Apologetics Methods and Dyer Debate Debrief (with Jimmy Akin)

In this episode Trent sits down with Jimmy Akin to talk about his recent debate with Jay Dyer as well as to do a deep dive on issues raised in the debate related to apologetics, presuppositionalism, and the philosophy of knowledge.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent

[@_thomase]

I'd like to see Jimmy and Jordan Peterson have a conversation. Bishop Barron tried it but the good Bishop tends to go all over the map where Jimmy is more focused, clear, and concise.

[@joelmontero9439]

I'd like to see Scott Hahn actually 😂 but Jimmy or William Craig would be amazing

[@MikeyJMJ]

Scott Hahn would be more suitable

[@_thomase]

@@MikeyJMJ @joel Montero I like Scott Hahn and when he is on his own he's great. But you get Scott Hahn or Bishop Barron together with someone and they talk too much. No, Jimmy Akin and Jordan Peterson would have an amazing conversation because they both actually listen to the other and respond to the questions asked with clarity. Bishop Barron and Scott Hahn are great professors - put them up at a podium and they deliver. I don't want preaching - I want the conversation. I'll take Jimmy. You guys get your own gig. lol

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

I think Matt Fradd would be the best.

[@Hawka23]

Bishop Barron tried it? As in tried and failed? I think Bishop Barron's was a great success. He listens, acknowledges what is true and agreeable about a comment and says that, and then offers a response. Both his dialogues were amazing, and Peterson has great respect for him I believe.

[@Dadbelly]

Trent and Jimmy, thank you. Your explanations of the Catholic faith are helping me grow in confidence the Catholics have it right. I’ve been pulled between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Both ancient, both beautiful, but specific differences in theology way to complex for a layman. Your simplicity in explanation is the key that unlocks my simple brain. God bless.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thank you for supporting the channel and commenting! -Vanessa

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

I think Eastern Orthodox philosopher Richard Swinburne would of sided with Trent in the debate. He believes in "evidence building on evidence" as Jimmy and Trent refer to here. Yes, on some level we may sort of "presuppose" God, but we need to provide convincing proofs to those who may or may not find credible this TAG approach. Also, I don't think we need to fear the Kantian critique of pure reason the way Jay let's on in the debate.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@UCivp5rroazJNL07jAfjfjHg Yes, argument from authority true. But he appears with Bradshaw in an anthology on NATURAL THEOLOGY from an EO perspective out this year. Maybe Dyerites don't think it matters, but it does seem relevant to point out and undercutting of Dyer's case.

[@ds9876]

Swinburne is Orthodox...?

[@josemarin7027]

I disagree entirely on Muslims believing in the same God, read their Quran, read their hadiths, you will see their description of God is entirely and totally different than the God described in the bible.

[@Jimmycrdns]

This is true, however they do claim to believe there is only One God. They got at least that right.

[@Zangified02]

@@DaneilTindeed

[@TrontaviousKatarina]

@@Jimmycrdnsno they didn’t. Believing in one God isn’t the same as believing in the one true Triune God

[@TheGreenPillCoach7]

We don't believe in an anthropomorphic and contradictory Trinity, that is correct.

[@josephmiller3672]

They do worship the same God, however their idea of who God is is flawed. Think of it like two people having different ideas about George Washington. One person believes he was born in the Americas, fought in the French & Indian and American Revolutionary wars, and was the first President of the US. The other believes he was born in Great Britain, fought in the American Revolutionary war, and was the second president of the US. Both of them believe in George Washington, one is just mistaken about who he was. Another example of this from the Bible is the altar to an unknown god in Athens. St. Paul says that the worship offered on this altar, the Athenians offered to God, and what they worship unknowingly, he has now come to reveal to them.

[@zekdom]

0:53 2:08, 2:22, 2:43, 3:21 - Presuppositionalism and classical apologetics 4:36 - How Akin views debates 6:22 - What is natural theology? 6:43 - Dyer’s nuance 7:57, 8:11, 8:23, 8:47, 9:10 - Akin’s criticism of Dyer’s approach. 9:23 - Akin’s credit to Dyer 9:49 - Trent Horn on clear communication 10:21 - Akin noticing how people recognized Trent’s clarity

[@erickybarra201]

Trent clearly won by the content. He provided cogent reasons for why there is self evident truth, and he also gave the same regarding theism from the Greek Patristic tradition. What more could Dyer require? E. Ybarra

[@Spsz6000]

Is this your new KZbin account?

[@F2222m]

Well Erick, Jay literally told you during your debate that even if the Church Fathers were on your side, you were still wrong and there was nothing that could make you be right.

[@glof2553]

Jay is inconsistent with his standards of epistemological justification (as shown in the debate with Erick and with Trent). Dyer came off more convincing at first but upon a second listen, if you move past Dyer's shroud of rhetoric, Trent had more substance and was more compelling.

[@erickybarra201]

@@Spsz6000 No i accidentally logged into an old account. My regular account is Classical Christian Thought

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@Spsz6000 There, fixed.

[@pandarikishi5873]

Jay dyer, as far as debating goes, was brought up in the "blood sports" Internet culture, where debates are knivefights of culture war, not intellectual exchanges. where thrusts are being delivered, rather than ideas. Delivery as in punchlines rather than maieutic effect. Pride in being able to reference esoteric concepts and the carelessness to elaborate further are likewise hostile tactics rampant in those spheres, that serve to attach authority to oneself and denigrate the other as the one who might be unfamiliar. While passion and virility are of aesthetic importance, this is obviously not a fruitful concept of debate. Furthermore, he transferred this method on an exchange with a brother in Christ, which makes it so vain and immature. He is a passionate, likely well-meaning brother, weathered by culture.

[@davidcoleman5860]

Good observations. I came away with a similar impression. Dyer was clearly very aggressive to the point of rudeness. To me, the facts speak for themselves. If one agrees to engage in a debate, one should at least be as factual and as persuasive as possible. His confrontational deportment is wholly unnecessary in building a solid case for his position.

[@RafaelGarcia-jb3me]

You’re both coping hard for Trent losing. He wasn’t prepared unfortunately and Akin being a bit pretentious here as he would not be this confident face to face.

[@kenosimolato]

Thank you Jimmy. You are an excellent teacher .

[@gerardlegrange237]

I totally skipped out of the debate right after the opening statements because I had no idea what Dyer was talking about. I never heard him directly point to the Achilles heel of natural theology. Looks like Jimmy made the same observation. Glad I came here instead of trying to look up and evaluate the myriad of sources to see if they were relevant or not.

[@prosperitynuggets]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I ended up not watching the full debate because I understood nothing of Dyer's opening statement

[@jendoe9436]

I listened through it all, and can agree that Dyer’s points weren’t well displayed or were too tangled in jargon to make sense. At the beginning he conceded he was going to use such high worded concepts, but that just made me think “so I need to do homework on your positions to understand them in this debate, which will be viewed by people at various levels of knowledge in this field?” right off the bat. That’s why I prefer Trent’s style of debating: explain plainly and elaborate when necessary, even if it makes things too simple at least they are easier to grasp. Which when being viewed by a wide audience, provides more engagement since I’m not thinking “what’s this term?” or “wait, what’s that referring to?”

[@everlastingphronema9700]

Interesting. I had the exact opposite reaction. I didn’t understand things at first but it drew me into to study deeper.

[@krimbii]

I can never follow Jay.

[@Jimmycrdns]

Plus he calls anyone who doesn't agree with him...."It's because they have low IQ"

[@harlowcj]

​@@everlastingphronema9700Yeah I get the criticism, but I just use things I don't understand as a launching point for further KZbin watching. Not every debate has to be intro level, especially when it involves a lot of splitting hairs like this debate did.

[@alexjurado6029]

It wasn’t until Trent began to cross-examine Jay that Jay started to make any sense in that debate, lol.

[@jasonkurup5759]

100% agree.

[@randomworkings3600]

Having watched a lot of Jay Dyer content and read a lot of his sources (Bahnsen, Van Til) but being Roman Catholic, I disagree slightly with this point. Though, I do think Jay can appear senseless when you don’t already start from the same foundation he’s always arguing from.

[@Sm64wii]

@@randomworkings3600same. I could understand what he meant from his athiest debates but don’t see how he can apply this same thing to Catholicism.

[@Oskar1000]

As an atheist, Akon seems so much more reasonable than almost any apologist out there, good job having him on

[@glof2553]

"Smack that, all on the floor" - Jimmy Akon

[@lyricalmike7162]

Akon, lol

[@jendoe9436]

If you enjoy Jimmy Akin’s style, I highly recommend “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” podcasts. It’s affiliated with “Star Quest Productions” and should be an easy search. He talks about various topics like aliens, popular conspiracies, popular events/ subjects, obscure events/subjects, history, etc from a faith and reason perspective. I enjoy his apologetics, and his podcasts aren’t ‘preachy’ or trying to convert anyone. Just laying out information and reasoning what’s right. Working my way through the catalogue and my favorites so far are “Skinwalker Ranch,” “Was King Tut Murdered,” and “Mind Control Parasites.”

[@chad_hominem]

@@jendoe9436 does he hold to a biblical geocentric earth position? (Ie: ancient Hebrew cosmology?) Cause the scriptures def do not affirm the heliocentric model, which was promulgated by luciferian freemasons and which the early church never taught and initially rejected.

[@revelation20232]

​@@glof2553 💀

[@GeorgeLiavas]

Is this the guy that said Arius and nestorius died devout Catholics? Makes sense.

[@davidbates3353]

Okay, bafflegab is word-of-the-day!

[@ironymatt]

Jimmy never disappoints - it's been eons since I've heard that!

[@harlowcj]

I actually laughed out loud when he used bafflegab to demonstrate how Jay was using too technical of terminology for the audience.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

I wouldn’t say presuppositionalism is circular but it depends on how you use it. The typical presupp would argue that we all presuppose God when using logic and reason as God is actually needed for logic and reason. This is a transcendental argument which isn’t circular(more about this topic on my channel). ? A presuppositionalist would argue from the impossibility of the contrary - that every other view leads to utter skepticism and that leaves Christianity as the only possible worldview left. Some Presupps do use this approach in a circular way but there’s nothing circular about it if used like this.

[@oldmovieman7550]

One thing presuppositional apologetics does is it forces the unbeliever to confront the incoherence of their own world view. Basically, instead of "putting God on trial" so to speak, it puts unbelieving worldviews on trial.

[@oldmovieman7550]

@@DaneilT maybe not, but I don’t think that’s the job of apologetics. Apologetics is to give a defense of the faith, to basically shut the mouth of the accuser. It is the work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of His word that brings people to faith.

[@decluesviews2740]

How coincidental! I watched the debate today and was also writing about Vatican II’s teaching on the one God issue, and now y’all are making similar points that I’m making in my video lesson. I also agree with Jimmy’s assessment of the debate. There was a vast mish-mash of passing references to arguments and concepts but they were never articulated properly for a debate, leading to a sense of incoherencey or incomprehensibility. It wasn’t clear what his arguments actually were. Trent, however, was quite clear.

[@dwong9289]

Double coincidence. I just recently watched a video between you and Dr. Minerd a few days ago.

[@charliek2557]

Dr DeClue, could you please either make more videos on or point me to the Nouvelle Theologians, especially de Lubac and others like him? I’m having a hard time finding enough KZbin content to really understand thoroughly what they taught. Thanks

[@decluesviews2740]

@@charliek2557 I did an interview on Catholic Culture Podcast that you might find helpful. He titled it “Don’t Scapegoat the Nouvelle Theologie.” I also did a joint interview on Reason & Theology with Dr. Matthew Minerd. I also did an interview on the Logos Project on Nature & Grace recently (aired Sept 22, Episode 28). I think we get into it a bit on my soon to be released interview on Classical Theism Podcast, but that was a tangent from the Vatican II theme

[@charliek2557]

@@decluesviews2740 thanks Dr. DeClue! Love your content!

[@emmanuelsimon8607]

I enjoyed this debrief. One of the things I noted during the debate was that our Orthodox friends who accept presuppositionalism have to give an account as to how the Early Church Fathers argued presuppositionaly. Van Til himself argues in his book "A Christian Theory of Knowledge" (Ch 4) that the Church Father's apologetic method prior to Augustine all fell short due to the lack of presuppositionalism. I'm aware that some Orthodox Presuppositionalists argue that the Fathers were presuppositionalists (at least for the most part), but none to my knowledge confront Van Til.

[@gloriadei3400]

Most Orthodox don't know Van Til, though, especially those from a Protestant background, some Orthodox do hold to his view of presuppositionalism. I spent about 3-4 years in the Greek Orthodox Church: most saw 'Western-Reason' (natural theology) as incompatible with Orthodox asceticism due to the fact that they perceive God (in accord with how they'd interpret St. Dionysius) as beyond all words and descriptions, and all fallen descriptions of Him falling short of Him as He is. That's in complete contrast to Orthodox apologists in the 1800s (such as Ignatius Brianchaninov)and prior apologists even including the Fathers in the early Councils hashing out particular words (such as homoousios vs. homoiousios). The only thing I can conclude is that, perhaps the Orthodox, after more understanding of Catholic philosophy/apologetics, reacted against whatever they saw in the West as the root cause of secularism and/or modernism. That said: the tacit denial of the importance of reason, as well as the reactionary approach to philosophy and apologetics are a large part of why I left Orthodoxy for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church hasn't flip-flopped on philosophy, nor the apologetic reasoning of the early Church.

[@soulcutterx13]

Formerly-Orthodox Fr Schooping argues that Iranaeus provides a good model for presuppositional apologetics. I should think that he's prior enough to Augustine, though I haven't finished the book so I can't say if it's successful in its argument.

[@emmanuelsimon8607]

@@soulcutterx13 I've heard that's a good book! I'll post Van Til's view of Irenaeus below. Might we worth being aware of as you continue reading to see to what extent Schooping answers Van Till so to speak. "All in all, it may be said that Irenaeus was unable to work out a fully Christian doctrine (a) of the Trinity (b) of creation (c) of providence (d) of incarnation and (e) of redemption. He was too much under the influence of the philosophy of the Greeks to whom he sought to bring the gospel to really challenge them with the gospel." (Christian Theory of Knowledge, Ch 4)

[@soulcutterx13]

@@emmanuelsimon8607 To me this smacks of typical anti-Greek bias on one hand, and on the other, the problem central to Protestantism in general, being an opposition to the very notion, central to Catholic and indeed Orthodox thought, that Christ gave us the fullness of faith at the time of His earthly ministry, and that it might be unpacked over time, but that this initial "deposit of faith" cannot be departed from, either by removal nor by addition, without departing from Christianity. Van Til, like Luther and Calvin, stands on the shoulders of giants, of no less than seven ecumenical councils, that is, gatherings of the greatest theological thinkers and those filled with the Holy Spirit by dint of their highest degree of impression by God with His Divine Image, to address increasingly complex theological questions. To concede this matter is to make protestantism a degradation of the divinely revealed faith, so I can hardly say I blame him for this oversight, but it creates a much bigger problem, namely that it suggests Christianity before, say, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, simply didn't exist. It appears, fully formed, several centuries after the death of Christ. We can't accept this idea that prior to full articulation of every important element of the divine faith it's a pagan pseudochristianity.

[@soulcutterx13]

Update, still not that far in but we get a sideways answer to why Van Til ignores Iranaeus: "Thus a Calvinist is not particularly interested, insofar as Calvinism qua Calvinism is concerned, with analyzing particular arguments of Adversus Haereses, not only because of Calvinism's ambivalent attitude towards Christian tradition, but because the proof texts he might exposit in order to militate against Arminianism is, to all appearances, unrelated to Iranaeus' project. In this sense, early apologetic efforts tend to grow obscure and forgotten."

[@LtDeadeye]

The main difference, as I appreciate it, between the classical approach and the presuppositional approach is that with the pressuppositional approach, both interlocutors have direct involvement so that denial of the premises forces fatal concessions. One can deny the universe has a beginning, for example, and only sacrifice his agreement with the scientific consensus on the matter. However, if one denies the laws of logic then he undermines his own rationality and by extension, his own position.

[@metalheadhippie8738]

I agree with you 100% but I would say that framing the presuppositional argument in a way that the average laymen can understand and reason through is very difficult in practice. I've personally had more success with the classical argumentation except when interacting with a devout atheist, then I take the time to make them admit that their presuppositions have no basis.

[@whatsinaname691]

I think that there are beliefs about the world that people hold very strongly, like objective morality, and that natural theology can often point to those things necessitating God. I think Presup arguments at their best are just like NT, but simply deduce from a priori’s. For instance, a Presup might use Anderson and Welty’s lord of non-contradiction (still the best named argument ever), but also beauty, consciousness, and teleology like Swinburne and Ontological arguments like Plantinga‘s (for the purpose of lowering the burden of sufficient proof) to make a holistic approach if someone isn’t willing to accept any sort of cosmological argument.

[@DigitalGnosis]

9:30 I think that the "bafflegab" is intended. The point is to overwhelm someone, tell them they presuppose God and have a good poker face. I honestly think that's Dyers schtick.

[@glof2553]

He has a technique I call the Dyer Dump, which is the new Gish Gallop: name drop a bunch of references to philosophers, philosophical papers, Church Fathers/theologians and assert that they all agree with your position

[@LostArchivist]

I could have sworn I saw this strategy as a fallacy somewhere.

[@Scheermama]

I don’t feel so dumb now. I thought it just me…

[@dannydoj]

The Blessed Trinity is famously intimated in Genesis 18:2 with the "men" visiting Abraham at Mamre.

[@jimmydavid1993]

Jimmy! you are just something else 🙂 maybe that is is why you are my namesake. Saying exactly what I felt about the debate though I could not articulate just confirmed that I was just merely Bais towards Trent in my low assessment of Dyer.

[@jasonanderson3460]

Even though he was pretty anti-Catholic, I think it’s worthwhile to listen to Greg Bahnsen and his debates with atheists. The methodology can be broken down by what Bahnsen called “worldview analysis”. It basically is analyzing the coherency of any particular worldview based upon their presuppositions. Many moral arguments for God’s existence use this type of method. However, even when using TAG this way, you still use the more easily or commonly known things to reason to the higher things similar to classical apologetics.

[@cronmaker2]

Yes the bahnsen stein debate was my intro to TAG and still holds up. Considering Dyers Reformed background, I imagine his initial exposure was through Calvinist proponents that he adapted for EOxy. But Bahnsen didnt take Dyers bizarre and fringe position that only his denomination's precise conception of God may be presupposed (something Dyer never adequately addressed in cross) or that natural theology must be completely rejected (not merely that TAG is superior).

[@kirkhenrich9400]

Thanks for an informative session apologetics, proper debate and the importance of being charitable and meeting people where they are at. Should I forward this to Jay Dyer? LOL. Blessings!

[@michaelt5030]

Thank you for this debrief! I always listen to KZbin content at 2x speed, but had to slow down to normal during Jay's presentations. At first I thought he was just going into content far too dense for me, but then I realized, just as you voiced Jimmy, that he was simply throwing out high-level term after term that meant nothing to a lay person such as myself. I'm sure he's a brilliant man but his method of debate (especially his rudeness) will win few if any converts to Christ. That, in and of itself, is supportive of Trent's position.

[@panokostouros7609]

He's brought in countless people to Christ including whole families, lol. I find his "rudeness" very refreshing. Christianity's testosterone levels need increasing 😅😅😅

[@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry]

100% disagree. Just because he is using specific language doesnt make it a debate tactic. He is just very articulate. & he has won plenty of people to Orthodoxy, myself and 2 of my friends included. Dont know what youre on about tbh

[@Jimmycrdns]

@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry of course you disagree.....you are being bias. However let me ask you this to which Orthodox Church you belong to?

[@Quantum1008]

@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry I was Orthodox and Jay’s prideful, abrasive, and insulting attitude is one of the reasons I felt uncomfortable remaining Orthodox. But more so, his arguments here were not very incoherent. You can show the unbeliever how our general experience of the world ought lead him to belief in and worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the ontology and epistemology necessary to do this is only possible give the Christian worldview then this doesn’t mean that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology is possible and fruitful just because the ontology and epistemology necessary for natural theology is true and real because the Christian God exists. Yes, the Christian world view is the only thing that can account for our ability to know anything. So given the Christian worldview we do know things and our task of natural theology is possible and good. He fights against the Orthodox Fathers and contemporary teachers who use natural theology - majoring in minors - condemning everyone who does not agree with him. If Jay helped convert you to the Christian Faith, thank God. But that is not the experience of others who have been harmed due to his hateful, bombastic, and intellectually dishonest tactics.

[@issaavedra]

as a recent convert, Jay's apologetics was the kind of approach I needed to accept Christianity. Recently, the Orthodox Church of America asked converts which content creators helped them the most in their journey, and Jay was first by a lot.

[@JoseMartinez-rx6sl]

It is clear that there were 3 person's who Abraham saw, yet he refers to them and Sir (singular) Génesis 18:2-3 Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground,a 3 he said: “Sir,* if it please you, do not go on past your servant. Is this different in thee Torah!? I doubt it

[@catholicdefender7800]

Jay Dyer is very Anti Catholic , very Smug , Very Arrogant , not only that , he does have his Cheerleader group who actually has the same type of Spirit and this is the very type of people who follow him , and it is very sad.

[@krimbii]

I agree.

[@OrthoLou]

They were debating over something entirely different... I don't claim to fully grasp natural theology, but I can tell that Jay and Trent were describing two different things.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

At 51:40, Trent talks about how we can “know” things considering it looks like we are using our reasoning to come to the conclusion that we are reasoning. I recently interviewed a philosopher/epistemologist on the topic where I talk about it in the context of presuppositionalism and circular reasoning if anyone is interested.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Your video on Abraham's near sacrifice was intriguing. However, it raised a serious objection to the character of God. Why would God lie to Abraham is an objection that a non-theist can bring up? Your video reassures the Christian with Jesus and trusting God but it still does not take away the objection of why God lied to Abraham. Christians across denominations denounce Islam for its followers praising God for being a deceiver but that same objection also applies to God specifically Abraham's incident.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Your video on Abraham's near sacrifice was intriguing. However, it raised a serious objection to the character of God. Why would God lie to Abraham is an objection that a non-theist can bring up? Your video reassures the Christian with God sacrificing Jesus and trusting him but it still does not take away the objection of why God lied to Abraham. Your argument on the binding part even adds salt to injury. It gave the atheist more ammunition to shoot down Christianity. Christians across denominations denounce Islam for its followers praising God for being a deceiver but that same objection also applies to God specifically Abraham's incident.

[@Jimmycrdns]

The Orthodox God 'The Holy Trinity' is different from the Catholic God 'The Holy Trinity"..........HOW?!

[@josephsarto689]

The orthodox don’t believe God is one in essence

[@roen6800]

We need to get Jimmy Akin and Jay Dyer to debate!

[@davidcoleman5860]

Why? Akin is a gentleman and Dyer is a street fighter. Jay was very confrontational to the point of rudeness to Trent. There's no reason Akin needs to subject himself to that kind of disrespect. People are able to do the necessary research and come to their own conclusions without the spectacle of one person's attempt to be a gentleman and the other person's showing how good he can cut another's throat.

[@larryjake7783]

​@@davidcoleman5860They are both grown men, and can discuss things . You are coming from a very weak postmodern pro leftists framework

[@davidcoleman5860]

@@larryjake7783 You don't have a sweet clue where I'm coming from.

[@larryjake7783]

@@davidcoleman5860 Fair enough and apologies for being presumptuous, it's just upsetting to see such an argument to why two people shouldn't discuss things. I don't think Dyer is a bad person or uncharitable but rather he is a fallen man like we all are but he actually does engage in conversations professionally, he just gets heated, perhaps it's the passion that overcomes him, nonetheless I think with his wealth of knowledge having multiple dialogues with people like Trent or even Matt Fradd, would only be beneficial to us all. When I hear people critique Dyer, it's as though he's Matt Slick, now respectfully to that man, he comes off as uncharitable like when he debated Fr. Deacon Ananias

[@davidcoleman5860]

@@larryjake7783 Okay, we're good. Given that I'm a very, VERY right-wing conservative, I never get called a leftist. Yours was a first. Dyer is very intelligent, but his debating style just turns me off. Given that I've defended Oneness Pentecostalism quite extensively on KZbin, I've been encouraged to debate him. But after listening to several of his efforts, I'm just not interested, though I _would_ engage him in written debate. Perhaps Akin wouldn't mind going at it with him, but since their styles are so diverse, I don't see that happening.

[@shawnmathew6078]

Learned so much! God Bless the both of you 😇

[@joea8842]

“Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” - Isaiah 28:9-10

[@alexwarstler9000]

St. John of Damascus calls the Hagarenes (Muslims) heretical, not apostates. This was a mind-blowing realization for me.

[@adam7402]

Finally Jimmy Akin finally says something I agree with. I stopped watching the debate after 5 min.

[@pt3521]

Is presuppositionalism compatible with Catholicism or is this methodology forbidden in the Church???

[@cw-on-yt]

It's not incompatible with Catholicism, as long as the presuppositions you adopt are compatible with Catholic faith. (Alternatively, you could adopt opposite presuppositions for the purpose of showing that, when their implications are fully worked out, they produce an incoherent worldview: A sort of "reductio ad absurdum" writ large.) In the video, Jimmy Akin gave the most reasonable take on the relationship between Natural Theology/Classical Apologetics, Presuppositional Apologetics, and various other approaches: Each one can be a tool in your toolbox; some are more widely-useful, others are more narrowly-applicable. Use the correct tool for the correct job.

[@glof2553]

I don't think it's wrong per se but I think classical arguments are stronger. Modern presup (as demonstrated by Van Til/Bahnsen) was never intended to prove Christianity really as much as it was intended to introduce doubt to the atheist to "make room for the Holy Spirit." Not to say that presuppositional techniques can't be used for evaluating one's epistemology - I think they can. But it's less useful for actually proving a positive case, especially if the person making a presup/transcendental argument has an epistemology that is not coherentist.

[@whatsinaname691]

It is allowed and compatible. It is a tool like any other form of argument. If you are debating an Enlightenment-obsessed skeptic, then it might be your best option, but with a less fervent atheist, classical arguments and the Swinburne method will be better

[@justsomevids4541]

38:38 i wana add something regarding Abraham and Jesus in John 8, when Jimmy says it can mean many different things like "abraham believed in the resurrection of the dead" etc. Verse 40 says "But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this" It is rather clear for me that Jesus is saying "Abraham didn't try to kill me, but you are" then in this context, after some further exchanges, Verse 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" And this is how his audience understood him in verse 57 "“You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”" Combining verse 40 + 56 + 57, the only thing that makes sense for me is that Jesus and Abraham conversed, and Jesus showed Abraham the future. You could argue that because of Abraham's intimate relationship with God, God could've made him aware of the Trinity to its full extent, but the overarching original point would still be valid that 99% of people or so didnt explicitly believe in the trinity, but many did believing in plurality in some sense.

[@brendansheehan6180]

Love the team.

[@CourtesyPhone]

If you want to know who won the debate, go to the party-neutral channel that hosted the debate.

[@mariog1490]

Jay Dyer is a coherentist. This is why in terms of justification, he asked the paradigmatic question. Trent was defending classical foundationalism, which goes back to the axiom “nothing is in the intellect without it first being in senses”. Descartes thought that we needed a rational foundation, which is basically the opposite. That there can be no sensation without there first being thought. Heidegger and the Postmodernists (specifically Derrida) challenge epistemology with the question of ontology. Of the three options, postmodernism seems the most true.

[@mikegski7943]

Trent, how about refuting Mike Gendron on Justin Peters KZbin channel?

[@DiceandGlory]

Is Reformed Epistemology basically presuppositionilsm?

[@snabelsnas]

38:45 ”…and he saw it and was glad” is the full verse

[@hayatelaguna7599]

Yeah. That was my issue with the debate. Dyer's position , whatever it was, wasn't accessible. Does that mean he was wrong? No.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

Best I can tell, there was merit to his position, but I cannot accept that it is *the only* to approach God, and further there is no reason to accept it is the Eastern Orthodox precise concept of the Trinity that we need to accept. Teasing that out will get in all kinds of issues. I think that is the reason Dyer used the "Dyer Dump" (bafflegab) to dazzle people. It's kind of bait and switch - use jargon which makes it sound like have in depth knowledge, and get people to follow you this way. But it doesn't mean it's good reasoning, finally.

[@peenweinerstein9968]

Presuppositionalism is a dialectic, and not exactly an argument, therefore they are useful in a debate in trying to one-up your opponent, but not useful insofar as to uncover truth.

[@emmanuelsimon8607]

18:56 Shots Fired!!!

[@binkinbelle]

*shaking head* ya gottaaaa drop Flaccid designator” LOL

[@7heHopeMan]

I’m a presuppositionalist and Akins is right. Trent was way better at selling his argument to the audience. Dyer convinced no one but his own audience. Though, Akins is also right in saying that Dyer did get better later in the debate.

[@Aristos_Arete]

8:00--> Exactly, I've watched Dyer plenty before and he doesn't go into enough detail. He doesn't give specific examples on how exatcly his paradigm gives a more reasonable and coherent justification for the major philosophical problems present in any worldview. He should give examples on how the other paradigms fail to do this and contrast it with his, and how his answers to these problems are better. But he never does this, at least insofar as I've seen. And that would greatly improve his apologetic.

[@Aristos_Arete]

@Phil Andrew dude, I'm not talking about the theme of the debate. I'm talking about Jay's general methodology of apologetic in reference, in response to the specific context of the 8 minute mark in the video. I think it was pretty clear from what was written. I'm just sharing something that's been on my mind after watching many of Jay's debates.

[@Aristos_Arete]

Not in respects to his position on natural theology but just the way he debates in general follows this pattern. It was a critique of how he does debate; be it with atheistic or theistic opponents, just something that's been on my mind and that I would do differently if I had the required knowledge. But don't mind it, sorry for being a bit stressed also 😅

[@Giorginho]

He usually doesn't get time to do it in debates, this is why you should watch his videos where he does explain these things

[@RepublicConstitution]

The debate was fascinating. I think Trent narrowly edged Jay, but it was productive and Jay was nicer than usual.

[@lxrrxl]

It seemed to me that Dyer was only trying to show off his "big words" and debate a position that was impossible for you to defend for the sake of just winning a debate against you and try and get "creds". I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. He came off very arrogant and confusing and incoherent. He did not make his case. He did the same thing with Eric Ybarra.

[@dylanrunner2001]

"presuppositional"

[@catholicdefender7800]

No , you are absolutely correct , this is exactly what he is in spirit and this is exactly who he attracts in spirit , he is very arrogant and smug. He does this with everyone while debating , but i can almost be sure he would not come off that way with them in person while in dialog on the street. FACTS

[@stephenbrown7924]

I've noticed that in other debates Dyer seems to appeal to obscurantism.

[@RafaelGarcia-jb3me]

22:06 rewind 10 seconds but is Jimmy saying Allah is the same God as in the Christian Bible?

[@Sm64wii]

TAG and presup are great arguments and I could understand what Jay was getting at but I don’t see how it can be applied to Catholics. I think he’s just anti Catholic and doesn’t plan on ever changing his mind on it. He’s great against atheists with TAG though, it’s almost comedic to watch. Great job Trent!

Hi Trend and Jimmy, love you both! I need help understanding this: If Jews, Muslims and Christians just have different "levels" of knowledge of god's traits, I can understand they fundamentally believe in the same god, BUT if they believe in contrary things about god, it gets a bit confusing to me. If that's the case are we be able to say all believers in god believe in the same god? Thank you and God bless you!

[@Spsz6000]

Well it depends on if they deny Christ and the a trinity or not. Hopefully this stirs some thought for you. God bless.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

Hi Antonio, Simply put, man is predisposed by God to grasp “Universals” before “particulars.” Example, when we are young we grasp and understand “Dog” before we grasp “this kind of dog” or “that kind of dog.” Now, how do we identify a dog as “this” kind of dog and not “that kind” of dog? Why is this one a chihuahua and that one a pit bull? Well, it’s because each dog has some principle of individuation. Example: shape, color, weight. But there is something in common between “this” dog and “that” dog that make them both “Dog.” Whatever it is that is necessary for a dog to be a dog is called the “Essence” of a Dog. Thus, when a man knows “Dog” he actually grasps something of its essence, it’s “dogness.” Now, when we grasp “dog” this grasping happens via the dogs effects. It’s transitive acts (acts that are outside the dog) impress upon ones senses and comes to be in the mind of the knower (you and me). There, Reason understands, via the effects, that the said object in front of us is a “dog.” For the effects and acts (or behavior-appearance) of a particular thing discloses the Cause in some sense. Now, let’s think about some of the principles from above and apply it to our pursuit of God. Paul tells us that the attributes of God can be “clearly seen from the things that are made.” Even as the Dog has operations of dogness that specify and discloses its nature as a dog, likewise so does God. By reasoning rightly, man can come to know something about God. This is done via reasoning about the effect to the Cause. Now, since God in His inner Trinitarian processions, has only 1 will (1 will in the godhead), the Act (for Acts are by the will) by which He creates is also only 1. This means that man, reasoning via the created effects, can know that there is “1 God” by envisioning one effect of creation from one cause (the creator). In this, Muslims, Jews, and Christians agree. But, Muslims and Jews do not have the “gift of faith.” What does faith add to Reason? That is a good question. Would be happy to discuss that if interested. But so far we have disclosed that via Reason alone, man can come to agreement that “God is one.” “Even the demons believe and tremble.” That Muslims believe in God with Christians means nothing more than they agree with us on the essential transitive attributes of God. They grasp the “Universal” but not the particular. The particulars comes in via Faith, and it is faith alone that discloses the Trinity. Hopefully this is giving you something to think about (if you didn’t know this already).

​@@MountAthosandAquinas Thank you Nick for the time you took for such a thorough explanation, very helpful! I asked about this because I tend to disagree with the idea Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same god, because of contradictory belief differences. I may concede it’s the same god for Jews and Christians but have trouble doing so for Muslims or other believers. Watching this video, I got this recurrent felling of kind of a push for a, not so good, "openness" for the sake of "unity", not of truth. I think only truth can create real unity, and truth inevitably expose misconceptions or errors in different beliefs. It seems to me we might be falling into some sort of relativism or watering down of faith in order to look for unity. I would say those don't bring much benefits as they create a felling of false unity. The same general god would conduce to similar results, individually and societally, but it doesn’t. Instead, maybe we can look for the deeper truth where all honest truth seeking men can eventually gather. Could that be Reason alone? Probably not, but good reasoning goes a long way for sound faith, and clarifies lots of particulars on the way, that would otherwise make us believe Muslims, Jews, and Christians share the same god. Would you agree? And thanks again and gby.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@ Hey Antonio, I like the way your thinking. A few thoughts. I agree with you that unity shouldn’t be at the cost of truth. On the contrary, Truth is Unity since what you see and what I see is grounded in what is and not what is not. If either of us come to a conclusion that is grounded in what is not, then there isn’t actually unity but disunity. For Truth itself is divisive against what is not, and not divisive against what is. Now, the First Truth (The Truth itself-God) is the object of the Intellect. The intellect desires to know the Principles of things. Hence why kids always ask “why” because they are searching for a bedrock, a First. But since God is the Truth, then there in lyes a difficulty. Why? There are a few reasons. First, God isn’t anything in creation. He has no matter, no parts, no composition, no material aspect for the mind to latch on to. He transcends the intellect that attempts to grope for Him. Even as a bat cannot see the sun because its eye is too weak to behold the light that’s above its natural capacity, even so, the intellect cannot naturally grasp God. So man is groping. Groping for the Truth itself, and not able to find the Light by which to see It. I say “light” because no creature knows a thing if it is not illuminated to first be seen and give it its intelligibility. For Light illuminates and brings the object into the retina of the eye and places it within the Agent to abstract from it an intelligible specie by which it knows that thing. When the Agent actually grasps, or knows the thing he becomes, in a sense, the object known. But, God is ABOVE sight! God is ABOVE all creatures. God is ABOVE all Genus. How can we grasp Him? Ah, He must grasp us! Man cannot climb up to God (though they can know that God is) via reasoning alone. Because the object is infinitely higher than the disposition of the soul to penetrate. They are infinitely disproportionate. This is where Divine Revelation comes in. That is, God comes down to man and elevates, via the light of Faith, to disclose Himself! Reason searches for Him via effects reasoning to a First Principle. Faith is the First Principle coming down and telling us about Himself taking man where Reason alone could not fly. So, by Reason alone we all come to “God” as if it was the outer courts that gathers all nations. But by faith one enters into the first veil and the priestly garment given in Christ Jesus. We all stand in the outer courts when we confess there is “1God.” But we only step into the Holiest when we say “This God is a Trinity.” For nobody comes into the “Holiest” without first washing in the baptism of regeneration (the Holy Trinity). “The outer courts will be trampled by the Gentiles.” For Reason can bring all to this court. But to become a Jew inwardly is by the Circumcision and confession of the Holy Trinity. Whoever looks at the outer court will see “elements of truth” but will not come to the “Truth itself” if not through Christ.

[@traceyedson9652]

EO here but Akin is spot on. Dyer is an interesting fellow, to say the least. I’ll leave it there.

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

I actually like a lot about the EO, sadly Dyer taints a lot of that and makes the beauty around the tradition murky.

[@traceyedson9652]

@@Averyaveragedeskin Orthodoxy doesn’t live online. He’s one voice and not a hierarch. He represents himself. He doesn’t have the power to make Orthodoxy “murky.”

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@@traceyedson9652 Oh he certainly can and does. For many, he is the lone source of Orthodoxy they can find, while many of the fellow orthodox apologists are influenced by him. He undoubtedly has tainted the waters, just look at how Orthodoxy is incorrectly treated by people who he practically abuses online.

[@traceyedson9652]

@@Averyaveragedeskin I am Orthodox. He has impact on perhaps one of our newbies. He’s an entity in the online world. The online world isn’t the parish, the synod, the council.

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@@traceyedson9652 Yes we agree. Odd that you won't admit that the online world has a large area of influence.

[@diggingshovelle9669]

Why not have a discussion on the essence energy versus the essence attribute approach and the claim that the orthodox have created grace but the catholic church has uncreated grace?

[@floriangeyer1886]

Trent is the ONLY Apologist that has explicitly and implicitly taken Jay to task with the far out notions that one MUST begin one's Apologetics presupposing EO Trinitarianism. That Abraham understood Yahweh to be the God declared in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Or that planet Earth is 6,000 years old, and animal death or predation did not exist BEFORE the Edenic expulsion.

[@jendoe9436]

I was wondering why Jay was insisting the EO Trinity was the ‘true’ way of understanding God. Doesn’t he realize lots of people don’t hold that view and thus won’t normally entertain that idea? It reminded me of Protestants who insist Catholics can only debate them if the Catholic presupposes Sola Scriptura as the only valid base. A Catholic could agree to keep their main arguments within Scripture, but it’s obviously a disingenuous tactic.

[@CCSPN]

What you guys say at 20:00 pretty much proves that Nostra Aetate is based on a fallacy

[@oldmovieman7550]

On Muslims... if they god they worship has a different nature and character than the God of the OT and NT, then how can they worship the same God that Christians do?

[@cw-on-yt]

@The Counsel of Trent Are you guys sure you understood the debate TOPIC the way Dyer did? Listening to you discuss the debate after-the-fact, it seems as if you considered it a debate about whether Natural Theology should be used FOR APOLOGETICS (as opposed to presuppositionalism). But, when I listen to Dyer, and try to tease out what HE thought the debate was about, it seems to me that HE was arguing that Christians shouldn't use Natural Theology as a basis for developing their own theology, or for understanding God. Trent, you and Jimmy seem to spend most of your review discussing what works better "in your toolbox" for planting a seed in the mind of an atheist. But as far as I can tell, Dyer wasn't even addressing that topic. He seems to be saying: "You shouldn't base anything that YOU believe on conclusions derived by natural reason alone apart from revelation, EVEN IF such conclusions are useful at getting an atheist to reconsider his atheism." Can you guys please double-check this, and tell me if I've gotten this badly wrong?

[@stcolreplover]

If that is what Jay was arguing, he didn’t say it.

[@LtDeadeye]

In a recent review of this debate on Dyer's channel, they demonstrated why they thought the presuppositional approach was superior. If Trent were to utilize the classical approach of natural theology, he could perhaps reach an atheist and convince him of a deistic state of affairs. The Muslim or Jew, however, will remain unmoved.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@778FraxK I agree. Another concern typical of Presuppositionalists is that the classical approach allows the atheist to play the Statler and Waldorf routine as they watch the Christian perform and judge his presentation from a safe distance. The Presuppositionalist approach forces the atheist to engage directly and make fatal concessions if he is to deny the argument.

[@Fasolislithuan]

Presuppositioniolism applied to trinitarian godhead is contrary to the history of salvation. God doesnt look supportive of presuppositioniolism in his divine Revelation to mankind, applying a pedagogical process from lowest to highest revealing in Christ with complete clarity the trinitarian godhead nature. So God is wise.

[@rebeccaneely6442]

Removing comments...really?

[@KinoTechUSA69]

It's normal for them. Loften, Akin, and Horn do not actually want dialogue.

[@williambowling7973]

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23)

[@purplelegendxd6024]

Toolbox approach sounds right. Only TAG can prove God with absolute certainty whereas the other views only prove God probably. I think it’s a problem to put something like causality as more certain than God because any smart atheist will point that out and it’s also not congruent with the Faith. The way I think each of methods can be used is thus: Classical arguments show “That God is” (not who). These arguments worked great in the Middle Ages but in the modern philosophical landscape fall apart easily IF your opponent is smart enough to critique it. The best these arguments can do is open the door to someone to belief in my God. TAG: proves that God must be, Who God definitely is, How God is known, How we must act, etc. it’s the most all encompassing because it proves the entire worldview. It’s hard for people to understand it and it’s not always necessary for everyone but I think it should be used in any case. Evidences: this only serve there purpose after my worldview has been proven with TAG. Otherwise the opponent will just interpret the evidence according to their worldview and it will do no good at all. The classical arguments and evidentionalsit arguments work on unlettered folks. I don’t believe in natural theology. I believe in natural revelation. I would only use 5 ways to open the door but not as actually proving anything. TAG can be condensed for unlettered people and it works best on smart people.

[@purplelegendxd6024]

The way I’d do it is like “we can start with causality and reason up to a God type figure from there but you actually have no grounds for belief in causality on your worldview. So no I’m not going to grant you causality just show you that I can reason from it”

[@wedi-set577]

Would it be right to say Jay believes the Logos of Heraclitus is not the second person of the trinity, however Trent would say it can be or it is essentially?

[@dwong9289]

The Logos is Jesus. Not some abstract rational principle. But He is the Logos since His eternal generation is by way of an internal intellectual procession from the Father. He is not some abstract logic or force, but the Logos is the Second Person in the Godhead who possesses all the Divine Attribute. The only distinction between the Father and the Son is relations of opposition or distinct relations of origin. The Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten.

[@Ancipital_]

Hey, to Dyer's defense, at least he didn't insult anybody or called them names this time, so I guess he's improving 🤷‍♂

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video. Btw A Good Speaker knows his audience it is said...

[@J.R.R.Y]

With regards to the discussion on Muslims believing in the same god. I understand that point that they could be worshipping the same God without fully understanding said God however can they still be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven whilst denying Christ?

[@Sm64wii]

No they can’t, unless they genuinely had no knowledge of Christ. Imagine a young girl born in the Middle East. Never heard of Jesus, etc, she likely wouldn’t be held accountable for what she didn’t know. Most Muslims do know the gospel and can clearly tell what is true just off of Muhammad’s character. They will be held accountable and don’t get any “credit” for believing in God. As James put it, “you believe there is One God? Even the demons do”

[@stcolreplover]

I think the problem with Dyer is that he has this view that Catholicism leads to Atheism so that he can’t just see natural theology or presumption as two different methods for the same goal. Ironically I think if the presumption position is to have any pragmatic value I say you have to be a very impressive communicator, which Jay dyer is definitely not. I say this only as half jest, that the biggest argument against Eastern Orthodoxy is Jay dyer.

[@ishabubakral-albania610]

Impossible to watch these talks with all these commercials. Every few minutes new commercial comes

[@Ancipital_]

I use KZbin so much, I decided to go with Premium and tbh I am not disappointed. No more ads, and other perks.

[@davekushner5340]

EMJ's "Logos Rising" breaks down Greek philosophical development and their understanding of mind, reason, and being, then shows how the Catholic understanding of The Trinity solves the problems they ran into. Basically, he does what Jay tried to do, only didn't claim that you can't comprehend anything outside of the Orthodox view of God, but rather that the Catholic view provides the deepest and most complete understanding of God, reason, being, mind, etc. Highly recommend it.

[@Stevenmulraney]

Jay isn't arguing that you can't comprehend anything. He's talking about knowledge in a technical usage (justified true belief).

[@davekushner5340]

@@Stevenmulraney you are right, I should have been more careful with my words. His presuppositionalistic approach to epistemology challenges knowing pretty much anything outside of the "systems" that are recognized within the framework of Orthodox philosophy... At least that's what I heard. I'll have to watch again though, very interesting debate and some things I never heard (mostly from Jay). I thought Trent was much more concise and intelligible.

[@PhilOutsider]

I think you should debrief latest Akin-White debate.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

That would be a good video! -Vanessa

[@F2222m]

Well Trent you know that when he was saying buzzwords like circular argument, fallacies, etc… He is trying to score points for his audience and deflect from acknowledging the arguments. He also interrupted you when you asked for clarification to activate your fight or flight response and not allow you to think.

[@Consume_Crash]

Good debrief. I do feel like at times in the debate you two were talking past each other. Jay does throw out papers and essays throughout his statements and no that does not necessarily make him wrong, but it is his job to at least summarize what he thinks are the points of interest, like when he said Augustine's view on the Trinity was a deviation from previous understanding and that the 7th ecumenical council implicitly forbade using natural reason. Reminds me of his debate with Classical Theist where he just kind of states "The Church Fathers agreed with me". The debate was good but I don't think he really proved what he set out to do. Hopefully there's another debate on a subject where they can definitively draw Catholic vs Orthodox lines and hash it out.

[@glof2553]

The "Dyer Dump" - throw out a bunch of references and claim they all agree with you

[@nuzzi6620]

@@glof2553 Well, that’s why he always provides the sources for the references so you can check for yourself if you’re suspicious. Yeah, it might be overwhelming in the moment (if you’re unfamiliar with the references), but that’s not good enough to reject argumentation.

[@LupinGaius-ls1or]

Muhammadens god share only his supposed creatorship with the Christian God. Multiple pagan gods also share this attribute. Can it be considered that this one attribute is NOT sufficient to say they believe in the one true god?

[@HAYAOLEONE]

Isn't 'ELOHIM' a plural?

[@davidjanbaz7728]

It can be both a singular and a plural depending on the verb form used with it. But the word is in a plural form. Both forms are used in Psalms 82: 1-8. See: the Hebrew on Bible hub. Dr.Michael S.Heiser has a video on this Psalm.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

It is plural in form, but it’s always used of God with singular verbs pronouns etc. The grammatical form of a word is not the only thing that makes a word refer to singular or plural.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Psalm 82: 1 has both forms: you will notice there are different dots around the letters between the Singulair and plural Elohim usage.

[@christianlacroix5430]

Do a second debate.

[@HAYAOLEONE]

oof

[@RobRod305]

I think a follow up discussion would be better instead

[@meatofpeach]

What a blessing you both are.

[@georgwagner937]

I wish everybody would be passionate about rejecting 1sl4m.

[@mememe1468]

This is literally what I thought of the opening statement. However, I wasn't all that confident in my observation and so assumed he might just be really smart. I remember the process of conversion and realizing I couldn't listen to him defend EO anymore because it was often just a string of disjointed ideas of what he thought the EO was. I don't have a psychology degree to identify how it all fits together.

[@Spsz6000]

It doesn’t. He talks about set theory and all this truly irrelevant things that can just be stated as : God is truly himself.

[@mememe1468]

@@Spsz6000 it doesn't ? What is "it"?

[@namapalsu2364]

You guys (Jimmy, Trent) seems to forget the fundamental things Dyer is hanging on.... That is this metalogic that excuse him for using circular argument. This is the basis of his presuppositionalism.

[@elederiruzkin8835]

Would you say that metalogic may excuse infinite regress and foundationalism also, or circular reasoning only?

[@namapalsu2364]

@@elederiruzkin8835 Why not?

[@elederiruzkin8835]

@@namapalsu2364 Exactly.

[@soteriology400]

This is the problem I have with Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin. They master the art of persuasion, but are on the flip side when it comes to hermeneutics to obtain authors intent.

[@alphawolf1513]

I am sorry but this was bad. It’s not relevant if Jays jargon is hard to understand for layman. Unknown God is a bad analogy because Muslims and Jews explicitly deny that God is triune that is why it’s not the same God. Muslim woman that asked you how Christianity treats females, reminds me of C. S. Lewis , are we men or rabbits, do we choose our believes because they are true or because they are convenient, she will leave Christianity too if convenience is her priority. “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”” So Jews thought he was claiming to have met Abraham.

[@stldrew6810]

I know its petty and irrelevant, but i wish Jimmy would pronounce the Guy's name correctly. Dyer not Dwyer🤦‍♂️

[@HAYAOLEONE]

Reason leads to virtues. Virtues lead to radical honest humility and nobility (to a degree). Rest is words and narratives. Narratives = adaption to ethnicities. And then you haves lies, and 'falsity'. Some people are not really equipped to use enough of Reason. They will use their time/lives to shape things around them. +

[@oldmovieman7550]

Presup... because the best defense is a good offense.

[@RepublicConstitution]

Jimmy, who as a long time friend of Trent's, is a very biased guest commentator opens his critique of Jay (Dwyer? who) Dyer by saying Jay uses big words. Huh? This is not an introductory level debate among and for newbs. This debate is among two experts of opposing positions who have been debating for a combined 40+ years. More than that, Trent's audience and Jay's have been exposed to these grad school level sources cited for years now. Again, Jimmy, this isn't just for the rabble pulled off the streets who watch and believe CNN all day.

[@CourtesyPhone]

Yeap, that was an odd criticism. Big words ≠ incoherence.

[@donjuanmckenzie4897]

Trent's opener was far more concise. Jay jammed in too many concepts, which is why he has to talk fast lol

[@RepublicConstitution]

@@donjuanmckenzie4897 Since when is "concise" the deciding factor? It isn't. Never has been, never will be. The Bible is a lot of things, but concise is definitely not one of them.

[@donjuanmckenzie4897]

@@RepublicConstitution This is the dumbest comment I have read in a long while. In public speaking with limited time alotted (like in a debate) the GOAL is to to say as MUCH as POSSIBLE in a CLEAR and ARTICULATE manner which makes a PERSUASIVE and EASILY understood point to the AUDIENCE.

[@TheForbiddenLean]

I am subscribed to the both of you, but Jay won. I found him totally comprehensible, even if he required me to study things he mentioned, myself. Jay was ruthless, and frankly, I'm tired of pretending like everyone can be right. Dyer seems to be a normal, non-talented dude who loved, and loves truth, and pursued it ironclad in order to understand his faith better: among the greatest examples of a faithful layman. When I hear things I can't understand, it makes me want to pursue the answer even more. We need to stop making weak Christians. He is an honest man, and is convicted by his pursuit of truth. If laymen can't learn, let it be because of valid simpleness of mind, and let him be completely given to prayer instead. Also, I find it apalling to suggest that Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets didn't have a complete understanding of the Holy Trinity.

[@miguelinteriano125]

I wonder if Jimmy have watched Dyer vs Erick Ybarra debate?? how dyer treated Erick the things he told Erick are incrediblely unprofessional,

[@DanielWard79]

Eric won that debate

[@panokostouros7609]

Who the hell is Dwyer?

[@danim2897]

Hes basically the James white of the Orthodox church. Except he’s and ex-Catholic. Lol

[@glof2553]

@@danim2897 his stint in Catholicism was limited to sedevacantism. I wouldn't dignify him with the label of "ex-Catholic"

[@panokostouros7609]

@@danim2897 Bruh, I know who Jay Dyer is. I was just teasing him on the mispronunciation.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

There is also the important point that more than likely the Palamist view of Essence and Energies is inconsistent and undermined by the very Fathers Jay Dyer would probably prefer. Another way to show that the presup argument is not enough. The theology needs to be internally consistent. If we reject Palamism, how are we supposed to presuppose Eastern Orthodoxy (or at least the Dyerite preferred view of it)?

[@SedContraApologia]

Hey guys great show, I am writing this in good faith and in charity. I honestly can’t find a possible way to agree with you. Citing a pope and a catechism really doesn’t solve the problem for me but rather just makes two new problems as it seems impossible to hold to your position. I am not trying to be a rabble-rouser but here is my problem. The consistent mentioning of this acceptance of monotheism somehow = the one true God after the explicit revelation of Christ to the world I think is a total contraction because what I don’t hear in these analogies is the difference between an unknowing with a certain confusion due to the time in salvation history someone is living in or maybe a culture that comes to believe in one God through natural theology vs an explicit rejection of Christ therefore God. If your point is do they worship one God okay I mean sure but to say they worship our God? The Trinity in some confused way? While also rejecting Christ? This is impossible. During the debate the idea that “well did Moses understand Trinity?” came up as a defense of this position. We don’t know he if he had a conception of Trinity in his earthly life so at best, we have an argument from silence or just no verdict but at the Transfiguration it is somewhat clear Moses endorses Christ. Again, not knowing clearly vs rejecting are totally different things. Christ's own words deny the multiple road pathway to God. • John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. • John 5:23 That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him. • 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. How can we possibly say we worship the same God as them when ours has made this impossible? Again, if we want to say monotheism, sure. To say they can worship the same God with us without the Trinity and Christ post** revelation is simply false. My question to that would be what would it take besides a monotheistic belief to rationalize that a different group worships the same God as us? Or better framed, how much of the revelation we possess can someone reject yet still be right? Muslims do not believe they worship the same God as us which just adds to the case that this position is untenable. Islam’s Quran opposes those “who say that God is the third of three” (5:73). A further passage declares that “we worship God alone; we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords” (3:64; similarly in 6:161-163). The Quran also says that God asked Jesus, “Did you say to people take me and my mother as two gods alongside God?” Jesus then denied this (5:116). In this conversation you cited Aquinas as if he agrees with your position, I would like to see this, the only response from the Angelic Doctor I have seen, which I am sure you are familiar with, “On the contrary, he [Muhammad] perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.” I will wrap up here if we want to reject Christ’s teachings, Islam’s own teachings, Aquinas and just basic common sense about the laws of non-contradiction and the impossibility of rejecting such a fundamental component of our beliefs then sure I guess you can say we worship the same God as Muslims. I reject that position as they reject Christ as Lord and God.

[@joelmontero9439]

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

[@vasilias2230]

Yeah, Jay was pretty hard to listen to

[@TheFsDguy]

You should analyse or respond to Richard Rohr

[@diggingshovelle9669]

A fundamentalist sceptic can`t doubt, doubt?

[@RepublicConstitution]

An analogy to the difference between presuppositional and evidentiary is akin to deductive logic vs inductive. Deductive is far more powerful.

[@sinfulyetsaved]

Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. Not that orthodoxy is perfect but if Roman had it "more correct" there would not be a need for traditional Roman catholics and non traditional there would be just Roman catholics eventually that in itself will lead to the possibility of another schism. This movement of ecumenism that Muslims worship the same God come on. Something is seriously wrong in the Roman catholic church and it all boils Down to the definition of papal authority. You don't need to have 20 degrees and be able to quote history and council to recognize Rome has lost the faith.