can just ape orthodox Christianity and accept all of the necessary presuppositions included in orthodox Christianity and nowhere else without calling myself an orthodox Christian”. Legitimate retard IQ logic right there.

[Anonymous No.22707770]

>>22707760
Why are you trying to act like Jay Dyer?

That is exactly what I said and that is 100% true. Even if we grant all of Jay Dyer’s arguments, we come to the conclusion that a Trinitarian God exists conceived of with the essence-energies distinction. We positively do not come to the conclusion that a man named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago was God and died for our sins. No a-priori demonstrative philosophical argument can establish this.

Jay Dyer’s argument is a non-sequitur. Calling me retarded, just like Dyer would do, is not a legitimate response.

[Anonymous No.22707781]

>>22707738
Yeah it is a non-sequitor. However if there is undeniable proof that the trinity and essence-energy distinction are both correct. Then it's reasonable to abandon philosophy and logic at that point and to take a leap of faith.

[Anonymous No.22707793]

>>22707738
Good post, I’ve only watched a few of his videos but I noticed an identical phenomenon purely based on either anonymous his fans here aping his arguments or Jay repeating the same goofy apologetics here himself.

[Anonymous No.22707801]

>>22707368
>They assert that if a man reasons hard enough and is genuine then they would eventually come to Orthodoxy.

Let me guess, only "genuin" and "reasonable" way to do it is only when it comes down to Orthodoxy?

Yeah well.. if man was genuin and reasonable then he wouldnt come to Orthodoxy.

What now?

[Anonymous No.22707812]

>>22707770
How am I trying to act like Jay Dyer? I’m explaining to you how this position is retarded. If you accept all of these presuppositions and implications that arise as a result of these presuppositions as true, and not only true, but necessary to give a coherent account for a worldview which can be said to be true, but insist you don’t subscribe to that philosophy, you’re just aping the philosophy while pretending you’re not. You are implicitly endorsing orthodox Christianity while insisting you’re not. And you know this is the case because if I call on you to name one other system of belief/philosophy which contains all of these and is coherent, you can’t do it. And by the way, you’re making a fundamental mistake because you’re asserting that one of these aforementioned implications is the real divinity of Christ. You can’t even conceive of a trinitarian God which doesn’t include the person of Christ. This is a basic Christian heresy and has been refuted by all churches over a millennium ago, or were you not aware that Arians denied the divinity of Christ…?

[Anonymous No.22707817]

>>22707793
So let me get this straight. You idiots think you can ape the theology of orthodox Christianity and somehow evade the affirmation of orthodox Christianity, but simultaneously repeating arguments that are considered literally and objectively true is somehow just aping the first person to articulate those arguments? Do you not see how contradictory this is? I don’t know if you’re an atheist, but this is why people hate atheists by the way. They commonly endorse A when it suits their ends and then deny A when it suits their ends, and then they just pretend that they’re not contradicting themselves.

[Anonymous No.22707829]

>>22707722
https://youtu.be/mZgzED3o4LM?si=rBXNnV0tB4o_Vjxu
This guy is clearly not intelligent, my guy. He seemingly cannot even grasp the arguments of the person he’s debating even though they’re totally clear.

[Anonymous No.22707841]

>>22707812
>>22707817
Christianity is not a pure philosophical system like Platonism. If I accepted all of the philosophical tenets of Platonism, I would have to be a Platonist, because Platonism is just a philosophical system. However, Christianity also makes historical claims WHICH YOU CANNOT DENY WITHOUT CEASING TO BE A CHRISTIAN. That is, a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed 2000 years ago, he was born of a virgin, he was God, he suffered and was crucified, he established a Church, he rose again, and moreover all of this made it possible for us to save our souls. Christians do not see this as a mere metaphor for some philosophical reality, but an actual thing which happened and which people must accept in order to be a Christian.

Accepting all of Jay’s arguments only brings us to the view that a Trinitarian God exists and that the essence-energies distinction is valid. It does not support any of those historical claims.

You asserted you are “explaining something to me”. But you’re not. You’re doing the same thing Dyer does: just confidently asserting that “you just can’t” accept the Trinity and the essence-energies distinction without being Orthodox. You have to make an argument for that proposition, rather than asserting it as obvious. Since you’re a Dyerite you presumably like naming the fallacy: your fallacy is called argument from incredulity. Because you declare something to be “obvious” does not make it so. You must put forward a REASON for it.

N.B. I don’t think Jay Dyer’s arguments even establish the Trinity, since emanationism to me is a more elegant philosophical doctrine. But I don’t even need to get into that until you and Dyer admit that he hasn’t proven Christianity and his argument is a total non-sequitur.

[Anonymous No.22707844]

>>22707743
> So you accept that this guy had good arguments that refute atheism, and you accept that this guy had good arguments that in so far as you accept a triune God that orthodoxy is the coherent account, but you don’t accept that middle territory, between conviction that atheism is false and conviction that orthodoxy trinitarianism, is true? I just searched quickly on YouTube and found the guy addressing monism, Platonism, polytheism, Buddhism, Islam. So what exactly is that middle territory that you think is left unaddressed?
Jay doesn’t really address eastern philosophies but he just tries to generalize them into a few broad categories which allows him to make strawman arguments against them, but this is not any real refutation of them or any convincing demonstration of any incoherency in them.

Let us just take one example, Hinduism. There are multiple kinds of Hindu philosophy and theology, Jay’s videos only argue against his weak and cursory knowledge of only one specific kind of Hindu philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, but there are other kinds of metaphysically different and more theistic kinds of Hinduism which Jay doesn’t provide any argument against and which the argument he uses wouldn’t apply to (e.g. Vishishtadvaita)

Moreover, the main single argument that he tries to use against that Hindu school (that you can’t really know anything if le distinction isn’t real) is kind of based on a misunderstanding of what they teach and that eastern school has an answer which shows that there is incoherency or inconsistency (Brahman’s power generating the universe-illusion accounts for and permits for the possibility of the experience of all empirical knowledge, as well as of God-realization and enlightenment, to say otherwise is placing an arbitrary restraint on what God/Brahman’s power can do) and I’ve even pointed this out to Jay-posters before and they have no answer to this, sometimes some of them will say “b-but how do you k-know that’s true” and the answer to this is that the doctrines are sourced from scripture and as a member of said religion it’s axiomatic that the scripture reveals the true nature of things, just as in Christianity and most religions.

In the same way in which Jay’s “engagement” with Hindu thought is an intellectual embarrassment, I suspect the same is true of the other eastern schools and their rich variety.

[Anonymous No.22707853]

>>22707760
>“I can just ape orthodox Christianity and accept all of the necessary presuppositions included in orthodox Christianity and nowhere else without calling myself an orthodox Christian”
I mean, yeah? Dyer isn't trying to convince people that this nebulous "Eastern Orthodoxy" is true, he's an e-celeb on the internet bloodsports debate circuit. He's trying to humiliate and "own" other internet bloodsports e-celebs for the amusement of the audience. Not that it matters because there's nothing in "Eastern Orthodoxy" that's not either found in a non-Abrahamic religion at an earlier date or the result of Jewish mythology.

>>22707738
>Christianity is a religion which affirms various contingent historical events, and these historical events are integral to Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, died on the cross for our sins, rose again, inspired the Bible, etc. etc.. It is not purely a philosophical system. There is no serious argument you can bring forward that would say unless you believe in these historical events you cannot have a consistent worldview. And yet Jay Dyer attempts to do just that.
I think we're seeing an increasing awareness of the gap between Jewish mythology and the Hellenistic philosophical tradition that continues into Christianity. It's something people like Dyer are deeply aware of, and quite frankly embarrassed by. Like, when confronted with MUH IRON CHARIOTS or MUH CHEMOSH these people just throw a temper tantrum rather than trying to demonstrate the "hidden message" or something. They don't seem to value the Hellenistic philosophy over the Jewish mythology, they're just embarrassed to be a "normal Christian" and only care about the Jewish mythology.

it leads to a sort of intellectual sterility: they're just doing the same stuff as the Neochristians in the early 2000s, but namedropping Plato a bit more. Like, look at this shit, one of these videos is about how Pirates of the Caribbean is Freemasonic propaganda lmfao.

[Anonymous No.22707859]

>>22707841
>just confidently asserting that “you just can’t” accept the Trinity and the essence-energies distinction without being Orthodox
Isn't this just a more articulate form of that thing that Muslims do, where they say that you simply CANNOT think that theft is bad without also professing Tawhid and the validity of the Hadith. It's interesting how many defense of Christianity originate in Islam, tbqh. A lot of modern Christian apologetics comes from WLC taking historical Islamic apologetics and retooling it for the modern era.

[Anonymous No.22707860]

>>22707844
* which shows that there is NO incoherency or inconsistency

[Anonymous No.22707885]

>>22707841
What is your argument exactly? Christians accept that they are able to know things precisely because the Son really did walk on this earth. They do not believe that a system of knowledge leads us to the conclusion that event happened. If they tried to do that, they would have no basis for how they know what they know. So you have it backwards. The Christian account of the trinity is merely an explanation of the details and not some system for which the ultimate conclusion is the God-man. The God-man came first. The God-man makes all knowledge possible in the first place. Classic atheist mistake because they always ascribe the same limits and powers of human reason to the divine mind, which is a fallacy. However, these are in fact supporting arguments. If the claim is that Jesus Christ really did exist, really was God, and really did establish the covenant in question, then using theology and philosophy to explain exactly how that conceptually worked out is indeed a supporting argument because it demonstrates that is coherent, which is the whole point of what he’s doing. If Jesus claimed to be God and then said a bunch of things that couldn’t be justified with theology, then you would say the theology doesn’t support it. That’s the inverse. So you’re just cherry picking this definition of “support”. In this case, it’s to establish coherence so you’re just being disingenuous. Furthermore, you can’t just ape the essential attributes of a system and then pretend it’s possible to not have beliefs which correspond to that system. You’re aping the system as a matter of fact. If I say I accept the triune God, and then A condition is necessary for a coherent account of the triune God, I can’t go and say “oh I accept the account of the triune God but I don’t accept your particular account” if your particular account is the only one which contains A in a coherent manner. The whole system falls apart if you do that and you’re wrong by default. Similarly, you can’t say “Oh I accept the account of the triune God and condition A which makes it coherent (along with all of these other conditions which are exclusive to your system) but I totally don’t accept your system, bro”. Yes, you do lol. You just say you dont. To illustrate a real example: if I say I accept the triune God because it’s biblical, as all Christians accept, and then I accept all of these necessary conditions which both I and orthodox Christians accept are biblical as well”, but then I say “Oh, I’m not an orthodox Christian though” the first thing an orthodox Christian will ask is “Okay, where did your Bible come from” and the undeniably true answer will be from the Orthodox Church. So at bottom, all I’m doing is along their religion while pretending I don’t belong to it, which is just contradictory. You’re just doing the religion. And there are a whole series of arguments like that.

[Anonymous No.22707896]

>>22707844
I found videos of him addressing eastern philosophies on YouTube in a minute or less. You’re just lying. If there isn’t a video about Hinduism in particular, there’s a video which addresses polytheism, and if you can’t draw the connection between Hinduism and polytheism and see how critique of one applies to the other, then you’re just hopeless. I found a critique of Buddhism almost immediately. The critiques of monism, Platonism, etc. seem to apply to it also.

[Anonymous No.22707903]

>>22707885
>Christians accept that they are able to know things precisely because the Son really did walk on this earth.
Right. His point is that Dyer never makes the case for Jesus actually walking on the Earth.

>They do not believe that a system of knowledge leads us to the conclusion that event happened..
Right. Dyer IS arguing this.

>If they tried to do that, they would have no basis for how they know what they know.
Exactly his point.

>So you have it backwards.
No, YOU have it backwards. His point is that Dyer makes all these arguments about these abstract philosophical systems that are logically coherent (supposedly), but he never actually makes the case for why this logically coherent philosophical system is true as opposed to some other logically coherent philosophical system.

[Anonymous No.22707906]

>>22707853
These people are retards. They don’t understand philosophy or theology. They don’t want to understand. They don’t want a serious debate but couldn’t arrive at a critical conclusion even if they wanted to. It’s hopeless to engage with them. I mean, look at how fucking bad that last paragraph is. God, I hope these people are just young.

[Anonymous No.22707908]

>>22707896
>e-celeb fanboy thinks that hinduism, buddhism, platonism, monism, and polytheism are all the same thing
Oh man are you in for a wild ride once you get sick of the secret ortholarp debate discord lmfao

[Anonymous No.22707912]

>>22707844
Yeah, Jay is a really poor scholar. He is a strange character in that despite being low IQ and utterly closed-minded he reads a lot and likes to spout off things that sound smart from his script. But he has no capacity to think for himself, nor, I take it, is he interested in reading things that go against his perspective. There aren't many such people in the world, who like to read and can regurgitate texts and yet possess 0 intellectual curiosity or sharpness. That's why he's such a paradox.

[Anonymous No.22707917]

>>22707896
What about the non-monistic forms of Buddhism? What about the non-monistic forms of Hinduism? And why would you assume that generic discussions of badly misunderstood Semitic polytheism and Platonism have anything to do with Hindu or Buddhist polytheism?

[Anonymous No.22707921]

>>22707903
You’re an actual mouth-breathing retard. Did you actually read the reply? It’s not possible to make a philosophical case for Jesus walking the earth. That real event is a necessary condition for philosophy to be possible at all. Nobody can make a philosophical argument for historical events at all. That’s not even conceivably possible, and this is the orthodox Christian’s whole point. If you don’t accept that all of this really happened and all of this really happened in precisely this way that we orthodox and we orthodox alone, claim then all knowledge is necessarily totally impossible. This guy does not accept that Jesus was God because of philosophy. The philosophy is merely used to explain how it was that Jesus was God and how we know things about that. His whole argument, which you totally failed to grasp even though it’s painfully obvious is that THERE ARE NO OTHER COHERENT PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS.

[Anonymous No.22707927]

>>22707908
> retard thinks Buddhism doesn’t posit an impersonal absolute

[Anonymous No.22707932]

>>22707917
Like what? If it’s dualistic, it’s been refuted. If it’s not monistic or dualistic, it’s just aping the Christian faith or else it’s incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22707942]

>>22707921
Assuming knowledge is possible is not a controversial claim.
>If you don’t accept that all of this really happened and all of this really happened in precisely this way that we orthodox and we orthodox alone, claim then all knowledge is necessarily totally impossible
So we accept knowledge is possible and you're claiming knowledge is impossible without Jesus. That is a philosophical argument for God. It's not even remotely correct but it's a philosophical argument without any need for historical facts.
>Assume A
>Show that A can't exist without B
>Therefore B

[Anonymous No.22707952]

>>22707885
>Furthermore, you can’t just ape the essential attributes of a system and then pretend it’s possible to not have beliefs which correspond to that system. You’re aping the system as a matter of fact.
Ok, well this is my final response.

Just because the existence of a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is essential (necessary) to Orthodox Christianity, does not mean that it is sufficient to establish Orthodox Christianity. Being a feline is necessary to be a tiger, but it is not sufficient. There are more things to Orthodox Christianity than simply those two claims, since it also makes historical claims which are not provable philosophically.

If you claim that the Trinity and the essence-energies distinction is inseparable from believing that Jesus of Nazareth was God and died for our sins, in your response I want to see an argument like this:

1. There exists a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is valid,
2. [Some proposition which connects the first premise and the conclusion]
3. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth was God and died for our sins.

If you don't have such an argument Jay Dyer's case is invalid.

I cannot spell things out for you any clearer.

[Anonymous No.22707963]

>>22707942
It is a controversial claim when your system renders it a contradictory assumption. I can’t, for example, deny that immaterial categories which justify my system exist and then my system is one which denies the ontological existence immateriality entirely. That is totally incoherent, but atheists do that implicitly all the time, even though they might not realize that. The accusation is that you’re implicitly doing something along those lines. So yes, it is controversial. You can’t just assume knowledge is possible and then claim to know things, but fail to give any account at all for how knowledge is possible. How can you know anything if it’s just assumed and you don’t really know how or even if knowledge is possible? Obviously you can’t.

[Anonymous No.22707981]

>>22707908
kek

>>22707896
> You’re just lying.
No, I'm saying his "engagement" with them is superficial and doesn't address the counter-arguments which the adherents of those things would say, and moreover it can be shown in some cases that his argument fails to refute them or show them to be inconsistent.

>and if you can’t draw the connection between Hinduism and polytheism and see how critique of one applies to the other, then you’re just hopeless
Most Hindus follow Hindu schools and traditions which posit there to be one Absolute God and that other 'gods' are more like created or sculpted angels. And Jay's argument against monism is not a good or strong argument against non-dual Vedanta or non-dual Shaivism because there are elements of their doctrine that account for what Jay tries to complain about.

[Anonymous No.22707987]

>>22707963
>So yes, it is controversial.
No it's not. Even making an argument assumes knowledge is possible.
>You can’t just assume knowledge is possible and then claim to know things, but fail to give any account at all for how knowledge is possible
Yes you most definitely can assume knowledge is possible without giving an account of it. Assuming anything requires knowledge to be possible. What is impossible is giving an account of knowledge without assuming it to be possible. Any claims about God being necessary for knowledge to be possible already assume knowledge to be possible when they even make the claim. It's goofy as hell.

[Anonymous No.22707990]

>>22707952
It does mean that.
1) If a series of claims are necessary and 2) those claims are exclusive to system A
3) Then any time you make a claim for which the aforementioned claims are a necessary condition, you’re implicitly accepting system A and it’s not conceivably possible to do otherwise without being self-refuting. All other systems are excluded as a matter of logical necessity given 1 and 2. You can try to dispute 1 and 2 (and fail) if you want, but you can’t dispute that given 1 and given 2 that 3 must be the case.

[Anonymous No.22708009]

>>22707921
>It’s not possible to make a philosophical case for Jesus walking the earth.
Right, as he said.

>That real event is a necessary condition for philosophy to be possible at all.
Well, you're going to have to make that argument, but I will grant you this: Jesus having walked upon the Earth is necessary for the logically coherent (or so it is claimed) system of Christianity to be TRUE, not just logically coherent.

>Nobody can make a philosophical argument for historical events at all
Right, and that's his point: Dyer makes no case for Jesus being an actually true person, he just argues that Eastern Orthodoxy is logically coherent, not that Jesus actually existed.

You should have read the actual posts in question before sperging out about your e-celeb.

[Anonymous No.22708011]

>>22707987
This such a simple argument. I’m really getting frustrated. We agree that people assume that knowledge is possible when they make an argument. What I’m pointing out is that Christians, when they make an argument, do so in a coherent and non-contradictory manner precisely because they don’t merely assume knowledge but also give an account for knowledge, what it is, how it’s possible and everything proceeds from that. You, not being a Christian, don’t give any account at all. You just assume, baselessly. It can be said that you assume, but you don’t actually know knowledge is possible because you failed to give an account and if you don’t actually know knowledge is possible, then you must also admit then anything you would argue from the starting point that knowledge is possible has to be said to necessarily also not really be known either. So you can’t actually know anything at all and that’s built into your system. It’s self-refuting. That is the difference.

I mean, think about how dumb it is to say “you can assume knowledge possible, without giving an account for it”. How do you know? LOL.

[Anonymous No.22708017]

>>22707927
The forms of Buddhism that don't do not, yes.

>>22707932
>it's been refuted
Oof, you might want to tell Dyer that.

[Anonymous No.22708022]

>>22708011
>I’m really getting frustrated
We can tell. You should probably take a breather.

[Anonymous No.22708039]

>>22708011
>How do you know? LOL.
The very fact of one wondering about the question is a mental knowledge, which, by virtue of being a kind of knowledge at all, has already demonstrated the possibility of knowledge by its very occurrence. Do Jay Dyer fags have thoughts without being aware that their thoughts are a kind of knowledge? Do they have no knowledge of their own mind and thoughts? Are they NPCs?

[Anonymous No.22708049]

>>22708011
So give the Christian account of knowledge being possible without also assuming knowledge exists. I guess it's going to be some grunting and wild gesticulation. If you can't show knowledge is possible without first assuming knowledge is possible you've shown nothing at all and are on the same page as atheists in just assuming knowledge is possible.
>Assume God doesn't exist
>Elaborate argument to show God doesn't exist using your assumption
>Therefore God doesn't exist
This not a valid form of argument. Proving your assumption using your assumption is stupid.

[Anonymous No.22708052]

>>22708009
You’re making a fundamental error. You’re demanding reason walk you to the conclusion that God is real, that Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, all of these other things, but the central thesis of orthodox Christianity is that reason alone is insufficient. Reason can never get you to full truth. Reason can help you explain how all of this happened, why it happened, why this is all coherent and not contradictory, but it can’t make you conclude that it really did happen. That’s a problem of the heart and not the mind. You have to open your heart to the possibility that it really is real, and that makes reason possible, and then reason can just put everything else in place. You can’t go in reverse. God first must exist and create logical principles in order for us to be able to use them to say logical things about God.

Now, people will protest, well if you can’t reason the truth then it must be false. Again, a failure of the heart, but also of reason. Because reason alone ends in relativity. If you only arrived at truthfulness via reason, you would in actuality have no truth at all. Because you can’t reason your way to the existence and validity of reason. You need the whole thing heart + mind for reason to be useful in saying truthful things about things. So you’re left with 2 options: opening your heart, or getting stuck in abject skepticism where the reasoning faculties fail and you must admit that you don’t actually know anything about anything.

[Anonymous No.22708061]

>>22708052
>Reason can never get you to full truth.
Right, and Dyer argues that it can. All the other anon and I are asking for then is proof that Jesus was a real person who actually existed. Dyer doesn't provide it.

[Anonymous No.22708067]

>>22708039
All you’ve done is stated that some phenomena (that you seem to be “knowing” something) is occurring. You’ve not demonstrated how you know, what it is to know, whether knowing is possible, or even how you know that the aforementioned phenomena is even really occurring.

Answer the question. You seem to be knowing things right? How do you know that? Let me guess. You know because you seem to be knowing things. And how do you know that you seem to be knowing things about your seeming to be knowing things. Well, I can guess at that answer too. You seem to be knowing.

And this is supposed to be non-circular and non-contradictory…

[Anonymous No.22708072]

>>22708052
>Reason can never get you to full truth
>God first must exist and create logical principles in order for us to be able to use them to say logical things about God.
Already addressed this here >>22707942. This is a logical argument for God that uses no historical facts at all. It's an incorrect argument but if you accept it, it directly contradicts your claim that reason alone can't lead to God.

[Anonymous No.22708080]

>>22708049
It’s revealed. Specifically, what is revealed.

Ironically, you’re the one stuck in proving your assumption with an assumption. You’re stuck in circularity but don’t even realize it.

[Anonymous No.22708083]

>>22707743
His Buddhism videos aren't really about Buddhism, they're just him jerking off about "Eastern Orthodoxy". He doesn't really address Buddhist philosophy or theology in any meaningful way except by misunderstanding whether the universe is open or close and mistakenly conflating an infinite causal series with an infinite historical process.

[Anonymous No.22708090]

>>22708061
No, he doesn’t. You can go ahead and cite where he does, but I know you can’t because he doesn’t. Proof means nothing to you anyway because for you knowledge is impossible and so proof is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22708091]

>>22707990
Well thanks for the reasonable response.

I have to take issue with what you said though. My particular concern is this:
>those claims are exclusive to system A

Now, there are two ways in which a claim can be exclusive to a particular "system". One is logically, the other is historically.

Logically: a claim is logically exclusive to a particular "system" if and only if that claim implies the system. Ie. that claim logically entails that system and no other. It cannot be made to fit with any other system. For example: the claim that God does not exist is logically exclusive to the system of atheism, it cannot be made to fit with theism.

Historically: a claim can also be historically exclusive to a particular system. That just means that the tradition under discussion has historically been the only one to make the claim, but the claim considered on its own does not have to be tied to that particular tradition.

The only way your argument works is if you believe that the existence of a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is LOGICALLY exclusive to Orthodox Christianity. If it is only historically exclusive to it, then other people can adopt the claim without becoming Orthodox Christians if they so want to.

So what do we know so far from our considerations? According to you, the claim that "there exists a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is valid" logically entails the rest of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, since it is logically exclusive to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Right?

Well, that implies that just by assuming that "there exists a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is valid" you can derive any other necessary component of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. (This is what logical entailment means).

So my challenge to you is to assume:
1. There exists a Trinitarian God and the essence-energies distinction is valid.

And without assuming anything further derive:
Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth, who lived in Israel 2000 years ago, was God and died for our sins.

If you cannot complete this challenge, it follows that the claim is not logically exclusive to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. But if that is true, then it is only historically exclusive to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Which means that establishing the truth of that claim is not equivalent to establishing the truth of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

If you have a problem with this reasoning, please tell me where I went wrong.

[Anonymous No.22708092]

>>22708067
>And this is supposed to be non-circular and non-contradictory…
No it's an assumption that knowledge is possible. Give your non-circular proof that knowledge is possible. Note that you can't use a proof because proofs assume knowledge is possible. Your position is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22708093]

>>22708083
>misunderstanding whether the universe is open or close and mistakenly conflating an infinite causal series with an infinite historical process.
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.22708100]

>>22708090
>No, he doesn’t
Correct, he doesn't.

>but I know you can’t because he doesn’t.
Right, he doesn't, like I said.

>Proof means nothing to you anyway because for you knowledge is impossible and so proof is meaningless.
I'm not sure what you mean, I believe that knowledge is absolutely possible, it's why I'm not Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodoxy is irrational and logically incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22708102]

>>22708072
You’re just wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. What’s being argued are the particular details of a worldview which established via revelation and divine grace. It’s not a series of arguments A, B, and C leading to C conclusion.

By the way, what does it mean to talk about historical “facts” if you subscribe to a philosophical system that renders facts of any kind meaningless? You can’t know anything, remember?

[Anonymous No.22708105]

>>22708080
>Ironically, you’re the one stuck in proving your assumption with an assumption.
Huh? I assume knowledge exists. I'm not trying to prove it. You are trying to prove it in an illogical manner by assuming what you're trying to prove. Show me your proof that knowledge exists without first assuming knowledge exists.

[Anonymous No.22708106]

>>22708083
> not about Buddhism
https://youtu.be/0qp78lR5QDE?si=3pTEht31RDPvsNrs
Took me 30 seconds to find and 10 min to watch, you lazy lying fuck

[Anonymous No.22708116]

>>22708102
>It’s not a series of arguments A, B, and C leading to C conclusion.
Again if God is necessary for knowledge to exist and you assume knowledge exists that is a clear logical argument for God. It's trivially wrong but it does not depend on any historical facts.
>You can’t know anything, remember?
I assume you can know things just like you assume you can know things.

[Anonymous No.22708124]

>>22708093
Jewish mythology posits that we live upon the flat side of a short cone; this cone is capped by the Firmament, a half-circle. There's nothing outside of that circle except Yahweh. The universe is "closed" in that there is a finite amount of space in it, but also in as much as there is an edge. Christians argue that Yahweh created the world at the beginning of time, and the universe as such is a closed discrete thing: metaphorically, if your hand was big enough you could hold it in your hand.

Buddhists, meanwhile, believe that the universe is an open network of multiverses (I'm talking about Mahayana here but Dyer doesn't know that there's a difference). The universe can't have a beginning as it's simply existence, anything that exists is the universe, meaning that there's no distinction between this creator deity and its creation or what created it and so on.

An infinite regress (I meant to say this instead of infinite causal series, but it works) is when you have point A, and point B, and it takes an infinite number of steps to move between them. This is indeed logically incoherent if you believe, as Abrahamics do, that we live in a closed universe. If you believe in an open universe, it makes no sense to talk about a point of "creation" of the universe because the creator is also "part of" the universe. Likewise, Buddhist cosmology posits a means by which cyclical universe creation can occur, which absolutely accepts that universe are created and die, they just lead to more universe and come from more universes.

[Anonymous No.22708142]

>>22708124
Dyers main argument, drawing on general Evangelical apologetics concerning Buddhism, is that Buddhism's lack of a creator deity is "incoherent" because Jewish mythology says that the universe is closed. Buddhists reject that claim because they have a fundamentally different view of what "universe" means (again, the universe is not "our dimension" but rather the sum total of literally everything that exists). In comparative religion (which Dyer apparently rejects on the grounds that it's Freemasonic) this distinction is the "Deus vs Brahman" distinction: Brahman is Ishvara plus Cosmos, whereas Deus is just Ishvara. Under the Buddhist conception of the universe, there's many creator deities, and you don't even really need one at all because the universe isn't a single thing but rather an (infinite) collection of things.

This debate over whether there are actual infinities or not predates Christianity by several centuries and was being debated by the earliest strata of Greek philosophers.

>>22708106
Correct, this is the video I was referring to. That and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVN8xFITiTU

[Anonymous No.22708159]

>>22708091
No, because you’re making a mistake in believing that the only thing which I assign exclusively to the orthodox faith are a trinitarian conception of God, specifically the essence-energies distinction. That’s just one of the attributes. Yes, I agree that the essence-energies distinction is necessary in order for the account of the trinitarian God to be coherent, but it’s not the only thing which is necessary. So truthfully, it’s not any one particular attribute of orthodox theology, but the unique collective that the various attributes make up.

But more importantly, I do have a problem with your reasoning because what you’re basically challenging me to do is use theological arguments to prove the things from which those theological arguments derive. That doesn’t make any sense. The reason orthodox Christians believe in the trinity is not because philosophically that’s what seems to give a true account for reality, although it does seem to do that. The reason orthodox Christians believe in the trinity is that is the ultimate conclusion you must draw given the real incarnation and divinity of Jesus Christ, per history, and most importantly, per revelation. You seem to think we’re starting from philosophical debate as a step 1. Orthodox Christians are not doing that. The philosophical debate is step 2 because we use philosophy to explain all of these things and then to go on and critique other worldviews, but we don’t use it to justify faith in Jesus Christ. And this isn’t merely assumed. The point is that this particular conception of God is revealed and it’s really important to note that that this conception of God that’s revealed is precisely the sort of God that allows for philosophy in the first place, that allows for the possibility of reason, that allows for knowledge, even revealed knowledge at all. Christians aren’t called to believe in Christ because some philosophical principles establish the truthfulness of Christ. Christians are called to belief in Christ because Christ establishes the truthfulness of philosophical principles. And furthermore, I would have to point out that there is no ontological basis for truth which could be arrived at in the way you described. Knowledge has to be made divinely possible first in order for us to use it. Otherwise, it’s self-referential and unjustified and thus not really knowledge.

[γρηγορεύω !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22708160]

>>22707829
There is no presupposition required to have a grounding for an argument. The law of identityh (A=A) is immediately certain and evident.

[Anonymous No.22708162]

>>22708142
Sorry, I worded this poorly, the argument goes like this:
>the universe is closed
>ergo it is not finite
>ergo it has to have a point of creation
>ergo you can't have an infinite historical process because that would mean an infinite number of steps between when it was created and now
>and you can't have an infinite anything in a finite space
Buddhists reject the idea that the universe is closed, thereby allowing for an infinite historical procession of universes. Dyer doesn't get this because he doesn't actually know what Buddhists think, he's just aware that it's a sort of vague ascetic polytheism out there.

This is actually kind of funny because while he seems to get that "Buddhism" is vaguely monistic he's not aware that the Theravada school is deeply pluralistic. I personally find this rather humorous because I'm someone who actually enjoys learning about philosophy and religion which he doesn't seem to be.

[Anonymous No.22708169]

>>22708092
> I know things
> how do you know
> logical principles, reasoning faculties, etc. allow me to know things
> how do you know logical principles, reasoning faculties, etc. allow you to know things
> God created them
> how do you know God created them
> It was revealed
> how do you know it was revealed
> the God that was revealed makes these things possible
> aren’t you relying on your logical principles, reasoning faculties, etc. to understand this
> No
> then how do you know
> Faith in Jesus Christ
There’s nothing circular about this

[Anonymous No.22708173]

>>22708100
> Dyer argues that it can
> “No, he doesn’t”
> Right, I said he doesn’t argue that it can
???

[Anonymous No.22708178]

>>22708105
I know you assume knowledge exists, but how do you know that you assume that? You just assume that it exists and that’s how you know that you assume that it exists. A clearer demonstration of circularity there couldn’t be.

[Anonymous No.22708182]

>>22708169
>There’s nothing circular about this
It's circular from the very beginning. In even presenting an argument you're assuming knowledge exists. That's why you're arguing an incoherent position. It is impossible to make an argument(which implicitly assumes knowledge exists) for why knowledge exists without it being circular. Is what you just a wrote a form of knowledge yes or no?

[Anonymous No.22708187]

>>22708116
No, it’s not an argument for God. If I say logic exists you say “how do you know logic exists” and I say it’s necessary for logic to exist in order for me to do logic, that’s not an argument for logic. I’m merely stating that in order for this other thing Y to be the case, X must be the case as well so if Y is in question, you’re just simply not making a positive argument in favor of X. You’re merely demonstrating that Y is retarded if X isn’t the case without making any positive case for X and thus Y.

[Anonymous No.22708195]

>>22708178
>I know you assume knowledge exists, but how do you know that you assume that? You just assume that it exists and that’s how you know that you assume that it exists.
Rofl so you're going to run to me not knowing what I know? How do you know what you know? Any argument you provide I'm just going to ask how you know that you know that? This kind of goofy radical skepticism applied only to opponent's argument is deeply intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.22708196]

>>22708142
So what’s the issue? He correctly states that if you posit an impersonal absolute, knowledge is impossible, including the knowledge of an impersonal absolute. He also correctly points out that to say the only thing I can’t doubt is that I doubt, assumes a whole bunch of things that are never doubted lol. Same problem with Descartes.

[Anonymous No.22708203]

>>22708160
Oh okay well then I don’t need any presuppositions for the argument that Christianity is true. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.22708208]

>>22708182
No, I’m not. The waterfall of epistemological grounding works from the bottom up, not the top down. We start with basic particular claims and then you challenge my presuppositions until we get to the bedrock of my belief. Even if it were circular right from the start that wouldn’t even be an issue because that’s not what’s in question. It’s the end that’s in question. Is the foundation of belief circular? You can see that it’s not.

[Anonymous No.22708214]

>>22708187
>If I say logic exists you say “how do you know logic exists” and I say it’s necessary for logic to exist in order for me to do logic, that’s not an argument for logic.
We're both assuming logic exists. If logic depends on God existing and logic exists that is a direct logical argument for God. Are you not assuming logic exists? That would make your argument illogical by definition.

[Anonymous No.22708220]

>>22708195
I know what I know because I’m created in God’s image, which is revealed, and I know what’s revealed because what is revealed is a God that makes that not only possible but sensible. No problem if circularity at all.

[Anonymous No.22708223]

>>22708208
You didn't answer my question was wrote you knowledge or not? It it was the argument assumes knowledge exists by the arguments very existence.

[Anonymous No.22708226]

>>22708220
>I know what I know because I’m created in God’s image, which is revealed, and I know what’s revealed because what is revealed is a God that makes that not only possible but sensible.
But how do you know that you know that? You see the infinite regress you've brought up by trying to dodge my argument.

[Anonymous No.22708227]

>>22708159
I understand that you believe that presupposing the truth of Christianity is the only way to have a valid epistemology.

My problem is that the conclusion you draw is too ambitious.

At best, if we accept all of Dyer's arguments, we have a bunch of metaphysical commitments that are necessary to presuppose in order to have a valid epistemology. These would include things such as the Trinity, the essence-energy distinction, the personal nature of God, etc..

I maintain that these commitments will never include the contingent historical claims of Christianity, such as "Jesus of Nazareth, a particular man who lived in Israel 2000 years ago, was God and died for our sins."

And therefore, it is not necessary to presuppose Christianity to have a valid epistemology, but, at best, it is necessary to presuppose some metaphysical truths which are similar to the ones Christianity makes.

You claimed that these commitments were "exclusive to Orthodox Christianity". But, as I said, historical exclusivity is not enough, and so you must demonstrate that they are logically exclusive to Christianity, which you seem unable to do.

[Anonymous No.22708234]

>>22708214
We are both assuming logic exists but only I have good reason to assume logic exists. I don’t merely assume exists. In other words, I don’t really just assume logic exists. I accept that it exists because the implication from the knowledge that God imparted to me is that it exists. You don’t have any reason to assume it exists at all. You just assume it baselessly.
So when you say that when I say God is necessary for logic to exist, therefore assuming logic exists is an argument for God, you’re wrong. I’m not merely assuming God exists and if I was, it wouldn’t be an argument that God does exist because I would still have to justify my assumption of logic for that to be the case. I don’t believe in God because I assume logic exists. I assume logic exists because I believe in God. And that’s a big difference.

[Anonymous No.22708241]

>>22708226
No, I don’t because my argument is ultimately rooted in faith. I take reasonable argumentation as high as it can go and then let go of it, choosing instead to open my heart and that’s how I have access to objective knowledge. So there’s no problem of infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.22708244]

>>22708234
>I don’t merely assume exists. In other words, I don’t really just assume logic exists
I've asked you several times to give the argument you have for knowledge existing without also assuming knowledge exists. You've yet to provide it.
>You just assume it baselessly.
As do you when you make any argument. You literally can't make an argument without assuming knowledge exists.

[Anonymous No.22708247]

>>22708241
>No, I don’t because my argument is ultimately rooted in faith.
So it's just as baseless as my in assuming I know what I know. We're on the same level.
>So there’s no problem of infinite regress.
Sure if you just assume or have faith you know what you know. I assume I know what I know.

[Anonymous No.22708262]

>>22708196
Ironically he explains why you're wrong about what he believes in the video in >>22708106. Buddhists don't believe that the universe is an impersonal absolute, so yes you absolutely can have knowledge about the universe. More importantly you can have knowledge about things in the universe, which is all Buddhists need. You could call Nirvana an impersonal absolute, but Nirvana is a state, it's not a thing, and you can have knowledge of it you just can't put it into words (something that Dyer, apparently if those two videos are anything to go off of, rejects as he believes that knowledge is strictly human natural language statements).

Anyways as stated the problem is that Dyer doesn't know anything about Buddhism (or Platonism if the video where he got BTFOd by that Platonist is any indication), so he's not really a good Christian apologist towards it, and anon's claim in >>22707743 that he "addressed" Buddhism is completely wrong (he doesn't know anything about Buddhism and doesn't address it except as some nebulous thing that "isn't Eastern Orthodoxy").

[Anonymous No.22708267]

>>22708262
I should add: the Idealist Mahayana argues that we can't know anything outside of minds anyways, which is something that Dyer (apparently if his videos are valid representations of what he believes, which Dyer fans don't believe?) rejects because something something something statements made by Jews are a special class of knowledge that we Just Have To Trust(TM). The less Idealist Mahayana holds that because of Indra's Net we are in actual contact with other things around us and as such can gain knowledge of them via said actual contact. The Theravada posits that mental phenomena occurs because of mind-dhammas so in a sense when you see something blue you actually have the blue of the thing "in your head".

Dyer doesn't address any of this because, y'know, he's just an e-celeb milking paypigs.

[Anonymous No.22708274]

>>22708106
Jay Dyer doesn't seem to understand that his personalist conception of God makes God into an agent of pure will. This view runs into all sorts of problems. If God is not Goodness itself, then either God is an arbitrarily powerful lawmaker or he is subservient to the Good. That latter implies that the Good is above God, and should be the focus of our devotion instead of God; whereas the former does not serve as a justification of epistemology since God could arbitrarily decide to deceive us at any time.

So it follows that God must be identical to Goodness, which is already a more abstract a-personal principle.

Furthermore, the question arises of why God created a finite world. The Christian assertion that it was just a "free choice" is pretty much the same as saying it was arbitrary. Platonic emanationism is much, much more eloquent of an explanation here.

>inb4 Dyerites respond "how do you know"
idiots.

[Anonymous No.22708281]

>>22708227
What exactly do you suppose my conclusion is? Because what I’m trying to make clear to you is that accepting the presupposing the truthfulness of Christianity is merely an intermediate step between really having access to knowledge at all and explaining the Christian account while refuting non-Christian accounts. It functions almost like language in that way. When I use language I say a word and it refers to some real thing and because it refers to a real thing that which word refers to it can be communicable between us and we can both be on the same page in regard to what’s being referred to. I.e. when I say “chair”, you know what I’m talking about because the real chair exists before I communicate the word which refers to it to you. Similarly, orthodox theology which presupposes its truthfulness is preceded by the real orthodox Christian God which allows me to presuppose anything at all. My presupposition is only like a part of a whole that is to the orthodox Christian God what the word “chair” is to a real chair.

I don’t see why you think Jesus wouldn’t also be a metaphysical commitment though. I’ve made clear that Jesus precedes all metaphysics but accepting that is as necessary a metaphysical commitment as the essence energy distinction which must be the case as well. You say it’s not and ever will be, but it is and you’ve not given any argument as to why the contrary is true.

Again, you’re called to belief in the deity of Christ not on some philosophical basis but the philosophical basis supports this belief. Can you conceive of a world without the trinity where you can know things? No you cannot. Therefore, any worldview which claims to know things which doesn’t posit the trinity is wrong. That’s one layer of exclusively right there. Can you posit a trinity which is possible without the essence energy-distinction? No, you cannot. Therefore, all conceptions of a trinitarian god which don’t accept the essence energies distinction are wrong. There’s another layer of exclusivity. And we do this so and on so forth with all of the Christian apologetics until we arrive at the holistic orthodox understanding by excluding those worldviews which are rendered wrong along these lines and for which we can say this set of attributes collectively is exclusive as a holistic worldview (I.e. Catholics might share X in common with Orthos and Prots might share Y in common with Orthos, but only Orthos have X and Y, making the combination of X and Y unique to Orthos). This is combination is what the YouTuber refers to as coherency.
1/2

[Anonymous No.22708293]

>>22708227
Also, you seem to take particular issue with Jesus Christ. It doesn’t seem like a conception of the trinity, God as the Father, God as the Holy Spirt, the essence-energies distinction any of these things are disagreeable to you. You only find the person of Jesus Christ disagree. But what I would say is that everything I said about exclusivity arising in orthodoxy also applies to Christ. Does the trinitarian conception of God make any sense without a third person with the Father and Holy Spirit? No, it doesn’t. So exclude any conception of the trinity which doesn’t offer a third person. Does any conception of this third person which doesn’t have the necessary attributes of a person make any sense? No it doesn’t. So and so forth until you arrive at the real historical figure of Jesus Christ as he was, per revelation which is how you know about this trinitarian God at all in the first place. And this is the key thing. You are called to believe in the figure of Christ not because the particular Christ that is conceived of is philosophically necessary or justified. Philosophy is merely used to explain exactly how Christ was Christ. You’re called to believe in Christ extra-philosophically. If God really is the source of of all knowledge, as it for Christians, and revelation really is the method by which God provides this knowledge to us, then the only thing you can know is precisely what’s revealed and what’s revealed is precisely Jesus Christ. In regard to that metaphysical accetance, whether this makes sense philosophically (which only proceeds from all this later) is secondary. The revealed Christ is superior the philosophically determined Christ.
2/2

[Anonymous No.22708294]

>>22708274
Go ahead and cite where he says God is not goodness.

How do you know is indeed a fair question…

[Anonymous No.22708301]

>>22707368
>mfw the world is 6000 years old
what a clown lmao

[Anonymous No.22708305]

>>22708262
Are you deaf? The guest describes exactly an impersonal absolute and goes on to liken the Buddhist view to Descartes, which he just eviscerates.

Honestly, I’ve started thinking Buddhists are just retarded because it seems like all of them are serious philosophical inquirers but just say atupid shit and have selective hearing and none of them really think about the challenges to their presuppositions. They just say stuff like “nuh uh nirvana is a state”. Are you a monist or not, bro? Do you believe in an impersonal absolute or not? Are distinctions real or are they not? If you’re a monist, if you posit an impersonal absolute, if distinctions aren’t real, etc. then you’ve refuted your own claims to knowledge. They evade these answers because they intuitively understand that Buddhism is self-refuting but can’t admit that to themselves. I suspect this is also why Buddhists love to declare that they believe in non-dualism but refuse to go into any particular positive description of that that is even though there necessarily must be one.

[Anonymous No.22708308]

>>22708244
I already did. You couldn’t parse it because you’re low IQ. Try reading through the chain again but carefully this time.

[Anonymous No.22708314]

>>22708247
You think faith is baseless?

[Anonymous No.22708322]

>>22708308
>I already did.
Where? Maybe it's a youtube link of you flailing around and frothing at the mouth. Because every post in this thread is a clear example of some type of knowledge and implicitly assumes knowledge exists. So where is your proof knowledge exists without using knowledge? I can't believe I'm even having to get you to admit you can't do something so clearly incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22708324]

>>22708305
>liken the Buddhist view to Descartes
Buddhists pretty categorically reject dualism. This is probably why you should actually look into Buddhism, or any topic, before having an opinion on it.

>Are you a monist or not, bro?
Some are, some aren't. We're talking about a 2,500 year old world religion here, there's a LOT of debate in Buddhism.

>Do you believe in an impersonal absolute or not?
Some do, some don't, not that Dyer's personal meme terminology has any meaning in the real world.

Anyways, it's pretty clear that you don't have any knowledge of Buddhism, so I'll recommend you some good literature on the topic: start with What The Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra.

[Anonymous No.22708328]

>>22708314
>You think faith is baseless?
Of course. You saying you have faith and me saying I assume are the exact same thing. If we both agree on what we're assuming all for the better.

[Anonymous No.22708329]

>>22708301
Sorry anon, but you can't have knowledge of anything unless you support genital mutilation and donate to my patreon.

[Anonymous No.22708333]

>>22708281
>>22708293
I don't believe that the specific story of Christ is necessary to presuppose in order to have a valid epistemology. What is the argument, stated in clear terms, which establishes this? Dyer doesn't give one, so I assume you have it.

[Anonymous No.22708338]

>>22708328
How do you know that?

[Anonymous No.22708339]

>>22708294
He claims God is a personal being who created out of pure will, as a "free choice". Goodness is an abstract principle that is not identical to a person.

[Anonymous No.22708353]

>>22708338
Is this you trying to hide back in the infinite regress mess or you asking about the definition of faith? Faith and assumptions are baseless.

[Anonymous No.22708373]

>>22708333
Why though? Other specific stories about Christ have been systematically dealt with and refuted. So if you accept those refutations, what other story about Christ would you accept? If you don’t accept those refutations, why?

Again, Christians believe in Christ and the trinity more broadly because they have faith in revealed knowledge and that’s what revelation says, but as for how we can know things via a reason, the triune God is necessary because that’s the sort of God that allows us to know things via a reasoning faculties. If you look at Islam, for example, they conceive of a singular personed (for lack of a better word) God which is strictly nothing like any creature at all. So there’s Allah and then there’s creation, and impenetrable wall between the two. If Allah is the only person of Allah and creatures are strictly nothing like Allah at all, how can our reasoning faculties know anything about Allah? Our reasoning faculties and Allah would necessarily be exclusive. So knowledge about Allah would be impossible and since Allah justified knowledge in general, knowledge in general would be impossible. You’d have no way of knowing that Muhammed sayings were divinely inspired truth and not merely delusions because Muhammed would not have any access to Allah. So you’d choose to belief, but the belief wouldn’t be philosophically sound. Meanwhile, Christians suppose that we receive grace by way of the Holy Spirit and that in part allows us to be able to know and say things about God and also in part by the real human person of Jesus Christ, who told us about God and was reliably not because he was strictly human but because he was both human and God. So that problem in Islam that renders knowledge impossible is not a problem for Christians.

It’s not any one singular argument. It’s this whole worldview which works together in a coherent and non-contradictory fashion.

[Anonymous No.22708378]

>>22708353
I’m serious. How do you know that faith is baseless? To say that it’s baseless implies you have access to some object truth which makes that clear, so I want to know what it is and how you know it.

[Anonymous No.22708383]

>>22708339
I asked you to cite it not to summarize what he said.

[Anonymous No.22708394]

>>22708378
>How do you know that faith is baseless?
How do you know assumptions are baseless? It's the definition of the words. And besides you jumped on faith and it's baselessness to avoid the infinite regress pit. If you're now saying you know of a base for your faith you're back in it, how do you know that you know the base of your faith? Your whole position is deeply incoherent and you're just throwing anything at the wall hoping it sticks. You have no central coherent argument. You've given up on the God is necessary for reason crap

[Anonymous No.22708395]

>>22708324
Plenty of Cartesian reject dualism as well. Besides, it’s irrelevant. The Buddhist is the one who likened Buddhism to Descartes lol.

But it’s funny how I pointed out that Buddhists always evade positive answers regarding their particular views and then you went on to do exactly that.
“Some are, some aren’t”.
In other words, it’s a buffet of relativism where nothing really matters, you don’t need to accept positive predicates, any particular attributes, or affirm anything about anything and pretend like you still have a worldview.” This is why Buddhism is a joke. For example, if you endorse non-dualism, what does that mean exactly? Are you a monist? Some other thing? You have to be something as a matter of logical necessity, but Buddhists will never say because they don’t want get caught in their delusion and embarrassed.

[Anonymous No.22708403]

>>22708394
Because to say “I assume” in this context, implies there is no reason to assume. You even admitted this earlier. To say “I believe” in this context does not imply there is no reason to believe. One is necessarily unjustified, and that’s not the case for the other.

So I ask you again. If faith is baseless, how do you know that? This should be an easy answer. You apparently know a thing, namely, that faith is without basis always and forever in all scenarios, and I simply want to know how it is you know that.

[Anonymous No.22708405]

>>22708373
>So knowledge about Allah would be impossible and since Allah justified knowledge in general, knowledge in general would be impossible. You’d have no way of knowing that Muhammed sayings were divinely inspired truth and not merely delusions because Muhammed would not have any access to Allah
Islam is not actually a monotheistic system in this sense in that there's a second eternal uncreated entity that we can know, the Quran. We can't know Allah, but we can know the Quran, and we can use the Quran to access Allah.

[Anonymous No.22708408]

>>22708405
Who wrote the Quran?

[Anonymous No.22708411]

>>22708403
>So I ask you again. If faith is baseless, how do you know that?
>Because to say “I have faith” in this context, implies there is no reason to have faith.
So you're insisting that your faith has a base. So now you're just back to where you started . How do you know that you know the base of your faith?

[Anonymous No.22708416]

>>22708405
Islam is not a monotheistic system? So you imagine that the Quran is a sort of theistic deity with attributes like those of Allah? Is that right?

[Anonymous No.22708424]

>>22708411
You’re dodging the question. I stated that I had faith, which you could agree is a phenomenologically true statement. I really am having faith. You said that faith is baseless. I’ve now asked you to explain how you know faith is baseless and you’re not answering the question. Will you explain how you know that or not?

[Anonymous No.22708425]

>>22708395
>Plenty of Cartesian reject dualism as well.
You cannot, by definition, be a Cartesian dualist (I assume this is what you meant as there's a lot of "Cartesian" things that have nothing to do with mind-body dualism) and reject dualism.

>The Buddhist is the one who likened Buddhism to Descartes lol.
Are you deaf? He's not a Buddhist, he left it and then came up with the idea of Descartes and Buddhism as (somehow?) being similar.

>In other words, it’s a buffet of relativism where nothing really matters, you don’t need to accept positive predicates, any particular attributes, or affirm anything about anything and pretend like you still have a worldview.
Good takedown of Eastern Orthodoxy but I don't see what this has to do with Buddhism.

>if you endorse non-dualism, what does that mean exactly?
It means that you're not a dualist.

>Are you a monist? Some other thing?
The only three options are monism, dualism, and pluralism, anon.

>You have to be something as a matter of logical necessity,
Not necessarily, Orthobros are nothing and yet they continue to gibber gabber endlessly. They also apparently have cash to burn as they keep paypigging for Dyer so that he doesn't have to get a real job.

Anyways, this was actually answered in >>22708324 and >>22708267. There are many, MANY branches of Buddhism, so if you want to narrow it down you need to, well, narrow it down. It's similar to Christianity in this regard, where we can't really pin down what "Christianity" actually entails because there's so many competing forms (although they don't compete in Buddhism).

[Anonymous No.22708444]

>>22708425
You cannot by definition be both a Buddhist non-dualist and not be either a Monist or aping Christianity, but according to you “some do, some don’t”. It’s weird how you get to state that people believe flawed things as a matter of fact, but I don’t. It’s almost like you’re inconsistent. Weird.

If you’re not a dualist, what are you? I can say I’m not a dog, but what does that mean exactly? Am I a human, a wolf, a cat? What?

Buddhists hate to answer this question lol

[Anonymous No.22708446]

>>22708424
No you're not answering the question. You claimed faith here >>22708241 to avoid the infinite regress. That works if faith is baseless. Now you're saying it isn't. So how do you know that you know the basis of your faith? I don't have this problem with my assumptions because they are baseless. So by the argument you put forth to begin with here >>22708178 now you're the one with a circularity problem and I'm free and clear.

[Anonymous No.22708447]

>>22708408
>>22708416
All orthodox Sunni schools hold that the Quran is a coeternal uncreated entity that exists alongside Allah, and that Muhammad was the first created entity in existence (created before the world, other humans, angels, Jesus, etc). The only thing that the Quran shares with Allah is that they are both uncreated an eternal; Allah shares his divine attributes with nothing else, but he can totally share his nondivine attributes (such as eternalness, unchangingness, and uncreatedness). There was a huge historical debate over this, tl;dr the "the Quran is uncreated" side won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranic_createdness

I agree that it leads to all sorts of stupid positions that don't make any sense what so ever (like the Quran containing fucking abrogation lmfao) but it does answer the apophatic question that anon posed about "how can we know Allah".

[Anonymous No.22708450]

>>22708425
Christians don’t pretend all denominations of Christianity are true and valid like Buddhists do. Pretty much all of them accept there is only one literally true Christianity and so they have no problem telling you what they are and not just what they are not. Buddhists hide behind “non-dualism” because they know it’s not specific.

[Anonymous No.22708455]

>>22708446
Will you answer the question or not? If you don’t have any way of knowing that faith is baseless then your challenge is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22708458]

>>22708444
>You cannot by definition be both a Buddhist non-dualist and not be either a Monist or aping Christianity, but according to you “some do, some don’t”
I already told you, they're monists or pluralists. Also, pluralism isn't "aping Christianity", I'm not sure what Dyer thinks that means (you certainly didn't come up with it lmfao).

>It’s weird how you get to state that people believe flawed things as a matter of fact, but I don’t.
I'm right and you're wrong, duh. You don't believe in truth because you're a relativist, a nihilist, and a materialist, but I'm not so I do.

>If you’re not a dualist, what are you?
This will be the fourth time that you've been told that they're pluralists or monists, depending upon their specific school.

[Anonymous No.22708464]

>>22708450
>Christians don’t pretend all denominations of Christianity are true and valid like Buddhists do
Actually most Christians do.

>Pretty much all of them accept there is only one literally true Christianity
Right, it's Christianity, and whatever form that takes is totally valid.

>Buddhists hide behind “non-dualism” because they know it’s not specific.
No, it's quite specific, as you've already been told it means that you're either a monist or a pluralist.

[Anonymous No.22708467]

>>22708383
Explain, as an Orthodox Christian who believes in a personalist God, why God created a finite world.

>Out of free will bro
So you're admitting it's totally arbitrary? This is why Platonist emanationism is superior.

A God who is pure arbitrary will is not Goodness.

[Anonymous No.22708468]

>>22708455
>Will you answer the question or not?
My infinite regress question came before yours. Why won't you answer it?
>If you don’t have any way of knowing that faith is baseless then your challenge is meaningless.
Do you even read my posts?
>That works if faith is baseless. Now you're saying it isn't. So how do you know that you know the basis of your faith?

[Anonymous No.22708474]

>>22708447
Does the Quran share a nature and essence with Allah?

[Anonymous No.22708490]

>>22708458
Okay, well strict monism of all varieties has been systematically dealt with and refuted for a multiple millenia now. It necessarily collapses distinctions and makes knowledge impossible, including the knowledge that implies monism. So all the monist Buddhists are wrong. Pluralism is also a non-specific. In the context of non-dualism, that can mean anything other than dualism or monism. Any sort of “pluralism” they could put forward which would have justified belief would necessarily ape the Christian trinity. So all of those Buddhists would be wrong as well.

[Anonymous No.22708492]

>>22708467
I don’t claim to know why God does what He does in all cases. I see that you won’t cite it though I’m going to assume that this is just a strawman.

[Anonymous No.22708504]

>>22708468
> do you get caught in infinite regress in regard to knowledge
> no because I justify knowledge with faith
> faith is baseless
I answered your challenge in the negative, and then you argued my answer by making a truth claim. Will you justify your knowledge of the truth claim that faith is baseless or not? I know you won’t but I’ll ask one more time for posterity so everyone can see that you’re a fraud and evading the question.

[Anonymous No.22708512]

>>22708474
As I understand it no, which has lead to lots of Apophatic theology among Muslims (Sufism is all about using mysticism to get around this in a manner that is beyond language). I assume you're trying to ask why there isn't a gap between Allah and the Quran, and the answer appears to be that while the Quran and Allah do not share any kind of divine nature or essence, or any divine traits, they do share non-divine traits and the Quran's descriptions of Allah are perfectly true and accurate. So, we can't know Allah, but we can know about him via the Quran. The analogy that I would use is that the Quran is an opaque but thin membrane between us and Allah, and while we can't see Allah directly, we can see what him pressing up against the Quran results in. So, I suppose it's a sort of limited apophatism (we can't know Allah but we can know about him).

[Anonymous No.22708520]

>>22708504
>I answered your challenge in the negative, and then you argued my answer by making a truth claim. Will you justify your knowledge of the truth claim that faith is baseless or not?
Ah I understand now you're too stupid to even understand what I said. You can justify stopping the infinite regress with faith IF IT IS BASELESS. Since you're now claiming faith is not baseless you're back to contending with the infinite regress. How do you know that you know the base of your faith? I'm giving it to you that your special faith has a base but if so then how does that help the infinite regress problem? You're jumping between a baseless faith and a basis for faith as it suits your argument.

[Anonymous No.22708521]

>>22708490
How many gods do you believe in? 4? What does that say about reality? They can’t all be emanations of the same deity because that necessarily results in monism or dualism, but you’re not either of those. Do you suppose there’s 4 real and distinct gods and then creation? So basically, there’s divinity and then there’s non-divine creation? Whoops, that’s dualism. Okay, maybe 5 gods? Okay well again, they can’t be emanations or something because that’s monism or dualism. There must be 5 distinct gods and then I guess non-godly creation. Oh wait. That’s dualism. 6 gods? Well, we know it’s monism or dualism. So how does that work? There’s 6 real and distinct divinities and then there’s non-divine creatures. Shucks. That’s still dualism.

I think you get the idea…

[Anonymous No.22708522]

>>22708490
>Okay, well strict monism of all varieties has been systematically dealt with and refuted for a multiple millenia now
Sorry, but this has already been refuted.

>It necessarily collapses distinctions and makes knowledge impossible
Only if you can comprehend the entire universe at once in a single snaphsot and not just particular portions of it over time.

>So all the monist Buddhists are wrong.
Incorrect. This is why I suggested that you look into a topic before having an opinion.

>Pluralism is also a non-specific.
No, it's quite specific.

>In the context of non-dualism, that can mean anything other than dualism or monism.
Correct, there's three positions, pluralism, dualism, and monism. You have to pick one.

>Any sort of “pluralism” they could put forward which would have justified belief would necessarily ape the Christian trinity.
The Abhidhamma predates Christianity by about 800 years and predates the passages of the Torah that you cite as evidence of Trinitarianism in Judaism by about 200. Anyways, no, the Abhidhammas atomism has nothing to do with the Trinity, and your suggestion that it does is actually the heresy of Tritheism as you are rejecting the idea that the three persons in hypostatic union are consubstantial or share the same essence.

This is, again, why I suggested you actually look into these topics before having an opinion on them.

[Anonymous No.22708524]

>>22708329
Does Jay support circumcision?

[Anonymous No.22708527]

>>22708512
If it doesn’t share an essence with Allah then there’s no way for us to know that Quran really offers truth about Allah. It renders the Quran and Allah exclusive in the same way that Allah and his creation is exclusive. It has to correspond to either the nature of Allah (makes you a kaffir) or creation (can’t trust it) or neither (incoherent).

[Anonymous No.22708536]

>>22708521
For
>>22708458
>>22708522
You totally failed to refute the refutation by the way. If all reality is I’m actuality one, then logical inferences are impossible. Reality is an illusion, and so too is your realizing the monistic nature of the universe an illusion. If it’s some sort of mode of reality or place, then that’s not monism. Which means it’s either dual or plural non-dual and you can’t be a dualist because you’re a non-dualist remember? And pluralism has to ape the Christian account to make sense.

[Anonymous No.22708540]

>>22708522
So what? Cave paintings predate the Vedas. Should I put my faith in cave paintings? It has nothing to do with the ontological truthfulness of the account given.

[Anonymous No.22708546]

>>22708492
You don't know why God created but you're 100% sure it was an act of will

[Anonymous No.22708547]

>>22708522
> Correct, there's three positions, pluralism, dualism, and monism. You have to pick one.
You refuted yourself. As a non-dualist you can’t accept dualism. You have to pick monism or pluralism. If you accept monism, you render knowledge impossible, including your knowledge of monism. I know you think otherwise but this is just a philosophical fact and you haven’t read the literature. See 2000 years of church fathers through modern apologetics refuting monism and explaining why NeoPlatonism wasn’t endorsed. As for pluralism, all pluralism which doesn’t ape the trinity is in reality just dualism, which you can’t endorse. That was explained here >>22708521


The sooner you stop with the Buddhist delusion, the better.

[Anonymous No.22708550]

>>22708546
I never said anything about God’s acts. You provided an account for what someone else said and I asked you to cite it so I could see that it wasn’t a strawman and you haven’t done that. I don’t even know what Jay Dyer’s position on this is. I wonder if you even do…

[Anonymous No.22708567]

>>22708550
What's your position.

The general Christian position is that God chose to create as an act of will. The First Vatican Council anathematises those who say differently:

>If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

That doctrine is my main problem with Christianity. But it seems Dyerites can't stand their own worldview being questioned, you always want to be on the attack.

[Anonymous No.22708577]

>>22708567
I’m not sure. I’ve not been asked this question before. I’d have to do some research and think about it, but I consider myself an orthodox Christian so I would probably endorse whatever the church says. The first Vatican council is applicable only to Catholics. Jay Dyer is not a Catholic. So it’s possible you’ve strawmanned his position…

[Anonymous No.22708581]

>>22708567
I don’t know why you won’t just cite the guy’s position…

What Catholics anathematize is almost irrelevant to an Orthodox Christian.

[Anonymous No.22708582]

>>22708577
Alright, no problem sir, I respect that.

[Anonymous No.22708584]

>>22708581
Cause I'm moving onto another topic than some guy's position. I want to know if Orthodox Christians have a conception of creation which is necessitarian: Ie. the view that creation was necessary. Dyer opposes this from what I've heard of him, but no, I don't have a citation nor can I be bothered to procure one.

[Anonymous No.22708588]

>>22708584
As far as I know, Orthodox Christianity doesn’t affirm that but I’m really not certain about this. I’m willing to bet that guy has talked about somewhere with someone though. If he hasn’t, you can find the Orthodox position online.

[Anonymous No.22708594]

>>22708584
Out of curiosity, can you explain your issue? I’m not ready to debate it and I’m probably done with this thread for the day but I am curious what exactly you take issue with so I wouldn’t mind reading it later.

[Anonymous No.22708611]

>>22707760
Shut up you imbecile. Grown-ups are talking here.

[Anonymous No.22708620]

>>22708611
>*chimp noises*

[Anonymous No.22708623]

>>22708588
>>22708594
What I don't like is the view that God "freely chose" to create and didn't have to, and then man "freely chose" to sin resulting in the fall. It just seems arbitrary, and I don't think the notion of "free will" even makes sense since what one wills is necessarily determined by one's nature.

I think the creation of a finite world was necessary because there are some Goods which depend upon finitude. For example, courage. A man can only be courageous because he is weak and has reason to fear. God conceived in a purely abstract, idealised state could not be courageous.

Thus limitation adds possibilities for goodness that the lack of limitation cannot have.

You could even spin this to an argument for the Incarnation. Christ had to become man so that God could practice courage, self-restraint, etc.. But this would still mean that creation was necessary, that God in an idealised state lacks something that must be filled by creating a finite world.

[Anonymous No.22708638]

>>22707368
Jay Dyer also claims all worldviews eventually become circular, which isn't wrong. So in the end it leans on faith that can't be justified. That all is true, can Jay truly say what he believes is not conditioned by the time and place he lives in. Far as I've seen, he isn't too knowledgeable about religions other than Christianity.
Not that I blame him, he has put his bet on Jesus, and learning about other religions isn't bringing him closer to god of the bible.

[Anonymous No.22708646]

>>22708536
>>22708540
>>22708547
>If all reality is I’m actuality one, then logical inferences are impossible
See >>22708522, this was answered there.

>Reality is an illusion, and so too is your realizing the monistic nature of the universe an illusion.
Correct, all language is just the finger pointing at the moon.

>And pluralism has to ape the Christian account to make sense.
Again, no one cares about whatever Dyer thinks this is supposed to mean. If you're going to keep using it, you're going to have to explain it so that we can laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.22708651]

>>22708540
No, but claiming that Christianity invented buffalo is retarded if they show up on cave paintings before Christianity was invented.

[Anonymous No.22708656]

>>22708522
>>22708646
>>22708651
Actually given that Dyer's "Eastern Orthodoxy" was invented in the 1970s and he denies that the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Catholics, Ethiopians, and Protestants are "Christian" its more correct to say that Buddhist atomist predates "Christianity" 2470 or so years. So, if anything, "Christians" are just aping Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.22708663]

>>22708623
I don’t see how that’s arbitrary though. I don’t know if the church affirms any position about God’s will beyond what’s revealed. If it’s not revealed, I would wonder how it is we can know what God’s will is or why we would expect that. It seems silly. So it may be arbitrary. It may not be. As for man’s sin, I don’t see how that’s arbitrary. Man was tempted in the garden with knowledge. There was a reason. I wouldn’t call it arbitrary.

I don’t have any further questions about limitation, but I would ask we are expecting human qualities in God. Atheists make this mistake a lot. They talk about the divine mind like it’s subject to the limitations of the human mind, like God is bounded by the limits of reason and logic, but the divine mind is what creates reason and logic and is totally unbound by it. So why would you talk about reason in the divine mind along the lines of how you’d talk about reason in a human mind. I wonder if you’re not doing that when you talk about courage, for example. Or God “learning”. What does an omniscient God have to “learn”? Seems like Christ came for us, not for God.

I really don’t have a nuanced opinion on this and I don’t know what the church’s position is. Those are just the immediate questions I had about your position.

[Anonymous No.22708666]

>>22708536
>>22708540
>>22708547
>3 posts back to back seething about getting refuted
orthopaypigs on SUICIDE WATCH lmfao

[Anonymous No.22708668]

>>22708646
It wasn’t answered. The snapshot line is nonsense that doesn’t address the conceptual problem. Even say particular portions, particular anythings really exist, implies that distinctions really exist and the world is not really one, which is not monism or absolute one-ness.

This is what I’m saying. You guys are smart enough to understand what’s being said but not the implications. This is why Buddhism is stupid.

[Anonymous No.22708671]

>>22708646
It’s already been explained here >>22708521
There was no response because it’s fatal to Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22708675]

>>22708666
> this post is extremely low quality

[Anonymous No.22708682]

>>22708668
>It wasn’t answered.
Yes it was.

>The snapshot line is nonsense that doesn’t address the conceptual problem
No, it does. The fact that all things are somehow interlinked or connected is only an epistemological problem if you're looking at a snapshot of the entire cosmos at once. As long as you aren't there's very clear distinctions in how things move through time and the most blunt one, "observed" vs "unobserved".

>Even say particular portions, particular anythings really exist, implies that distinctions really exist and the world is not really one, which is not monism or absolute one-ness.
This isn't the case, which is why I suggested you look into the topic before having an opinion.

>This is what I’m saying.
I got it, you're just wrong because you haven't spent any time thinking or reading about this stuff.

[Anonymous No.22708686]

>>22708671
See >>22708675

[Anonymous No.22708691]

>>22708682
Are you dumb? Either those distinctions are really ontologically real or they aren’t. All you’re doing is explaining how a monist sees distinct phenomena but still posits an absolute one-ness. That does nothing to say whether those distinctions really are real or not. A monist would have to admit that those distinctions are not really real but only appearances, phenomena. In other words, the distinctions you observe are just illusions i.e. not real.

[Anonymous No.22708700]

>>22708521
>how many gods does a religious tradition that allows for infinite things have?
gee anon...

[Anonymous No.22708702]

>>22708686
So you have no refutation of it then? I knew you wouldn’t. Again, Buddhists will always refrain from saying what they actually believe is the case after they say what they believe is not the case and this why. Even in the simplest of terms, the implications are demonstrated to be impossible. So they’ll cope and say “nuh uh” “this was dealt with” “this is low
Quality” and never say what they actually believe so they can go meditate and not have to awaken to the crisis of realizing their utterly ridiculous and sad delusion because that would be too cringe to bear. After all, all their friends and family know they’re a Buddhist and they even thought about moving to Japan and becoming a monk or whatever. Lmfao. You can tell me if I’m off-base but I know I’m not.

[Anonymous No.22708708]

>>22708691
>Either those distinctions are really ontologically real or they aren’t
Why would you assume that your senses give you 100% perfect understanding of the entire cosmos at any given time?

>All you’re doing is explaining how a monist sees distinct phenomena but still posits an absolute one-ness.
Correct. You asked how monists can claim that there are chairs and tables despite positing a singular universe that encompasses everything, and I told you.

>That does nothing to say whether those distinctions really are real or not.
That's a different question. They aren't btw.

>A monist would have to admit that those distinctions are not really real but only appearances, phenomena. In other words, the distinctions you observe are just illusions i.e. not real.
Correct, this is the case, Buddhists do affirm this.

[Anonymous No.22708710]

>>22708700
Still dualism, retard. How was that not clear? Did you not notice the trend?

[Anonymous No.22708713]

>>22708702
There's nothing to refute, you just babbled schizo gibberish. The number of Gods that Buddhists worship is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.22708715]

>>22708710
>how many gods do buddhists have?!
>infinite
>DUALISM!

[Anonymous No.22708722]

>>22708708
I don’t. Why would you? After all, are the one talking about snapshots and observations of distinctions as if mere observation were reliable.

I’m asking a very clear question about the nature of reality. Either it is all one, or it’s not. You cannot even conceive of a third option. So just answer the question. Is it one or is it not?

[Anonymous No.22708723]

>>22708708
They’re not
Right. Distinctions aren’t real, so you’re a monist and knowledge is impossible for you. Thanks for finally admitting it.

[Anonymous No.22708725]

>>22708715
> there’s divinity and non-divinity with no possibility for a 3rd category is not synonymous with either
> this isn’t dualism
lol ok anon

[Anonymous No.22708734]

>>22708723
>so you’re a monist and knowledge is impossible for you
This was already refuted, monists can have knowledge of the world.

[Anonymous No.22708737]

>>22708725
That's not what dualism means you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.22708744]

>>22708722
>>22708723
Monists can have knowledge of the world by describing the world either globally or locally, anon. Dyer completely and utterly rejects Platonic Universals (he affirmed this rejected when he got BTFOd by an actual Platonist) on the grounds that it's polytheism, so you're stuck with describing sensory phenomena, which is how Buddhist epistemology works. The anon that you're arguing with already told you that but, y'know, you're too low IQ to have gotten it (as you confirmed in >>22708691).

[Anonymous No.22708745]

>>22708734
It’s like talking to a brick wall. It wasn’t refuted. Monists cannot know things. If you’re a monist, you believe in absolute unity where distinctions are only illusory. If that’s true, logical inferences are not possible because the distinctions necessary to drawn them are not real. You can’t actually know anything about anything. Everything in your life would be illusory, including your realizing that everything in your life is illusory.

[Anonymous No.22708749]

>>22708737
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
Search for a word
du·al·ism
/ˈdo͞oəˌlizəm/
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Theology
noun
1.
the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided.
"a dualism between man and nature"
2.
the quality or condition of being dual; duality.

Divinity/non-divinity

Seems to fit the description to me, anon

[Anonymous No.22708751]

>>22708745
>If that’s true, logical inferences are not possible because the distinctions necessary to drawn them are not real.
Sure they can, you just describe things.

>You can’t actually know anything about anything.
Yes you can.

>Everything in your life would be illusory
The separation is illusory, the existence is not. Chairs and tables exist, they just don't exist disconnected from each other. Their properties are real, it's just connectedness (a quality, not a binary) is one of their qualities. You can still say "this chair is green, that table is red", you just recognize that they're not separate things.

[Anonymous No.22708758]

>>22708749
You've been arguing for ontological dualism, not just "two things", this entire thread you moron. By that logic Dyer is a dualist because he believes that there's a Father and a Son in the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.22708780]

>>22708744
That sounds like a strawman but I don’t know or care what Dyer affirms. I care about what you affirm and you already affirmed that distinctions, literally speaking, are not real. That they appear to us as real distinctions given certain perspectives is irrelevant because you’ve already stated that despite appearances, they’re not real. What does it mean to draw a distinction between global vs local in a reality where distinctions, any distinction including the distinction between global and local, the distinction between various localities, etc. are not real? It means nothing. Local is a non-value. Any locality would be merely a lens to observe illusory appearances that are not actually real through. They mean nothing. You wouldn’t even be able to differentiate between various localities, because again, the distinctions between them are not really real.

You’ve made knowledge impossible.

How fucking stupid is it to talk about how “distinctions aren’t real”, but then say “oh well you can just draw these distinctions to really know real things”. Really think about how fucking dumb and incoherent that is, anon.

[Anonymous No.22708789]

>>22708758
It applies either way. If I talk about dualism in the sense of two gods or dualism in the sense of two “aspects” of reality, the critique applies either. The fundamental point is that a world filled with infinite deities who are not people and innumerable people who are not deities is still a dualistic conception of the world and it would face the same problems Muslims face when they talk about Allah and creatures nothing like each other. Buddhists think they overcome this by talking about god-men and interconnectedness but what they’re actually doing then is dissolving distinctions and endorsing monism, which is again, easily refuted. They’re stuck in monism or dualism either way, and that’s true no matter which context you mean “dual”.

[Anonymous No.22708801]

>>22708780
>I don’t know or care what Dyer affirms.
Then this entire conversation is moot because you entered into it to defend Dyer. Your entire argument against ontological pluralism in favor of dualism is that pluralism is "aping Christianity", an argument that you got from Dyer and one that's so obviously true it doesn't even need explication solely because you got it from Dyer.

>distinctions, literally speaking, are not real
I didn't say that at all, I said that monists believe that everything is united in some manner. Things still have traits and properties, they're just not separate.

>you’ve already stated that despite appearances, they’re not real
No, I said that the appearance of separation is not real. The appearance of redness, sharpness, dogness, etc is absolutely real.

>What does it mean to draw a distinction between global vs local
Well for starters everything that you don't see is unseen, and everything that you don't see is seen. You're probably going to have a schizophrenic episode over this being "dualism", but we can introduce a third category, seen-but-colorless, regarding things in your peripheral vision. It's only when you observe the cosmos in its entirety with no temporal aspect that you can't distinguish things (and thus gain knowledge about them).

>Local is a non-value.
See the above. Again, if you're getting tripped up on "local" vs "global" then I suggest you refrain from posting and just lurk for awhile, this is REALLY basic stuff.

>illusory appearances that are not actually real through
Separation is the illusion, not redness, sharpness, etc.

>You wouldn’t even be able to differentiate between various localities
Yes you would, for the reasons outlined.

>You’ve made knowledge impossible.
No I haven't, because you can still gain knowledge about the world under a monistic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22708802]

>>22708751
> distinctions aren’t real
> no, you can totally draw distinctions by just describing them
Make up your mind, you fraud.

It goes without saying the existence is illusory. Nobody was ever arguing that prosperities aren’t real. But if distinctions between those things which are assigned properties aren’t really real, and you admitted you didn’t, then those properties are nothing more than observations which alone can’t tell you anything about anything. You could say “I am observing a chair and a dog and a wall” and that would be true but you wouldn’t have the justification to say “I can know things about that chair and that dog and that wall or about chairs, dogs, and walls conceptually” because again, you’d just have observable phenomena that may or may not even be real.

[Anonymous No.22708804]

>>22708751
You wouldn’t be able to say that you know the chair is green. You would have to say that you’re observing a chair being green, but you can’t actually know with certainty that you’re really seeing a chair that really is green.

[Anonymous No.22708807]

>>22708789
No, it doesn't, because if you're a monist then there's no reason to draw the line at "god vs not god", you could have as many categories as you want because they're all just madeup separations. You could just as well have "god, not god, fish, square, mathematical function" as your basic classifications.

>b-b-but if the separations arent real then how can they exist?!
Because they exist, duh. The separation isn't real, that doesn't mean that the things or their traits aren't, you fucking blockhead.

[Anonymous No.22708817]

>>22708804
>>22708802
>You would have to say that you’re observing a chair being green, but you can’t actually know with certainty that you’re really seeing a chair that really is green.
Yes you could. You could observe it, know that it's a chair, and see that it's green. By your logic people who are color-blind, and thus cannot see the distinctions of color, can't know that chairs are chairs.

>It goes without saying the existence is illusory.
You've been arguing the opposite all thread.

>But if distinctions between those things which are assigned properties aren’t really real
The distinction between things isn't real, not their properties. I never said that there was no distinction between redness, greenness, etc.

>then those properties are nothing more than observations which alone can’t tell you anything about anything.
Well, again, Dyer disagrees with you here, but more importantly Buddhists don't believe this.

>you’d just have observable phenomena that may or may not even be real.
The phenomena are absolutely real, it's how you observe them. Their separation is not.

You specifically said
>A monist would have to admit that those distinctions are not really real but only appearances
And I affirmed that indeed, monists believe that the distinctions between things is not real, it's just an appearance. If by "distinction" you didn't mean "the sense of two things being separate" but instead meant "actually nothing to do with two things being separate, really just properties" then you should have been more clear, but this entire thread you've been arguing about whether things are connected or not.

[Anonymous No.22708818]

>dyer thread
>turns into some ortholarper badly misunderstanding fucking monism and defending gnostic heresies condemned by the church father
like fucking clockwork

[Anonymous No.22708819]

>>22708801
I wasn’t defending Dyer. I think Buddhism is retarded and he correctly addresses its contradictions. In so far as I’m defending him, I’m defending his correct critique which states that knowledge is impossible in Buddhism. This all started because you lied and said he doesn’t address Buddhism so I went and found a bunch of videos where he does and even watched some of them and explained to you what he said.

Honestly, this is like talking to a brick wall. You are unironically not capable, at this point, of grasping the argument, I think. That’s probably how you fell prey to the false doctrine of Buddhism in the first place. We’ve already established that Buddhists are non-dualists, that pluralism is non-specific and that all Buddhist variants of pluralism are actually just dualism or else just Christianity (an argument for which I received no counter-argument btw), or monism. So we’ve established that all Buddhists are crypto-Christians or monists. As for monism, it does collapse distinctions as a matter of fact, else it wouldn’t be monist, and the collapsing of those distinctions renders knowledge impossible. So to say you know this or that doctrine of Buddhism is nonsense. That leaves crypto-Christianity as your only tenable option, and to endorse that as a Buddhist would make you a heretic. So you’re fucked either way. These are just the facts. It really can’t be helped if you’re uncritical and not intelligent.

[Anonymous No.22708824]

>>22707368
>Ok Christianity seems possible, and I believe in God. I want to join Orthodoxy, but I dont believe in everything 100% the way they mean it
>"you can't deny anything or you're denying Jesus bro"
>Can I just say im agnostic on some things?
>"no bro you have to affirm everything"
>Ok so I guess I just cant be Christian. What do I do?
>"Just pray the holy spirit has to help you, you cant come to this position through reasoning"

My interaction in jays discord. Does Jesus really require me to 100% believe in everything the church says? Idk, its a very hard demand to require of modern people. What if I just dont know if what the church says is true? I dont know if Christianity is true but their religion really asks the impossible of you. I really hope God will have mercy if I cant figure it out, it bothers me

[Anonymous No.22708838]

>>22708807
Try to follow along. Anon said Buddhists were either monists, dualists, or pluralists and can’t be two or more of these at the same time and he’s right about that. I already demonstrated how these so-called pluralists really do draw distinctions between god(s) and not-god(s) meaning that they are not really pluralists but rather are dualists. So for Buddhists, pluralism, is not really possible. You can be a monist or you can be a dualist. Dualism runs into the problem of being able to say anything positive about something from which you’re necessarily excluded. That was explained earlier in the thread. So that means Buddhists must be monists, particularly if they’re non-dualists. Monism runs into the problem that by definition, a monism conceives of the world as an absolute unity, wherein distinctions are not really real but are rather mere phenomena. That means you can say things about the phenomena but you have no of knowing that they’re actually true because your observations would, again, be mere phenomena. My world, the world I inhabit, live there, read books in, would by default be illusory. Everything I read, touch, smell, taste would he illusory and so too would my thoughts. That includes my thoughts about Buddhism, monism, and the world being illusory. Since the world is an illusion, so too is my world being an illusion. So I couldn’t actually know anything about anything at all. It would seem like I’m really observing phenomena and that there are things in the world that I could describe but I wouldn’t even actually know that I really am. So to your example, monism precisely does not distinguish between god(s) and not-god(s) and that’s the problem. Whatever categories you could come up with would be fake categories. You couldn’t even know they’re really categories. You wouldn’t be able to say anything really exists, only that it appears as if it exists. So that’s out as well. There are no more tenable positions for Buddhism after that.

[Anonymous No.22708841]

>>22708818
There’s not been a single refutation so far. The Buddhists have only restated over and over that they can know things because phenomena is occurring but how they know that is precisely what’s in question. These people are unironically too stupid to realize that, and so are you for thinking you had any sort of grasp on what’s happening here.

[Anonymous No.22708847]

> I can know things because I observe things
> how do you know you’re really observing or that what you’re observing is really really real?
> I just do because snapshots or whatever ok? I know things!
Unironically the most retarded belief system you could hold. Even dumber than submit to Allah because the guy said so philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22708855]

>>22708819
>>22708838
>I wasn’t defending Dyer.
You started the argument with >>22708106 attacking me for not immediately sucking his cock upon seeing him badly misunderstand Buddhism.

>You are unironically not capable, at this point, of grasping the argument
No, I get it, you're badly misunderstanding monism and nominalism because you're not familiar with these topics. This is why I offered you some basic reading material, because parasocial relationships with e-celebrities clearly aren't helping you understand the world around you. The fact that you're conflating monism and nominalism as if they're the same thing is a demonstration of this.

>(an argument for which I received no counter-argument btw)
You've never actually made an argument for this, you just keep assuming that we all know what the fuck Dyer is talking about when he says this.

No one is going to look at this thread and think any more highly of Eastern Orthodoxy from it, but they will think less of it (as the sub-2% church attendance rates in Russia demonstrate).

[Anonymous No.22708859]

>>22708841
>There’s not been a single refutation so far
i dunno man im reading this thread and people are climbing out of the woodwork to btfo you. maybe you should call in your discordtranny buddies from the secret ortholarp debate discord for help?

[Anonymous No.22708865]

>>22708847
That's not what he said, but it's cute that you're not only samefagging but also disagreeing with Jay while trying to defend him.

[Anonymous No.22708866]

>>22708859
It’s nice cope but anyone with a brain can parse out that there’s been a lot of “nuh uh” and “I know because I know” from the other side and fortunately, a few people are smart enough to see how utterly brain dead-tier retarded that is though you may not be.

[Anonymous No.22708868]

>>22707481
Taking away that he's likeable seems dubious to me.

[Anonymous No.22708875]

>>22708866
You shouldn't speak for people with brains given that you lack one, as your performance in this thread attests to.

[Anonymous No.22708876]

>>22708855
You haven’t made a positive argument even once. Apparently, I misunderstand monism, I misunderstand Buddhism, all these misunderstandings I have but you can’t offer a single argument that escapes “I know I observed things because I observe them”, which quite frankly is so stupid that it’s kind of funny.

[Anonymous No.22708880]

>>22708875
We know. We know. Do you have an actual argument or not. I’ve made a whole bunch and every addressed all counter-arguments save for the guy who asked about limitation but neither you nor the Buddhists can muster up even a positive argument and only
Resort to asserting that I just don’t get it and you know you observe things because you observe things LOL

[Anonymous No.22708882]

>>22708876
>You haven’t made a positive argument even once.
I'm not trying to argue anything. I posted in this thread to explain why Jay Dyer is an idiot when it comes to Buddhism and you got upset because I said something mean about your parasocial buttbuddy.

>I misunderstand monism, I misunderstand Buddhism, all these misunderstandings
Correct, I'm glad that you understand.

>you can’t offer a single argument
I'm not arguing anything, not everything has to be an argument, the Ortholarp discordtrannies have poisoned your brain.

[Anonymous No.22708884]

>>22708880
>debate me! debate me! debate me!
Shut the fuck up you overly estrogenated manchild.

[Anonymous No.22708894]

>>22707646
He hosts Alex Jones show on Fridays

[Anonymous No.22709001]

> ITT: Buddhists admit their religion is nihilistic while insisting it’s not…again

[Anonymous No.22709041]

>>22707628
>Once one refutes atheism via the impossibility of knowledge
What exactly is his "refutation"?

[Anonymous No.22709049]

>>22709041
>What exactly is his "refutation"?
That you can't have knowledge without God. A retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.22709070]

guys check the official /lit/ server
https://discord.gg/eD8qurHs

[Anonymous No.22709075]

[Anonymous No.22709235]

>>22707841
>N.B. I don’t think Jay Dyer’s arguments even establish the Trinity, since emanationism to me is a more elegant philosophical doctrine. But I don’t even need to get into that
Not that anon. Could you get into that for me, please? I've been trying to understand the metaphysical relationship of the Trinity and how the Neoplatonic hypotases resemble it without being identical to it.

[Anonymous No.22709248]

>>22709049
I'm getting pretty fucking sick of all of these 16 year old tradcath/orthodox larpers coming on here and thinking they are intellectuals by reading a wikipedia page on Plato. I'm not sure why they congregate on 4chan of all places, but it is quite annoying.

[Anonymous No.22709276]

>>22709248
>by reading a wikipedia page on Plato
Zoomers don't read. They watch short clips.

[Anonymous No.22709277]

>>22709248
Blame /pol/. Nick Fuentes is aggressively Catholic in addition to being a Nazi

[Anonymous No.22709293]

>>22709277
Yeah, as some one who grew up Catholic and comes from a Catholic family (although no longer religious), it's funny to see all these kids (mostly from Anglo Protestant backgrounds) play dress up with the religion while being totally ignorant on the culture/how actual Catholics are.

[Anonymous No.22709349]

>>22709041
Transcendental Argument for God. It demonstrates that affirmation of transcendental categories are necessary for knowledge. Atheists deny transcendental categories and their origin, which if correct, would be self-refuting because it refuted knowledge claims. The argument is not that knowledge is impossible. It’s that if atheism was true, it would have to be impossible, and so there’s no way you could know atheism is true.

>>22709248
>>22709277
You are both pseuds. Grow up and read more.

[Anonymous No.22709364]

>>22709235
Irinaeus, Palamas, and others refuted it already

[Anonymous No.22709442]

>>22707628
His attack(s) on the possibility of knowledge fall apart if you maintain that Being is truly omnipresent. Because then you acknowledge that everything has affirmative existential status, and whatever expetiences you have are true/known to the extent you have them. At that point, it's game over for whatever refutation was being proposed. On the flip side, it's also a total eleatic victory because omnipresent Being will in turn eliminate certain claims of christianity.

I would have liked it if this thread was more about the book. I haven't read it and was vaguely curious when it came out, even though I'm already familiar with the knowledge based argument and why it utterly fails.

[Anonymous No.22709469]

>>22709349
Damn, the monist BTFOd you so hard you don't even have an argument! If you keep this up you're going to get kicked out of the discord server!

[Anonymous No.22709478]

discord christcucks are keep bumping this thread about an anus retard.

Imagine being a christcuck and reading this slop rather than anything else from the 2000 years of Christianity. Pitiful! What this retard can teach you which desert fathers can't?

Just accept that you're in for internet points, epic outdated vaporwave tumblrina aesthetics from 2014, yelling in the mic and stop shitting up this board with the shilling of your cult figure, subhumans.

[Anonymous No.22709554]

>>22707368
>Jay Dyer
narcissist larper pseud

[Anonymous No.22709787]

>>22708524
Of course he doesn’t, he’s an Orthodox Christian. Their lashing out and throwing around these accusations proves they’re not interested in truth

[Anonymous No.22709793]

>>22709349
>Transcendental Argument for God. It demonstrates that affirmation of transcendental categories are necessary for knowledge. Atheists deny transcendental categories and their origin, which if correct, would be self-refuting because it refuted knowledge claims. The argument is not that knowledge is impossible. It’s that if atheism was true, it would have to be impossible, and so there’s no way you could know atheism is true.
Are the "transcendental categories" causality & universals?

[Anonymous No.22709801]

>>22708656
You have no idea what you’re talking about

[Anonymous No.22709833]

>>22709442
This is nonsense. To say that experiences are true in so far as you have then is to say nothing of their objective truthfulness, which is in question, and to say that they’re true because you have them is just begging the question. Are you really experiencing? How do you know? Because you experience? How do you know? Because you experience. The problem of circularity is always there.

[Anonymous No.22709862]

>>22709793
Not exactly. I said categories when I really should have said transcendental arguments. Transcendentals refers to things like truth, goodness, beauty. These are things which must be there before we can say whether something is right or wrong. So for example, if I make a logical argument in favor of something being true, we first have to accept that truth exists and know what it is. A transcendental argument is basically an argument that focuses on enabling conditions necessary for knowledge. So if you said “I know the sky is blue”, I might point out that what you’re really saying is “I know that it is true that the sky is blue” and I might challenge it by saying “how do you know what you know” and this would be a transcendental argument. The transcendental argument for God works by demonstrating that all worldviews which presuppose the non-existence of God are contradictory. For example, if I say I’m an empiricist atheist, what I’m saying is that I don’t believe in anything for which no material evidence exists. And yet, I would need to use a transcendental like truth, along with concepts like logical principles, in order to even establish the empirical method and empiricism. That’s because what I’m really saying is “it is logical to accept empiricism because it is true” but the problem is that there is no empirical evidence for truth or for logic. That is contradictory. In one breath I imply that immaterial things can be accepted and then in the next deny it. Both of these can’t be true. So I’ve refuted myself. Similarly, I can say, well I’m not an empiricist but I do accept logical principles and I don’t accept God. Someone using the argument might ask “how do you know you can rely on logical principles” and I basically would not have an answer. I would have to admit that my justification for using logical principles is that it’s logical to do so, which is circular. So this argument claims to refute these because it basically posits that a God needs to be presupposed in order for these transcendentals to be used at all. And if you make truth claims at all, you’re implicitly accepting this is the case. That’s the gist of it.

[Anonymous No.22709866]

>>22708656
You don’t know what aping means?

[Anonymous No.22709873]

>>22709833
>To say that experiences are true in so far as you have then is to say nothing of their objective truthfulness
How can there be anything more objective than what is most objective to us already as present?

[Anonymous No.22709881]

>>22709833
>>22709833
Triggered. It says everything about there "objective truthness". Everything "is, and needs must be". With no alternative or escape. You know you are experiencing because you have direct and undeniable awareness, it is what you are definitionally. The only challenge is to coherently describe the experience, but that there "is" is absolutely certain, necessary, and steadfast.

This unwavering and coherent metaphysics spells the absolute death of all Christian mythology. Cope, seethe, etc; I recommend you read my Eleatic book instead. I have essentially btfo'd dyers lame knowledge-based argument, just like I have btfo'd all philosophy from the last 2500 years.

>>22709873
Hell yeah, brutha. These orthohoes reeling rn

[Anonymous No.22709885]

>>22709349
>It demonstrates that affirmation of transcendental categories are necessary for knowledge
Why?
>You are both pseuds. Grow up and read more.
I acknowledge that there is still a lot of philosophy out there I have yet to read, but what exactly have you read?

[Anonymous No.22709913]

>>22709873
This is nonsense dude. How can there be anything more objective than our subjective experience? The definition of objectivity might be a problem there.

[Anonymous No.22709917]

>>22709881
Is this a joke?

[Anonymous No.22709922]

>>22709885
I explained the gist of the transcendental argument here >>22709862

[Anonymous No.22709924]

>>22709913
>How can there be anything more objective than our subjective experience?
Well how can there be an objective beyond our subjective social experience, yes? It seems like you are creating an a priori condition which we don't actually have any basis for.

[Anonymous No.22709929]

>>22709917
No, my book is the resurrection of genuine metaphysics. 312 pages of brutal beat downs for midwit theologians who don't understand Being. You want a divine revelation: look to the Goddess who met Parmenides beyond the gate where the light meets the dark. You will never be a real philosopher until you confess error and convert to eleaticism

[Anonymous No.22709937]

Doesn't Hegel make an argument about the necessity of the Incarnation for a Trinitarian view of God?

[Anonymous No.22709939]

>>22709924
No, you don’t have any basis for it. The fundamental claim of Christianity is that they do have a basis for it. And you should look up what subjective and objective mean btw. You don’t seem to know what those terms mean.

[Anonymous No.22709941]

>>22709862
>>22709922
>These are things which must be there before we can say whether something is right or wrong.
Why? Does this logically allow for you to posit them, or at least to posit them in an objective sense?
>I would have to admit that my justification for using logical principles is that it’s logical to do so, which is circular.
Or maybe logic is what the conscious, human thinking experience is, at least in a systemized sense, if we take that to be the case then there is no need to look for a grounding for logical thought, because logic is just an abstraction of what is already the essence of thought itself.

[Anonymous No.22709950]

This thread should serve as an eternal reminder that e-celebs are massive fags who have 0 idea about what they are talking about

[Anonymous No.22709962]

>>22709862
So the argument is "truth requires God, therefore God is true", I suppose this is not a bad argument but I havent heard what "god" means in this system and most Orthodox claim that mans reasoning faculties are damaged and you cannot really know anything without revelation. A bit of a circular argument I suppose.

>Knowledge / truth requires God, therefore God is real but we cannot know without revelation (so no justified true belief is possible without orthodox Christianity or at least until Jesus?)

[Anonymous No.22709966]

>>22709939
There's no real consensus on subjective vs objective, modern philosophy by far and large is trying to examine to what extent either really exists. We can give a basic definition of subjective as knowledge dependent on the self and objective as knowledge independent of the self, but to what extent does either one exist and does what we conceive as subjective or objective actually correspond to our definitions of them?

[Anonymous No.22709970]

>>22709941
Yes.

Even if it was, you wouldn’t be able to say anything truthful about it because you’d still have to ask what truth is and if truth is just your experiencing truth, the question is how do you know it’s true that you’re experiencing truth. You’re stuck in circular reasoning no matter what. You’re even using logical reasoning to suggest that it’s an abstraction. Again, that begs the question.

>>22709962
Not exactly. The argument is really “presupposing the non-existence of God excludes the possibility of truth”. You presuppose God via the negation of other possibilities.

[Anonymous No.22709975]

>>22708623
Different anon here. We think along similar lines. A problem I have with some Protestant and Catholic positions which hold that God freely and arbitrarily created the world is that they assume a more demiurgic view of God than they profess otherwise, like the classical theology widely shared by Catholics which sees God as an unconditioned reality - it seems strange to see God as something fundamental to creation and also see His choice to create it much the same as one's choice to wear a particular shirt. At the same time seeing God as an entirely unconscious lung breathing creation into existence through a merely accidental process of emanation or overflow seems incompatible with both Christianity and with what we can know from raw experience - that the world is intelligible and has a structure, that it's not an arbitrary or featureless lump of goo coughed into being by an unfathomable organ.
There should be a third option of some kind - one in which the nature of existence and the nature of God are both inextricably linked but in which the world came about through both a world-historical process and a sort of self-contemplation or self-understanding of God in His own nature, in a manner similar to how God as love as described as functioning in various Trinitarian works, including the nature of the Incarnation as the subjectivity and world-historical grounding of a Self at some (non-temporal) stage of self-contemplation or self-divulging - but I haven't been able to formulate it in my head in a way that satisfies all my questions yet, much less write it out in a satisfactory way.

[Anonymous No.22709976]

>>22709970
Im a late comer to the thread and interested in orthodoxy but im not seeing the bridge between TAG and something explicitly Christian desu

[Anonymous No.22709981]

>>22709970
>Even if it was, you wouldn’t be able to say anything truthful about it because you’d still have to ask what truth is and if truth is just your experiencing truth, the question is how do you know it’s true that you’re experiencing truth. You’re stuck in circular reasoning no matter what. You’re even using logical reasoning to suggest that it’s an abstraction. Again, that begs the question.
And has been pointed out repeatedly above God doesn't help you out of this. Any logical argument you give that God is necessary for logic to exist is a circular argument since it assumes logic exists when you make it. You have to assume logic exists to even make an argument full stop. You're on the same footing as any atheist.

[Anonymous No.22709985]

>>22709966
Damn, dude. You’re really far wound up in schizo bullshit. Are you aware of this? Do you not accept that words have real meanings. The words “objective” and “subjective” refer to real states do they not? There’s no consensus needed on this. Conceptually, a word refers to a real thing. We don’t get together and decide what it refers to arbitrarily. That’s like saying “we haven’t come to a consensus on what light and dark mean”. The term “dark” refers to the absence of “light” and so these are mutually exclusive. You don’t need any consensus. By definition, they can’t overlap. The same for being and non-being, true and false, etc.

[Anonymous No.22709989]

>>22709970
>Even if it was, you wouldn’t be able to say anything truthful about it because you’d still have to ask what truth is and if truth is just your experiencing truth, the question is how do you know it’s true that you’re experiencing truth. You’re stuck in circular reasoning no matter what. You’re even using logical reasoning to suggest that it’s an abstraction. Again, that begs the question.
But is this not just a given? The thinking of our being (and of truth as its coherence) is our present existence. Is it necessary for us to actually apprehend the "why" of our experience, is it even possible? I think that maybe you should read Heidegger, he has some very interesting essays on how to approach being.

[Anonymous No.22709990]

>>22708623
This is usually when I start to disagree with Christians. If creation is good, how could God choose to not create if he is omni benevolent? If he choose to do nothing, he would have chosen the least good option, which doesnt make sense if he is a perfect being.

God has to do good but sometimes christians think whatever God does would be good simply because hes god, so he could predestine you to burn in hell for no reason and that is "good" because he did it. Its like divine fiat. It would be like saying God is always a father but could have chosen to not have a son, it seems to be a incoherent idea that he could have done anything less than the best good

[Anonymous No.22709996]

>>22709976
TAG eliminates atheism because atheism presupposes God does not exist. So the only possibility you’re left with is that some sort of God exists. Exactly which sort of God is a separate argument.

[Anonymous No.22710000]

>>22709985
>Conceptually, a word refers to a real thing. We don’t get together and decide what it refers to arbitrarily.
Bro that is exactly how languages were formed. The dictionary is reprinted yearly since they have to collect and collate the new meanings of words.

[Anonymous No.22710001]

>>22709981
It’s quite clear in this thread that Christians don’t just assume logic exists. Christians accept logic because it does exist, but it’s not just assumed. It’s provable and it’s an uncreated energy of God.

[Anonymous No.22710012]

>>22710001
>It’s quite clear in this thread that Christians don’t just assume logic exists.
No it's not clear at all since to even make an argument you have to assume logic exists. You can not make an argument that logic requires God without first assuming logic exists. This is incredibly basic. Give me your argument that logic requires God but remember you can't use any logic in it because that would just be assuming what you're trying to prove

[Anonymous No.22710014]

>>22710000
No, that wasn’t how languages are formed. An example of this has already been stated higher up in this thread. Ctrl+f “sky”. The sky had to exist before you could refer to it. To say that I agree the letters “S-K-Y” refer to that thing we call the sky is not to say that you and I got together and agreed what would be referred to. But it’s a bad example because these are descriptive words and describe exclusive conditions. A thing can’t be both true and false at the same time. Being can’t also be non-being. The things those words refer to are mutually exclusive as a matter of necessity else they wouldn’t refer to anything real. So it is with objective and subjective.

[Anonymous No.22710017]

>>22709985
>You’re really far wound up in schizo bullshit.
Lol there's nothing schizo about this stuff, perhaps you should actually read some philosophy.
>Do you not accept that words have real meanings.
What do you define as "real"?
>The term “dark” refers to the absence of “light” and so these are mutually exclusive. You don’t need any consensus. By definition, they can’t overlap.
Well there is consensus, just an unconscious social one. Either way objective and subjective are states, but neither is empirically apprehended like "light and dark" are, we can create tow things which are essentially (but even here difficulties might arise) mutually exclusive by the ability to apply an actual negation to a grounding sensory experience, but that doesn't actually answer anything about the nature of subjective and objective.

[Anonymous No.22710020]

>>22710014
>The sky had to exist before you could refer to it. To say that I agree the letters “S-K-Y” refer to that thing we call the sky is not to say that you and I got together and agreed what would be referred to
Except that is exactly what you said
>Conceptually, a word refers to a real thing. We don’t get together and decide what it refers to arbitrarily
Not to mention words can refer to non-existing things. Do you think Pokemon are real? Unicorns, fairies, or phlogiston?

[Anonymous No.22710023]

>>22710012
I really can’t be any clearer that it’s not just merely assumed. If I told you my name, you’re not just assuming my name. You’re accepting that it is my name because I told it to you. That is the difference between Christian logic and atheist logic. A Christian will use a name because knowledge of that name has been imparted to them while an atheist will use a name just because the person responds. It would actually be on you to justify how it is you are able to use logic given the best you could come up with is that it’s logical, which should be an obvious red flag.

[Anonymous No.22710029]

>>22710017
I never said there wasn’t consensus. I said the thing which is being referred to isn’t the consequence of consensus. If everyone got together tomorrow and agreed that when we say “not true” we actually mean true but the real meaning of “not true” would still be something like “the absence of truthfulness”.

[Anonymous No.22710034]

>>22710023
>I really can’t be any clearer that it’s not just merely assumed
Yes you can be clearer by giving this supposed argument you have for God making logic possible that doesn't assume logic exists from the very beginning. Everything you've said thus far has been a faulty logical argument.
>It would actually be on you to justify how it is you are able to use logic
I assume logic works. You claim you have some other way of knowing logic works so again give it here. But remember it can't be any kind of logical proof because that would just be assuming what you're trying to prove.

[Anonymous No.22710035]

>>22710020
A unicorn is a real thing in the sense that some thing is being referred to and thatThe idea of a unicorn is real even if there is no real living creature as the unicorn.

[Anonymous No.22710038]

>>22710035
Absolute fucking KING. Even fanciful things are real, otherwise how could you reference them and distinguish them? A unicorn and a manticore are quite different, we need to acknowledge their respective places in being.

Anything less is metaphysical poverty. Orthohoes starving for knowledge desu

[Anonymous No.22710039]

>>22710035
>A unicorn is a real thing
Oh in that case God is totally real like a unicorn. In fact everything I can think of is real. You realize how fucking stupid this makes you look right?

[Anonymous No.22710041]

>>22710034
My man, you’re really misunderstanding the argument. Christians can go ahead and do logical proofs. That’s the whole point. They just don’t ultimately accept logic as valid because it’s logical or axiomatic. They accept it because their God put it there for them. You can say this, what I just said, is a logical argument, and you’d be right but that doesn’t change the fact that they justify their logic with God and not logic. Do you see the difference?

[Anonymous No.22710042]

>>22710029
>but the real meaning of “not true” would still be something like “the absence of truthfulness”.
But do we actually have a good understanding of what they are?

[Anonymous No.22710044]

>>22710039
The only one who looks like a retard is the one who tries to point at something meaningful yet calls it a literal "nothing" that is "nowhere". Enjoy your failing grade in metaphysics 101.

[Anonymous No.22710046]

>>22709862
What are you contrasting Empiricism with, Rationalism? It's not that the Empiricist has no account of truth, he identifies true reality with observable reality. While the Rationalist divides reality to sensory reality and supra-sensory reality.
About the status of logic: I agree that the standard Empiricist account of logic as tautologies can't be right, but I also think the Rationalists are way off in viewing logic as "rules" that are imposed on the facts from above. The direction I want to go in is to identify propositions* and facts, so logical relations turn out to be relations between concrete, actual facts.

*(obviously doesn't apply to false propositions)

[Anonymous No.22710048]

>>22710039
No, because you’re just talking nonsense and trying to draw equivalencies where none exist. Either the word “unicorn” has meaning which is real or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t it’s a meaningless word which doesn’t refer to anything in particular. Obviously, that’s not the case.

This is extremely basic philosophy of language, my man.

[Anonymous No.22710052]

>>22710041
>You can say this, what I just said, is a logical argument, and you’d be right but that doesn’t change the fact that they LOGICALLY justify their logic with God and not logic.
So by making a logical argument you're assuming logic exists and then proving your assumption. This proves nothing at all.
>Do you see the difference?
The difference is some fallacious logic to hide the fact you're relying on the assumption logic exists just like an atheist. You're on the exact same footing as me. You can't give a proof for logic existing without first assuming logic exists.

[Anonymous No.22710057]

>>22710042
What what are?

>>22710046
I’m not contrasting it with anything. I’m using as an example to illustrate a worldview which posits on one hand A, and the other hand, a necessary condition of A which is incompatible with the implications with A, namely, that only material things exist and yet the existence of immaterial things (logic) must be accepted order to make that argument. I only called on empiricism because it’s the most obvious and egregious example of this sort of contradiction.

[Anonymous No.22710058]

>>22710044
>The only one who looks like a retard is the one who tries to point at something meaningful yet calls it a literal "nothing" that is "nowhere"
You think Barney and Santa and the Easter Bunny are real. You're a goddamn retard. You're deep in Meinong's jungle but you don't even realize it was a parody.

[Anonymous No.22710061]

>>22710052
Nope. Anon, I really can’t be any clearer that we’re not just assuming logic exists as some a priori axiom. You keep replying as if we are, but we’re just not. So if you’re just going to play word games and assert what’s not the case, we’re at an impasse. Are you aware of what a justification is?

[Anonymous No.22710065]

>>22710058
Barney, Santa, and the Easter Bunny are certainly realer than Jay Dyer's special snowflake version of the Volcano Demon, yes.

[Anonymous No.22710069]

>>22710057
>What what are?
Concepts like truth for instance. Philosophers have spent their entire careers examining this. Beyond the very basic linguistic negation of truth and untruth (purely from the un- prefix), you actually have to justify why and how they are distinct. Have you ever read any Wittgenstein by the way?

[Anonymous No.22710070]

>>22710061
>Nope. Anon, I really can’t be any clearer that we’re not just assuming logic exists as some a priori axiom. You keep replying as if we are, but we’re just not
So for the hundredth time give your proof for logic existing without using logic. Even the word proof implies you're going to use logic so I really have no clue what you think you're going to come up with. But whatever it is stop just saying you have it and show that you have

[Anonymous No.22710071]

>>22710058
All of them are real in the sense that something is being referred to, yes. Nobody with a working brain denies this. This is really basic philosophy. It’s kind of shocking how poorly educated most of this board is…

[Anonymous No.22710081]

>>22710071
>All of them are real in the sense that something is being referred to, yes
I absolutely deny it. Being able to refer to something doesn't mean it is real. You're making every fantasy and imagination real. This is a stupid ridiculous position that no philosopher holds

[Anonymous No.22710083]

>>22710069
None of those philosophers were orthodox Christians or accepted orthodox theology. In fact, most of them presupposed the contrary. So I’m not surprised they didn’t quite get it right lol. It means basically nothing to me that a bunch of atheists couldn’t get it right.

[Anonymous No.22710085]

>>22710070
> I demand a logical proof!
> but don’t use logic! (Don’t give me a logical proof!)
Okay, anon. Do you want me to speak and not speak at the same as well?

[Anonymous No.22710090]

>>22710085
>Okay, anon. Do you want me to speak and not speak at the same as well?
So you finally get it. I'm so happy. You can't prove God is required for logic to exist without first assuming logic exists in the first place. Which means you're just proving your assumption. You have to assume logic exists just like an atheist.

[Anonymous No.22710092]

>>22710081
Then you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.22710096]

>>22710090
No, you don’t get it. You demanded that a Christian give a logical proof for something he doesn’t justify with a logical proof. You unironically don’t get this.

[Anonymous No.22710100]

>>22710081
Pretty much every philosopher holds to this position.

[Anonymous No.22710101]

>>22710092
A trivial application of your stupid fucking reasoning. We both understand the word logic. By your own idiocy that means logic is real. Therefore you don't need God to know logic exists, the very fact that we have the word logic means it exists.

[Anonymous No.22710108]

>>22710096
>You demanded that a Christian give a logical proof for something he doesn’t justify with a logical proof. You unironically don’t get this.
You're right I don't get that because that's not what you were claiming above. You were claiming you had a proof logic required God. Now you're claiming you don't have a logical proof. I don't really care whatever illogical gibberish you have. Just believe me bro is not an accepted apologetic tactic.

[Anonymous No.22710119]

>>22710065
If Barney, Santa, and the Easter Bunny have no positive status or presence, how are you referencing them and distinguishing them? Literally everything you say must have some presence or meaning, else you haven't said anything at all beyond incoherent strings of nonsense.

Total Eleatic Victory.

[Anonymous No.22710130]

>>22710119
>Literally everything you say must have some presence or meaning
They have a meaning but having a meaning doesn't make a word real. I can make up as many words as a I want

Xasdjfkasf is a creature that roams the planet ZOHKEL-19 and eats it's own shit in a never ending cycle

I know you're going to be disappointed but Xasdjfkasfs aren't real.

[Anonymous No.22710177]

>>22710083
Lmao, go to bed dude, you've got school tomorrow. Growing body needs 8 hrs of sleep.

[Anonymous No.22710266]

>>22710130
Look at you, not understanding the breadth of metaphysics. We're talking about what "is", this topic might be a too broad for your limited orthohoe philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22710297]

>>22707952
>>22707942
I'm not the anon that you're responding to, but a different Ortho-anon. There's a huge mistake that you "keep the theology but ditch the history" guys are making. You're assuming that you can divorce the system from its context in the world.

Let's say that you were right and all the proper nouns are wrong. He's not Jesus, he's actually named Sesuj and was born in Memphis, Tennessee. All of the parts of the system that needed to happen happened, just not how Christianity says.

If that's true, than due to the nature of how the system works, following Orthodox Christianity is going to put people into direct spiritual contact with Sesuj and these prophets will correct the mistake.

The demons would have no motivation to lead people falsely into the worship of Jesus, because the spiritual discipline of putting people into contact with truth incarnate (in this case Sesuj) would be the same. It'd be counter-intuitive to their purpose.

In other words, the fact that the doctrine is true proves that the history is true, because the whole point is that other degenerated or untrue doctrines (including those regarding the relevant names and history) could only come from a deceiver. The tree has one trunk.

The idea that this kind of mix-up could even persist is a product of the epistemological presuppositions of your own worldview; it doesn't make sense in ours or a copy of ours.

[Anonymous No.22710306]

>>22710048
>Either the word “unicorn” has meaning which is real or it doesn’t,
Define "real"

[Anonymous No.22710308]

>>22710297
>the fact that the doctrine is true proves that the history is true
What would possibly make you think I think the doctrine is true?
>That is a philosophical argument for God. IT'S NOT EVEN REMOTELY CORRECT but it's a philosophical argument without any need for historical facts.

[Anonymous No.22710315]

>>22709881
>I recommend you read my Eleatic book instead.
Where to find it friend?

[Anonymous No.22710359]

>>22710308
By the doctrine I'm referring to the philosophical arguments for the nature of the kind of God we're talking about, including the metaphysics and especially the epistemology: the epistemology is at the root of the spiritual/mystical discipline and is the whole motivation pursuing it.

If, for the sake of argument, you accept the epistemology, then that means that you're also accepting the doctrines regarding the spiritual discipline. What I'm saying is that for there to be a duplicate religion with different proper nouns would be inconsistent with the system that, for the sake of argument, you've accepted. If you accept the epistemology and metaphysics, then you have to accept the history since there can only be one system making these claims.

[Anonymous No.22710519]

>>22707416
>Ok then I accept a Trinitarian God that’s not the Christian God
name 1

[Anonymous No.22710529]

>>22707713
>why won't he debate an Alex Jones-tier /poltard/

[Anonymous No.22710537]

>>22710529
Doesn't Jay Dyer go on Alex Jone's show all the time

[Anonymous No.22710552]

>>22710315
Not yet published. "Final" copy was released 101.Then super "Final" copy was given to one trusted professor for commentary. Hope, seethe, receive. The absolute truth will land in your lap before the end of the year. 312 pages.

[Anonymous No.22710557]

>>22710537
Not that anon but he does, and I'm a Dyerfag.

It's funny when they do a video together and Jay squirms uncomfortably at Alex's schizo new-age-esque statements about God

[Anonymous No.22710575]

>>22710552
>The absolute truth will land in your lap before the end of the year.
be sure to share on /lit/ when its available so I know when to purchase!

[Anonymous No.22710588]

It's funny how he belittles Protestants as goofy evangelicals, and insults anyone in the reformed traditions as a fool, when he uses arguments that come straight out of a Protestant/Reformed worldview created by Protestant ministers. Or when he calls evangelical churches "atheism factories," when the worst atheist regime in human history came out of an Eastern Orthodox country.
And I don't even mean to belittle Orthodoxy, but to say that it's a wildly inconsistent position to insult Protestants as a bunch of silly fools and atheist factories, when taking their arguments as the best in apologetics and when atheists and heretics arise in any church.

[Anonymous No.22710589]

>>22707368
>videos

Never trust an expansive argument made only through video. Not having it in text makes it hard to track, you can't scroll up or down and go back to specific parts with ease, it makes the work of refuting or responding more difficult.

[Anonymous No.22710594]

>>22710519
My dick your dad and his mouth. Easy

[Anonymous No.22710941]

>>22707368
>transcendental categories exist
Ok…
>And I think god is an explanation, so therefore because transcendental categories exist, it must be the jewish rabbi who told us to drink his blood!
Huh?

Just because atheism does not implicitly come with an explanation of transcendental categories, it does not mean your errant explanation is anything but that. Having a shit explanation is worse than just being honest and continuing to search.

[γρηγορεύω !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22711007]

>>22710529
?

[Anonymous No.22711443]

Can any Slavic Christian tell me what your Bible says here? 10 shekels or 50 shekels?

>2 Samuel 18:11 KJVAAE
>And Jo´ab said unto the man that told him, And, behold, thou sawest him, and why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and I would have given thee TEN SHEKELS of silver, and a girdle.