Thread 17739987

What do you like about Jay, and how did you get into his videos? Are you Orthodox? And to the inevitable haters, what do you hate about him?

>>17739987 (OP)
He's an intellectual manlet who happens to be able to grasp and regurgitate the best argument for God, the TAG. Some of his recent videos or appearances on other shows, especially the one with the two black brothers, demonstrates his midwittery or his intellectual dishonesty. Since he is well read in the church fathers and intermediate philosophy, he becomes arrogant and overconfident when he speaks on topics he isn't as well versed in. Much like nuatheists, his call in shows usually consist of really dumb and "easy to dunk on" evangelicals.
5/10 he is entertaining and I really like his episodes on the occult/secret societies and conspiracies.

>>17739987 (OP)
I don't hate him, he's far better than other Christian apologists but still it's quite funny how he debates things without knowing the basics

>>17740004

Is it true that the TAG comes from predominantly Calvinist circles?

>>17740004
>the best argument for God, the TAG
The TAG is honestly quite bad. The best class of arguments for the existence of God are probably arguments from contingency.
Honorable mention: argument from consciousness. Weak on its own but can work as support for many other theistic arguments.
t. fedorachad

>>17740055

Why is contingency better than TAG?

Kikestianity is a superstitious Jewish slave religion, and as such his "defense" of it is superstitious, slavish, and Jewish with an intellectual dress. The same sort of pilpul you'll see from a post-modernist antiwhite, perhaps more disgusting for disguising its manipulation in intellectual drag.

>>17740032
allah doesn't know what the Holy Trinity is.
Am I expected to know all the shit muslims invented to make sense of the ad hoc crap the koran tells us?

>>17740040
I think it traces back to Plato and Augustine. Plato's form of the Good being that which, like the sun, "illuminates" all other forms and allows for intelligibility of them. Augustine argued that eternal truths must be grounded in God's eternal and immutable mind. Calvin, of course, draws from these two thinkers immensely.

>>17740191

Then where’s the source of truth, m8?

>>17740784
Truth is will to power

>>17739987 (OP)
Dyer is a clever sophist. Very good at sophistical debate tactics like misdirection, ad hominems, non sequiturs and disrupting arguments when he feels cornered, and manipulating audiences with rhetoric in general.
I wouldn't call him an intellectual manlet like >>17740004 did, Dyer's far from a total midwit. But he's narrowly read (his entire intellectual edifice is Calvinist presup he learned in Bible college plus parroting some shitty 20th century Orthodox academics like Lossky) and has a doubtful commitment to the truth.

>>17740055
The fine tuning argument is much stronger than arguments from contingency IMO.

>>17740146
Because TAG proponents cannot prove God is necessary for XYZ so they end up having to just aggressively state it and hope nobody notices.
>>17740828
>The fine tuning argument is much stronger than arguments from contingency IMO.
Fine-tuning is actually one of the weakest arguments. The atheist can make a parity argument:
>You claim there's a necessary God who makes a universe with properties XYZ because he necessarily has desires/tendencies ABC.
>I claim either the universe has properties XYZ necessarily or by virtue of a necessary non-God thing with the relevant necessary properties.
...and then say that his view is simpler and has fewer things/categories in its ontology.
Btw "necessary" here means something that exists in all possible worlds non-contingently. One may be inclined to ask why such properties are necessary, but that's not a viable question because if there were a why, they wouldn't be necessary but rather contingent.

>>17740828

> shitty 20th century Orthodox academics like Lossky

Are there any good Orthodox theologians after Palamas?

>>17740838

Does the universe possess necessary properties if it is entirely a result of some primary action? What would a necessary God-like thing be like?

>>17740786
Shut the fuck up, John Lennon wannabe

>>17739987 (OP)
I grant that he's antisemitic, but he's really handsome
I wish he'd unban me from his Discord server

>it's impossible for me to be wrong about this stuff, I even got a TAG argument to prove it
-man who said it was impossible for him to be wrong about this stuff when he was a Calvinist

>>17739987 (OP)
Biggest proponent of the trad larper movement. His anti-Orthopraxy style has led to indoctrinating a bunch of directionless zoomers to act like jackals who think using pretentious vocabulary and slippery tactics are the ultimate moves to express yourself as a devotee of Christ. Even now, I can hear them going "THAT'S A FALLACY. FALLACY, FALLACY, FALLACY" in their Twitter space debates, just like daddy Dyer taught them.

>>17739987 (OP)
There is literally not one single thing to like about this idiotic rude le bloodsports egomaniac. If that guy represents orthodoxy, then orthodoxy is fucking fake

>>17742384
> anti-Orthopraxy

I get what you’re saying about the sophistry and the jackals haunting the comment sections, but what about what he’s actually saying goes against Orthodox praxis?

>>17740271
All forms of trinity are refuted in the Quran even the one you people are falsely assuming the Quran is exclusively mentioning, pic rel. Anyway you have just implied you are actually ignorant on our theology and then proceeded to make a stupid regurgitated argument that puts your ignorance on display. Congrats!

>>17742855

What do you make of Quran 5:116?

> And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.

>>17743149
to play devil's advocate for the child rapists; Catholicks definitely worship Mary and any outsider to the Catholick religion would say the same. In particular, some Catholick authors of the period said there were particularly fervent Mariolators in Arabia.

I haven't heard about this nerd in 3 years

>>17743170
He’s more popular than ever

>>17742834
Orthopraxy as in conduct befitting someone of the faith. He'll get hospitable and well-mannered when facing off against a scholar or a big name, but get him against some random viewer or literal who or someone who's less intelligent than him, and it's mocking insults and mimicking them like a 5th grader. People can argue that "Well, that's just when you deal with dumbasses", but you can tell that's when the real Jay comes out. Religion to him is just a shiny pair of shoes that he wants to show off, and he'll stomp and kick if he thinks somebody could potentially scuff it. There's no real faith acceptance of Christ in his heart, it's just for show to jerk off intellectually and have impressionable people swayed to him like some sort of cult leader.

>>17743185

He’s getting in more with Sam Hyde and the better known manosphere YouTubers, it’s been a long ride. I wish he would organize his content better, lots of true gems about philosophy hidden in clickbait titles and lesser-watched videos

Jay Dyer is Reddit with a beard. A midwit LARPing as a philosopher because he skimmed a few footnotes in Being and Time and got filtered halfway through City of God. Every time he opens his mouth it's like watching someone use a thesaurus to hide that they flunked Intro to Logic.

>Are you Orthodox?
Kek. You mean the schismatic cosplay church run by ethno-nationalists, ecumenists, and limp-wristed bishops who can’t even agree on a calendar? "Orthodoxy" is cope for protestants who want incense and icon corners but can’t handle the discipline of Rome. The entire Eastern theology is a pseudospiritual circlejerk built on vague mysticism and autistic essence/energies babble. Palamism is like gnostic fanfiction with more beard oil.

Dyer’s grift is simple: dunk on liberalism and pop culture for low-IQ boomers and disillusioned zoomers, then redirect them to a non-universal, disunified, post-schism clown show. It’s not apologetics. It’s clickbait wrapped in pseudo-intellectual trad drag. A theological gateway drug into apostasy. Congrats, you left Protestantism and landed in a schizosect with no Pope, no Magisterium, and no unity. Just cope and clerical nationalism.

Jay Dyer does not have rhe Holy Spirit and neither does his cringy zoomer orthodox discord larperw. He wiłl burn in hell. The covid vaccine was the Mark of the beast.

>>17743731
>least delusional Christian

>>17744120
I feel like I'm posting on an insane asylum

>>17743731

> The covid vaccine was the Mark of the beast.
What does that have to do with your previous objection at all?

>>17742373

INSTANT KARMAS GONNA GET YOU

>>17743165
>>17742855
No Christian has ever worshiped Mary as a goddess. Not one.
Although the retards who wrote the quran sure thought so...

>>17742855
Where does the quran refute the version of the Trinity Christians actually believe?

>>17745456
Nowhere.

>>17743242

> He'll get hospitable and well-mannered when facing off against a scholar or a big name, but get him against some random viewer or literal who or someone who's less intelligent than him, and it's mocking insults and mimicking them like a 5th grader.

I’ve noticed this. I think that what happens when you’re really into apologetics is that you start developing rational explanations of your religion to fend off attacks from people doing the same thing, something that has been in a constant process of refinement for thousands of years. For example, the existence of God is generally proven by the same assortment of arguments regardless of your faith. As a chess player advances and learns all the winnable openings and tactics, his individual intuition becomes assimilated into one of several systematic ways of playing that the grandmasters developed over time. I figure that if you do that intensely over time, the magic and mystery of your religion might begin to take a back seat to your understanding of the truths you are trying to prove, and if someone dialogs with you who’s not familiar with the conventions of your game, you assume they’re not as serious in learning the faith in the way you have. There are flaws, but I can understand the temptation

>>17741677
The problem EOs have is that theological learning and education in general collapsed in EO countries from the advance of the Muslim invasions in the Late Middle Ages and onwards, and had to be revived in the modern period under western influence:. e.g. EO seminarians were taught with Jesuit manuals and a Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucarius converted to Calvinism because they were putting forward systemic arguments and no one in EO was at the time. The reaction to this came in the 19th century from the Slavophiles (themselves influenced by German Romanticism) who rejected systematic theology as "Latin" and emphasised the purely mystical nature of EO theology, raising Palamas and hesychasm to the central place. This particularly took hold among the White Russian emigres in Paris in the 1920s, who blamed the Bolshevik Revolution on all things western.
Of course this is all invented in the modern period and against the earlier Greek patristic tradition, none of the Greeks at Florence cared about the essence-energies distinction and no one at Blachernae nor Photius, John of Damascus, the Cappadocian Fathers etc. were denouncing natural theology and Aristotle.
Anyway, Dyer has copied the theology of these 20th century Russian emigre authors like Lossky and Meyendorff and mixed in the Van Tillian Calvinist presup he learned in Baptist seminary plus some namedropping about early modern philosophers like Kant. It's very rhetorically appealing to young people disillusioned in a materialist, sceptical age,

>>17742377

Gey

>>17746040

I’ll look more into this perspective, thanks

Dyer thinks the world is 7000 years old. He is not intelligent

>Christ's true Church is actually a bunch of orcish Slavs and Greeks
>the Great Commission = sitting around for over a thousand years in Ortho countries looking down on everyone else as damned, not sending out more than a handful of missionaries while chanting as a le based monk
>almost every EO church is an ethnic exclave
>only in the past 40 years former Protestants came in, like the right wing equivalent to hippies converting to Buddhism because it's exotic and different and not the "shallow" West
I've got some great EO friends, and know some great people IRL. But I can't stand internet Orthodox apologists.
Also, Dyer is probably a Russian agent.

>>17745424
If you're going to ignore historical evidence prior to the birth of the prophet and the practices of christians today, honest discussion with you is not possible.
>>17745456
Can you be a trinitarian upon orthodoxy and not believe the Son was beget by the Father? Anyway 4:171 clearly mentions the involvement of the spirit which you claim the author of the Quran (God) was ignorant of and it specifically says to stop saying 3 and that only God is one. Imagine believing the prophet was actually ignorant of your most basic doctrine when he constantly got challenged by Christian monks on relatively obscure parts of the text https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/10/05/sister-harun-quran/

>>17740004
If TAG is the best argument for god then i can rest assured in my atheism

>>17747280
>Can you be a trinitarian upon orthodoxy and not believe the Son was beget by the Father?
The eternal generation of the Son is not the Trinity, but since you mention it I don't believe the author knew what Christians mean by it either.
>Anyway 4:171 clearly mentions the involvement of the spirit which you claim the author of the Quran (God) was ignorant of
I looked up this verse since you conveniently left it out. It says
>O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Three.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.
The only "spirit" mentioned is Jesus Himself, there is no awareness of the third person of the Godhead.
>specifically says to stop saying 3 and that only God is one
Which is specifically a misrepresentation because Christians don't believe in three gods, the author did not know what Christians believe.
>he constantly got challenged by Christian monks on relatively obscure parts of the text
Muhammad barely had any contact with Christians, he heard about them more than he heard from them, which is why Islam was so much more heavily influenced by Judaism.

>>17747301
>still has no argument

>>17747416
straw man, I never said it was. I asked you very specifically if you can be a trinitarian upon orthodoxy (remember you wanted a refutation of the belief Christians today actually hold) if you believe the Son was not begotten by the Father. You refused to answer that of course.
>The only "spirit" mentioned is Jesus Himself
Nowhere in the text does it say that. Instead it says the spirit is from Allah.
>don't believe in three gods
You do, and I can challenge you on this. But it doesn't say there that there is only one God, it says that only God is one.
>which is why Islam was so much more heavily influenced by Judaism
That's simply because Judaism is closer to the truth. But anyway in what world does it make more sense to challenge the prophet on obscure lineages than his conception of their most fundamental doctrine. One that is a salvific matter too

>>17747430
>remember you wanted a refutation of the belief Christians today actually hold
Of the Trinity. You are backpedaling hard.
>Nowhere in the text does it say that. Instead it says the spirit is from Allah.
I'm not sure if you're trolling me or desperately hoping nobody will read it
>You do
No I don't. Christians believe in exactly 1 God, and to say there is more than one God is to deny the Trinity.
>I can challenge you on this
Ok, you lost.
>That's simply because Judaism is closer to the truth.
No, it's because there were actually many Jews in Arabia with whom Muhammad was able to have a great deal of contact, making it much easier for him to copy them.
>obscure lineages
The fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus is not Miriam, the sister of Aaron is not "obscure", it's very embarrassing that Muhammad was ignorant of it.

>>17747450
This is an attack on your belief on the trinity, yes.
>can't answer so he dodges
as expected, https://quran.com/2/87 shows us that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are different beings
>Christians believe in exactly 1 God
No you don't. You literally had to bypass classical logic so you can say that. Now please tell me in a room of three people that share the same human nature, how many human beings you have there?
>copy them
Oh okay then you have admitted your religion has no continuity with the faith of Jesus (Judaism).
>is not "obscure"
Of course you ignore the part where it was perfectly responded to. Also it is compared to your most fundamental creed. If I ask this Question to Christians today who are vastly more well read they will not be able to answer. But they will still falsely say they believe in one God like you do. It's literally the most important part of the religion, anything else in comparison is obscure

>>17747466
>This is an attack on your belief on the trinity, yes.
However it is not what I asked for.
>shows us that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are different beings
Not even, but it's irrelevant because this is not representing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There is no verse in the quran where the Trinity is accurately described, let alone refuted.
>You literally had to bypass classical logic so you can say that
How so?
>Now please tell me in a room of three people that share the same human nature, how many human beings you have there?
So your god is like a creature and limited in the same ways? How pathetic and pagan, I'm not interested.
>the faith of Jesus (Judaism)
Judaism is the faith of the pharisees. It has no basis in the holy scriptures, which Muhammad also railed against.
>Of course you ignore the part where it was perfectly responded to
It wasn't, it was coped about with two different responses, Muhammad's happens to be the one that was outright false.
>Also it is compared to your most fundamental creed
How? Where?
>If I ask this Question to Christians today who are vastly more well read they will not be able to answer
Lol, do you really believe this?

>>17747114
"World", in this context, means written human systems of thought. It doesn't mean the planet earth. You're choice to argue that position is a strawman fallacy.

>>17747503
It's literally an attack on the Nicene creed.
>the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed#Versions_by_scholars
You have no trinity as believed by Christians today without this fundamental part.
>Not even
Refusal to provide any explanation is thrown in the trash. It clearly differentiates them, one assists the other.
>How so?
Pic rel. And now I see you are going to cope by saying only a nonsensical God is unlimited.
>Judaism is the faith of the pharisees.
Jesus said to follow everything they preach (Matthew 23:1-3. Is he teaching people to follow false faiths?
>"Jesus practiced the religion of first-century Judaism" - https://www.gotquestions.org/what-religion-was-Jesus.html
Anyway as we can see this is your claim, we don't believe this.
>pretends to be blind and can't refute the responses given
>argument from incredulity
sad day to be a christian

>>17745894
Which is why apologetics is kind of bogus in the first place. Nothing wrong with using reason to argue your faith, but if you presume yourself to be a child of God, then there are other factors that come into play to help you convince people, primarily the Holy Spirit that resides within you that can resonate with the person you're trying to convince. Look the part, act the part, motherfucker, so to speak.

>>17739987 (OP)
Hes a debate rapist who cares more about rhetoric than relevant arguments. He sucks people into an endless vortex of irrelevant bs just like wilson. I watched a debate he did on feminism and he got sidetracked talking about gdp for like an hour and a half just looping. Hes just another retarded christcuck who learned how philosophy terms work imo.

>>17747114

Has he fully committed to Young Earth Creationism? I thought that he just skeptical about the scientific evidence for dinosaurs and though YEC sounded more plausible

>>17747730
Sounds like an atheist.

>>17747730

> a debate he did on feminism and he got sidetracked talking about gdp for like an hour and a half just looping

You mean this one?
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ausdQV838PY

>>17747519

> "World", in this context, means written human systems of thought

How does that work?

>>17747466

What do you make of the hypothetical question he asks Muslim callers? I think this video shows him asking it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLCsF2rxVP8

>>17750353
I am away right now so I can't watch it but according to a transcript website he's asking about the corrupted torah right?

>>17748608
He's always been a YEC, it's the evidence for a flat Earth he's warming up to, he's skeptical about the NASA space bullshit

>>17748894
If I came into this without already knowing about the online Ortho-space, I would have been 99% confident that Jay was a gay man, based on the way he dresses.

>>17750367

Yes. From the best I can remember, the Quran says multiple times that it’s consistent with the revealed scriptures that came before it (Injeel and Torah), that churches/rabbis of these texts partially corrupted those texts over time, and that followers of the Injeel and the Torah would see that the Quran is a revealed scripture due to these consistencies and therefore move toward being Muslim. So the hypothetical Jay poses is: assuming this is the case, if a 7th century Arabian Christian or Jew was present when Mohammed recited the Quran, would this hypothetical person see the Quran as consistent with the biblical texts that they were familiar with at that time? Jay games out three options:

> two possibilities if yes: if it is judged so by the texts spoken of by the church fathers and what we have now, then the Quran is wrong because there are many inconsistencies, and if a “lost Injeel/Torah” is hypothesized which would have been closer to the uncorrupted version, then the conclusion is implausible since no such work is found or cited by Christian writers in history or archaeology, and the Quran’s assertion would be lost on the hypothetical Jew/Christian if such a text had already been lost
> if no, then the Quran’s assertion is wrong

I could have some of the points wrong, but I thought that’s what he was arguing

>>17750430
>implausible since no such work is found or cited by Christian writers in history or archaeology
I just find this ridiculously hypocritical. Jay believe in all kinds of implausible stuff, he thinks it's true that a man walked on water 2000 years ago.
Why is he shaming other for having implausible beliefs?

>>17750430
>>17750479
Yeah, I think the Muslim is forced here to posit the existence of an unknown, uncorrupted apocryphal gospel and Torah in 7th century Arabia around the time of Muhammad. Which is obviously ad hoc cope, but it's only one piece of evidence in the argument and not on its own a defeater for Islam.

>>17750430
>So the hypothetical Jay poses is: assuming this is the case, if a 7th century Arabian Christian or Jew was present when Mohammed recited the Quran, would this hypothetical person see the Quran as consistent with the biblical texts that they were familiar with at that time?
I mean there are reports of Christians back then doing exactly that and they became companions of the prophet.
> two possibilities if yes: if it is judged so by the texts spoken of by the church fathers and what we have now, then the Quran is wrong because there are many inconsistencies
From amongst the synoptic gospels, the main point of contention would be the death and resurrection of Jesus. A belief which would not have undermined the faith of its followers in the sight of God because they couldn't have known otherwise. John with its much more developed christology would be problematic but we don't have to take it as the injeel. That being said I still don't see the problem with this given the fact that we can still identify prophecies and theological points that would fit our interpretation more than yours even with the bible you have in your hands. We can always do a general confirmation anyway
>and if a “lost Injeel/Torah” is hypothesized which would have been closer to the uncorrupted version, then the conclusion is implausible since no such work is found or cited by Christian writers in history or archaeology
If we are going by what texts we have today then the reconstructed Q doesn't say anything that would be problematic for us afaik. And there would be no reason to expect the church fathers to quote it since they went with later texts. But speaking of them they do quote variants that are not used today in various places and I mean even the bible authors themselves do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible?useskin=monobook I am sure you're aware that we have teachings that are very similar to those in some of these apocrypha

>>17750669
We already know that the Torah present in 7th century Arabia contains teachings you do not have today though

>>17750430
>>17750669
>>17750691
Huh, I always figured Muslims just swallow this bullet and was over and done with it forever ago
I've raised similar arguments myself, seems like a glaring plot-hole. But the people I talked to never really cared to respond to it. Chalked that up to anti-intellectualism in the religious community.

>>17750876
>swallow this bullet
By which I mean admitting that we should expect there to exist (more?) evidence of the uncorrupted texts, yet no such evidence exist.

>>17739987 (OP)
he is an ego maniac fraud who gish gallops what he calls a "debate" doesnt let the other speak as he speaks over them and then bans them when he gets dunked on. fuck this retard

>>17751154
mad

>>17740784
Truth is truth regardless of human meddling/interpretation. Existence exists, we don't need to assume anything other than that without proof. Thruth is.

>>17751492

Oh, you mean reality is reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuLBvV20oTE

>>17751730
Did Jay ever figure out what his premises were?

>>17751730
>laws of logic are languages that don't actually exist anywhere they describe things that do exist
I would've responded to this by asking "what do they describe", because what they "describe" are not material entities

>>17751870

The TAG assumes that no other worldview can explain the world we live in other than one which factors in the existence of God, and is proved by the impossibility of the contrary.

>>17752259
What's meant by explain here?
Provide you with a sentence in English language so you can understand... the world?

>>17752529

Again, I’m just paraphrasing what Jay says in his talks. For him, a person’s worldview is the metaphysics (the way things actually are/exist), epistemology (the way we come to know and justify what is true), and ethics (the way we come to proper moral judgements) they use to explain reality. He believes these three things are interdependent upon one another.

>>17752259
>proved by the impossibility of the contrary.
Which is merely asserted, and in fact not a proof. Which is why presup is retarded.

How does God explain the world? He just kinda does - god superpower. This is not a high bar

>>17752620
It is proven, and while nobody needs this proof, it proves the existence of God with certainty.

>>17752634
>It is proven
May I see it?

>>17752529
The people running these kind of arguments are caught up in conceptual confusion, and would not be able to explain what they are asking for.

>>17752691
You're looking at it.

>>17752697
Get a grip, what are you trying to accomplish by acting like this?
Do you think this will be persuasive to me? What would the best case scenario be

>>17752717
No, nothing will be persuasive to you if the Holy Spirit does not grant you spiritual life. Why do you believe my objective is to appease you?

>>17752728
Acting like this don't seem very Christian. You got a commission from the Holy Spirit to spread the word.

What's the point of telling me I'm looking at the evidence, when you know I won't believe that? What were you hoping to accomplish

It's just so fucking cringe to play philosophical-drag with all these kind of fancy looking arguments, but when pressed on what justifies the premises - it is
LOOK AT DA TREES

actual brain rot

>>17752760
>Acting like this don't seem very Christian
You got a very strange idea of what Christian means.
>What's the point of telling me I'm looking at the evidence, when you know I won't believe that?
I know you won't believe anything. You are literally submerged in evidence, God reveals Himself to you constantly through the uniformity of nature, through your conscience, through the laws of logic, through the experience of your senses etc etc. which no other worldview can account for besides Christianity, and you do not believe. It is quite irrelevant to me if you reject the proof, I do not need your approval.

>>17752777
Yeah, I wanted to talk about TAG
not his bullshit, bye

>>17752782
God bless.

>>17752788
Thank you. I knew you sincerely meant that, and are acting like a proper Christian should.

>>17752799
You're quite welcome.

>>17750886
Even if we held onto that position (it's not the traditional position held by the exegetes). The gospel of Thomas was found in 1945 and it was also assumed to have existed without a manuscript in our hands. I don't see why it is so hard to expect that there are other lost manuscripts, see what Origen says
>You should know that not only four Gospels, but very many, were composed. The Gospels we have were chosen from among these gospels and passed on to the churches. We can know this from Luke’s own prologue, which begins this way: “Because many have tried to compose an account.” The words “have tried” imply an accusation against those who rushed into writing gospels without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not “try” to write; they wrote their Gospels when they were filled with the Holy Spirit
>The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have very many. One of them is entitled According to the Egyptians, another According to the Twelve Apostles. Basilides, too, dared to write a gospel and give it his own name. “Many have tried” to write, but only four Gospels have been approved. Our doctrines about the Person of our Lord and Savior should be drawn from these approved Gospels. I know one gospel called According to Thomas, and another According to Matthias. We have read many others, too, lest we appear ignorant of anything, because of those people who think they know something if they have examined these gospels - Hom. Luc. 1.1-2, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard
pic rel is another one that Origen predicts to exist, he was trustworthy enough to correctly tell us about that other gospel so we shouldn't discredit him and what the text says when it mentions that this is actually written down. And guess what that verse is cited in some form in the hadith https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7498 so it is not impossible for us to assume what was quoted there existed during 7th century Arabia

>>17752889
Origen was not "predicting" the Gnostic gospels, he was aware of their existence as a thing that definitely existed in the time. Do you think the fact we discovered them in a hole in the desert means they always were there?

>>17752958
Never made that claim so I am not sure why you're asking me this. In one instance Origen knew of the specific manuscript that was lost (for a very long time) and in the other he made an assumption based on his knowledge for the source material cited in 1 Corinthians 2:9 Remember he says he read many others and does not specify them in every situation. But in any case you're missing the point, I am saying that absence of manuscript evidence in current year means nothing if you have good reasons to suspect that it could have existed such as reports from ~1400 years ago from the people in the region in question. And again it should be stressed that this is not the traditional approach to the Christian scriptures but one that Christians are falsely imposing onto us. Even so though they fail

>>17752788

Yup

>>17740004
What’s TAG

>>17754706
"How can words exist if there's no wizard in the sky?"

>>17754789
No, that's literally it, that's TAG, I'm not being facetious

>>17754706

The transcendental argument for God

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

>>17754882
Yes you are, you clown.

>>17752777
>uniformity of nature
I don't get why presups keeps talking about uniformity of nature
While also literally believing in magic and miracles - Nature is uniform, except when it isn't

>>17755454
Do we believe in magic?

>>17755522
You tell me what witches and pharaoh's high priests are supposed to be doing

>>17755530
Lying wonders and communion with devils. We don't believe in magic, unlike atheists who believe natural laws happen just cause.

>>17755535
I don't understand why Christians suddenly loath to admit the bible tells stories about humans doing magic.

Sure, whatever fine. It isn't pharaoh's priest who are transforming rods to snakes, it's a devil. That's still not exactly nature being uniform.
Rods don't usually turn into snakes.

>>17755575
>I don't understand why Christians suddenly loath to admit the bible tells stories about humans doing magic.
Guessing there's a lot you don't understand.
>It isn't pharaoh's priest who are transforming rods to snakes, it's a devil.
No, pharaoh's wizards are doing stage magic. They only "reproduce" the miracles that a magician could; when God turns the Nile to blood, they don't reproduce it by turning the already red river red, they did it with dye and a glass of water.
>Rods don't usually turn into snakes.
What basis does an atheist have for believing this?

>>17755594
Do you think I'm just not noticing that you are not engaging with the point I raised?
I would just like some sort of admission that on the Christian worldview nature is just *mostly* uniform.

>>17755796
>Do you think I'm just not noticing that you are not engaging with the point I raised?
I will take that as a concession.
>I would just like some sort of admission that on the Christian worldview nature is just *mostly* uniform.
You think this is an epic gotcha but it's meaningless. What you just said doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing as "mostly" uniform or "completely" uniform, there's just uniform. God has imposed upon creation certain natural laws, and in Him all things hold together. Because of this Christians have a basis to say there's uniformity in nature and to expect what they have not experienced to be like what they have experienced. When miracles happen, this is the sole principle that makes them extraordinary. Your worldview can't provide this, you have no basis to believe "Rods don't usually turn into snakes".

>>17755814

> I will take that as a concession.
This isn’t a DBS thread kek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgtqNx0T3WY

why does Jay appeal so much to terminally online teenagers?

>>17755814
Right, so on my worldview there's not such a thing as magic (I don't care if it's wizards or devils causing it), rods don't turn into snakes
But on your worldview - occasionally they do, guess that's something you have to worry about. A devil could turn your keyboard into a toad

>>17756089

He’s a source of certainty (right or wrong), and more than willing to bite into the red meat. He’s also a decent resource for terminally right wing types getting into philosophy, it’s conspiracies with a bibliograhy

https://jaysanalysis.com/recommended-reading/

4chan used to be more like this, before things went more to shit

>>17756314
>Right, so on my worldview there's not such a thing as magic
Really, you sure seem to believe in a lot of magical things like the universe exploding from nothing or fish sprouting legs, but why don't you believe in magic? I haven't seen one word yet justifying the uniformity of nature in an atheist worldview.
>rods don't turn into snakes
What basis does an atheist have for believing this?
>I don't care if it's wizards or devils causing it
>But on your worldview - occasionally they do, guess that's something you have to worry about. A devil could turn your keyboard into a toad
Deliberately misrepresenting my words and ignoring rebuttals already given, such cowardly intellectual dishonesty reflects the bankruptcy of your position.

>>17740838
>>I claim either the universe has properties XYZ necessarily or by virtue of a necessary non-God thing with the relevant necessary properties.
Poor midwit idiocy lmao

>>17746040
>none of the Greeks at Florence cared about the essence-energies distinction
Lol no. The Emperor pressured St Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus not to bring up the EED during the discussions about the filioque because it is necessary for Blaccharnae's exposition of the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, but the Emperor did not want a confrontation that would lead to divisions within the Latins themselves. Pure historical illiteracy.

The universe is obviously fine-tu-ACK

>>17743727
>You mean the schismatic cosplay church run by ethno-nationalists, ecumenists, and limp-wristed bishops who can’t even agree on a calendar?
Has Rome agreed on whether or not the Scotist emanationist account of the Trinity or the Thomist relational one is true? Or which account of the attributes of God is true? Or whether Molinism or Thomistic predestination is true? Or which Christological position is true as you accept Nestorians and miaphysites into the "church" for the sake of ecumenism? Your "church" is a decrepit LARPing hellhole where your Pope can't even discipline fag promoting bishops but somehow he can bring about "unity" lol. Check your Byzantine Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Maronite churches — what are they but ethnic clubs?

>but can’t handle the discipline of Rome
Rome? Discipline? Good joke anon.

>The entire Eastern theology is a pseudospiritual circlejerk built on vague mysticism and autistic essence/energies babble.
Good job condemning Sts Basil the Great; Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Diadochos of Photiki, etc.

>>17757073
You do realize that wisdom teeth didn't exist before industrialization right? How do you feel about ghost RNA having been proven to serve a function, btw?

>>17757073
How does this debunk irreducible complexity, let alone fine tuning?

>>17757090
an omniscient god would've planned for industrialization

>>17757101
nature is full of inefficiencies, wisdom teeth just being 1 example

>>17757090
>wisdom teeth didn't exist before industrialization
Very interesting psychology you got, where anything goes, as long there someone to blame


btw, God is still blameworthy for causing human biology to be such that industrialization would fuck up the wisdom teeth. God didn't have to do that

>>17757179
>an omniscient god would've planned for industrialization
He did, it's called medicine for a very minor problem overall.

>nature is full of inefficiencies, wisdom teeth just being 1 example
The argument is that the complexity seen in nature is not explainable through mechanistic processes, especially since the laws of nature permitting for life to exist as so precise and improbable. An optimal design is not necessarily a perfect design, as trade offs always exist. They are a logical necessity.

>>17757487
How do you know He didn't? Or that a greater evil wouldn't have come about if He did?

>>17740032
Leave Jake to me

>>17757073
>>17757179
>if we do not literally live in Eden right now, God not real
OK

>>17757514
God got a superpower to do anything (omnipotence), he can cause human biology to be whatever he desires, and, have whatever consequences he wants come about from that

>>17757728
>>17757514
God got a superpower to always get what he wants (omnipotence), he can cause human biology to be whatever he desires, and, have whatever consequences he wants come about from that

>>17757723
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just doesn't have to suck dick in order to justify the fine-tuning argument

>>17757740
>It doesn't have to be perfect
What imperfection would you not grab onto to declare God not real?
>it just doesn't have to suck dick
>And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Those are the options.

>>17757732
>>17757740
Omnipotence does not entail logical contradictions or the illogical. You are legitimately so retarded you don't even know the difference between irreducible complexity and the fine tuning argument. Low IQ subhuman.

>>17757514
>The argument is that the complexity seen in nature is not explainable through mechanistic processes
Which is a baseless assumption

>>17757788
>it hurts my feefees so it can't be true
Quite typical.

>>17757760
Please tell us the logical contradiction entail humans have teeth that don't get fucked up by industrialization

>>17757818
Who is "us"? Nigga you're the same Indian tranny posting across different threads because you're seething Christianity doesn't allow you to be gay lmao, fix your schizophrenia. Illnesses and medical issues are a product of corruptibility. Not much to respond to beyond that. You've been refuted 100 times over.

>>17757834
Look, talking about logical contradiction in response to wisdom teeth and industrialization, then completely refusing to follow up on that is not a legitimate move to make in the conversation (which of course you cannot, because there's no contradiction)
You're not serious

>>17757818
It entails a logical contradiction to the curse placed upon Adam and his progeny for his sin.

>>17757844
You said that God can do absolutely anything; I was responding to that claim in particular. Now if you can propose a design for a human being immune to underdeveloped wisdom teeth, a product of underdeveloped jaws due to the widespread usage of baby food, without creating suboptimal outcomes elsewhere, you are free to embarrass yourself.

>>17757849
It's still a deliberate decision on God's part
- IF Eve eat apple
- THEN wisdom teeth get fucked up by industrialization

God didn't need to make it that way, he chose to.

>>17757859
Correct.

>>17757859
God bound everyone to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

>>17757855
>a human being immune to underdeveloped wisdom teeth, a product of underdeveloped jaws due to the widespread usage of baby food, without creating suboptimal outcomes elsewhere, you are free to embarrass yourself.
This is not how this work. I don't have to tell you how to make wisdom teeth
You have to tell me tell me the logical contradiction, that makes it so not even God can do it

>>17757863
Right, so you agree with me that God is blameworthy for wisdom teeth

>>17757881
Yes, now go to the dentist, crybaby

>>17757881
No, Adam is blameworthy. What just happened here is you realized you were defeated so you retreated from assailing the design of man to what you mistakenly perceive to be your secure bastion in the pseudo-problem of evil.

>>17757876
The logical contradiction is in your presuming a perfect optimally designed jaw that wouldn't result in suboptimal outcomes elsewhere. Just because a certain design is impervious or valid when it comes to a singular issue, doesn't mean it isn't suboptimal overall.

>>17757897
Just tell me the logical contradictions entailed by a better jaw.
Merely supposing that it could result suboptimal outcomes elsewhere, is NOT showing that this a logical entailment.

To me, a jaw without faulty wisdom teeth doesn't seem particularly contradictory, seems like something an omnipotent God would be able to do. (even if I am not)

I think this entire line of reasoning is untenable, it shows such a poverty of imagination about what an omnipotent God would be able to do.
You have to say God is so weak that he couldn't make a jaw without wisdom teeth.... ??? That's a weird thing to say.

>>17757886
I apologize for holding God to such a high standard.

>>17757891
I just don't think pointing at Adam absolves God from blame. Maybe God has a superpower to avoid blame, alongside omnipotence and all that?
God is the one that choses the consequences for Adam eating fruit fruit. At those are really what I'm concerned with, not the fruit.

>>17757960
God will make us perfect in the resurrection. Then there will be no wisdom tooth problems. Please stop embarrassing yourself, Indian tranny anon.

>>17757987
>God will make us perfect in the resurrection
So what?

>>17757891

Pseudo-problem?

Billions must presup to understand the true Word

>>17750696
The Jews also might have just lied. Certainly wouldn't be the first or the last time.