DEBATE: Should Christians reject natural theology? (with Jay Dyer)

In this debate Jay Dyer defends the claim that Christians should abandon natural theology and Trent Horn critiques that claim.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent

[@Jacob-hr2vf]

Dyer was mostly talking about rejecting classical foundationalism, not natural law, while Trent mostly defended natural law. Maybe the question of the debate wasn’t well-defined enough

[@JohnCenaFan6298]

True. It seems convincing enough to adhere to what Trent said in regard to the natural law on the basis of Magisterium. I didn't find this debate to have changed my mind on anything other than reaffirming Natural Law *because* of Catholicism.

[@glof2553]

Yeah Dyer kept attacking classical foundationalism and calling it natural theology. A question for coherentists like Dyer: can a worldview be both coherent and false?

[@MrCastleJohnny]

@@glof2553 that's a straw man

[@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry]

@@glof2553 thats like asking a foundationalist if their worldview crumbles for believing something false. Strawman to the max

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Actually in orthodox theology the knowledge of the Deity is not from natural theology or any philosophical methodology.In orthodoxy we say they cant be ANY reall knowledge of God from those ways...

[@micahalb]

Right around 1:34.00 seems to be the crux for me Basically it sound like Jay admits that natural theology is asking a different question than presuppositionalism, but proving his position doesn’t prove that natural theology is invalid, insofar as it’s not meant to be an exhaustive demonstration of God, but merely to demonstrate that God is consistent with what we observe in the natural world I’m sure Trent would affirm that you can come to a knowledge of God apart from natural theology and even that natural theology might not even be the most foundational philosophical system. But that doesn’t preclude natural theology from being useful, or even where most people need to start, given that the natural sensorial world is the touch point of the average person’s introduction into these concepts It was incumbent upon Jay, in taking the affirmative in the debate, to demonstrate that natural theology is INVALID. At best he demonstrated that natural theology has limitations, which proponents of natural theology already affirm

[@quidam3810]

I think you sum things up perfectly...

[@FuddlyDud]

Man, I love Trent’s comment section. I’m actually getting a great good faith explanation and respect to the opponent, Dyer. Props to Trent for creating such a lovely following! :)

[@benjamincook711]

I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian getting his PhD in philosophy. Horn won this debate. And I think Dyer needs to re-read Kripke et. al. on rigid designation and definite descriptions. A lot of silly stuff said in this debate. Natural theology is rad, and has a rich history in our EO tradition.

[@michaelspeyrer1264]

Dryer really really likes his vocab words. He seems to think that’s equal to knowing how to explain concepts and debating the merits of the concepts. It’s as if his main defense is “if you can’t use my words in as elaborate combinations your argument is wrong.” “There I proved it for you.”

[@quidam3810]

Would you have books from EO tradition to recommand in natural theology by any chance ? I've read a few things from a Catholic perspective (mostly thomist i guess) but i would love to see the EO approach as it seems really deep and beautiful on the other subjects i got in contact with it...

[@benjamincook711]

@@quidam3810 Good question! I know there's a whole collection of essays on natural theology from an EO perspective that came out recently, called 'Natural Theology in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition' (edited by Richard Swinburne and David Bradshaw). My personal familiarity with natural theology in EO just comes from reading a lot of the Church Fathers. From the Apostolic Fathers, to the Cappadocians, to John of Damascus, to Palamas, you will repeatedly find arguments for God's existence from the natural world. Anyone who wants to downplay this fact is, I think, being historically idiosyncratic, taking 20th century anti-Western polemics to be definitive of Orthodoxy, instead of the actual Patristic tradition.

[@quidam3810]

@@benjamincook711 thank you so much for your reference, i will definitely have it on my shelf asap :-)

[@quidam3810]

@@benjamincook711 PS - what is your PhD about ? THE question ;-)

[@heidiaraneta5211]

Trent has never get mad to any of his opponent ..he never loose his composure..he always stays calm, and that what makes him a well respected apologist / debater / Catholic defender ...God bless you Mr. Trent Horn...and the whole Catholic Church

[@JEHOVAHJESUSISGOD]

Trent horn vs Sheikh Uthman Trent would destroy that muhamMADan

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

Amen 🙏

[@billhicks9056]

That doesn't make him correct.

[@carstontoedter1333]

Jay has spent the last two days harping on Trent's single statement about the trinity in the old testament. Acting as if that single moment won him the debate. Even though he constantly misunderstands what trent actually said. Trent said both that Moses didn't have a knowledge of the Trinity in the same WAY as we do, and that he might have had innate knowledge of it. Jay saying Trent called Moses some kind of radically Unitarian Muslim is incredibly dishonest, even if Trent was slightly sloppy in his wording.

[@unam9931]

This is the way he and his deciples act all the time

[@namapalsu2364]

@@unam9931 Disciples? I wont to use the term "minions" instead. Hope it catches on when referring to his followers.

[@glof2553]

It's pretty typical behavior when one is searching for "gotcha"s instead of truth. Pretty prideful behavior.

[@dboan6847]

Sorry Jay . . . any scholar worth their weight in sand will laugh you out of the room if you claim that Moses, Abraham, or any other individual in early Judaism had an explicit knowledge that God is three Persons. Believe it all you want . . . it isn't true.

[@carstontoedter1333]

@@dboan6847 atheist, agnostic, jewish and Christian alike lol

[@apollosgadfly]

This is the “Godzilla vs Kong” of the apologetics sphere; except Trent is both Godzilla and King Kong.

[@justsomevids4541]

My favourite comment of the year

[@borneandayak6725]

Godzilla will eat Kong

[@stcolreplover]

Ahaha

[@johnblackwell1602]

Who starts his debate with “ Trent I think you are one of the genuine guys so I like you” disgraceful.

[@francisgilson4429]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/joOvgISLo9xgfLs

[@Giorginho]

Trent, please do a review of this debate. Jay has already done the review. Second debate/discussion would be awesome as well, I think there is a lot to cover.

[@JJ-zr6fu]

He will. His video release schedule is generally Monday and Wednesday. He should definitely have it by next Wednesday.

[@jamesprumos7775]

He did it with Jimmy Akin, it's up now.

[@jak7138]

@@jamesprumos7775 Send link please

[@jamesprumos7775]

@@jak7138 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKDbZ4l3g5x4iKs

[@robb7855]

The Holy Spirit has been at work in Jay. He was so much more Christ-like in this debate than any other past one.

[@F2222m]

As a Catholic, I agree. I hope he can grow in holiness even if we disagree.

[@hello-cn5nh]

Christ-like seems to me a blasphemous term since none of us can truly be like Christ.

[@robb7855]

@@hello-cn5nh Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree.

[@chacehui6393]

@@robb7855 💀💀

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@robb7855 who among us can be truly like Christ?

[@actsapologist1991]

I stopped an hour in when Jay kept interrupting Trent while he was trying to explicate how personal experience can be intuitively basic. Good on Trent for not losing his temper. His opponent was insufferable.

[@michaelt5030]

Haven't watched the debate yet, but it's upsetting to hear that's how it devolved. I hoped Jay would be well behaved during a moderated debate but I guess that's too much to ask.

[@Giorginho]

He was interrupting because it was his cross examination. Trent was question begging so Dyer interrupted, there is no need to get upset, I bet Trent would say the same

[@actsapologist1991]

@@Giorginho : Cross examine means you ask questions of your debate opponent - it doesn't mean you interrupt in the way I saw. You can wait for him to complete his darned sentence.

[@jonathansoko5368]

@@Giorginho cross examinations aren't no holds bar cage matches, fyi

[@pochomano]

@@actsapologist1991 if your question begging and or not actually answering the question asked for whatever reason. Than it is perfectly within the right of the cross examiner to step in and interrupt so the person answering, isn’t just giving a monologue of an answer that isn’t what was asked. This isn’t new in debates.

[@dboan6847]

Just listening to the debate now . . . typical Jay Dyer and Dyerite type of debate. He could barely hold back during Trent's responses . . . kept hearing him mumble responses while Trent was speaking. Kind of funny (though sad at the same time). Great job Trent! Always appreciate the way you carry yourself. You are a class act.

[@glof2553]

@Nathaniel J. Franco do you have proof that the OT Patriarchs were aware of the Trinity?

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@Nathaniel J. Franco this infers the Abraham needed this as some necessity. Whether or not this is true is merely anachronistic, and a fill the blank answer that witness of church doesn’t seem to feel is fully necessary to answer upon in every respect

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@glof2553 Two Powers in Heaven theology by Alan Segal a Jewish author: its the Jewish trinity : the Logos wasn't incarnate as Jesus so technically it's not exactly the same but there is still a complexity to God in the O.T as the many verses indicate: Genesis 19:24 , one example. Dr.Michael S.Heiser, O.T. scholar videos explains thisJewish theology .

[@michaelt5030]

I literally laughed out loud during Trent's closing statement when Jay tried to interrupt him (again) and Trent just shushed him. Honestly Jay is a brilliant guy but his conduct wasn't the best which hinders his message. Definitely better than his debate with Erick Ybarra though

[@francisgilson4429]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/joOvgISLo9xgfLs

[@aisthpaoitht]

Jay is not brilliant. He is a poser.

[@YardenJZ]

How Trent can stay so calm when not being allowed to finish a single sentence is truly beyond me.

[@PerisaSekondo]

Please do a debrief of the debate- I would love to hear you explain in detail what you think is the right epistemology for natural theology. God bless!

[@hello-cn5nh]

What's "natural theology" ?

[@henrylansing9734]

@@hello-cn5nh The position that we can come to know metaphysical truths using logic and empiricism

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@henrylansing9734 that position isn't limited to theology though. The scope of metaphysics is far more broad than strictly theological topics.

[@henrylansing9734]

@@hello-cn5nh That is true, which is why I didnt mention theology

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@henrylansing9734 then why is it called "Natural Theology" Is this just a term someone fabricated recently?

[@Rothbardlover]

I am an ex-Catholic atheist and don't have a dog in the fight between the three, major branches of Christianity. I occasionally peek into debates such as this if only because I was a philosophy major before getting my Master's (and career) in STEM. I mention this only to show that I'm not really biased either way. (Although, I'm sure the Orthodox would want to know that I follow Aristotelian epistemology and am thus probably closer to a Thomist than an Orthodox Christian in my scientific view of the world. Though since I rejected the Catholicism of my youth, perhaps some will say I'm biased in the other direction. ) This was a truly bizarre debate. It was not really a debate about Natural Theology at all. It was a debate about epistemology. What was most bizarre to me, however, was that the Orthodox Christian adopted Modern thinkers like Kant and Hume to back him up. Jay hand-waved away aspects of this thinking by saying things like, "I reject his [Hume's] skepticism [...]" but I'm not sure that it's as simple as he makes it out to be. For example, he uses Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (without citing it) as proof that all our logic is inherently self-referential and therefore empirical knowledge is not justified. I've never read or seen an Orthodox Christian take this route if only because it would destroy Jay's position as well. Kant believes that we cannot "truly" *know* any "thing in itself" but only our perception of it. Kant is really an Idealist (capitol I) and rejects any claim to knowledge outside our minds. This would backfire on Jay spectacularly. If Kant is correct we cannot know God directly (as the Orthodox claim) but only a perception of God. Kantianism leads one out of any objective religion at all. Similarly, I'm not sure Jay understands the gravity of using Hume. Hume was not someone who just happened to be an atheist. His epistemology (again, the thing Jay harped on this whole time) *directly leads to skepticism* since Hume believes only direct experience can tell us anything. (See Hume's "Missing Shade of Blue" example.) Hume destroys reason and experience alike. I get that Jay isn't an atheist. But I don't think he realizes where *his own chain of reasoning* would take him. That said, I was disappointed that Horn kept referencing the Catholic religion. I would have brought up that *Muslims* also claim revelation, and claim that their religion can satisfy all the requirements Jay claimed the Trinity can. (Again, I'm not defending Islam. But I wonder why a Muslim couldn't presuppose Islam for the same reasons Jay did...) The reason I bring all this up is because I love science and philosophy alike. One of the reasons many scientists roll their eyes at Philosophy is because Modern philosophy (the kind Jay Dyer is--shockingly!--attached too) undermines science. By embracing the self-referencing style of Kant, we can never know the empirical world. By destroying logic and experience like Hume, Science becomes impossible. I don't think Jay realizes the extreme position his staked out or how deeply irrational it is, but I would recommend Catholics read a book by Catholic Nobel-Prize winning Physicist Dr. Anthony Rizzi called 'The Science Before Science.' It shows how claims like Kant's (and by extension, Jay) are making are *also* circular. Apologies for the lengthy comment. I rarely comment on anything on KZbin or elsewhere, but I hope this comment was helpful and thoughtful.

[@peterc.1419]

I don't know what science you do, but in science we plod along empirically. If you have time to think about Kant you have too little work in your STEM field.

[@Rothbardlover]

@@peterc.1419 Are you a scientist? "in science we plod along empirically." --I agree. We do so because scientists implicitly reject Kant & Hume and affirm Aristotle. "If you have time to think about Kant you have too little work in your STEM field."--Strange. Are you saying people in STEM can't think/read about philosophy? Also, please explain how this was a response to my comment as it didn't address anything in it.

[@UncannyRicardo]

But Kant and Hume dealt with sensory experiences as their context, I'm not sure if that is identical to the revelations experiences of God that Jay refers too. This is why the topic of the peripatetic axiom came up. Jay is simply evening out the field by pointing out no alternative epistemology has any better grounds than him (by using extreme skepticism). Therefore, the only practical thing left to do is to presuppose a worldview ('paradigm') that best fits into an individuals desires. In Jay's case, this axiom is the Eastern Orthodox faith. God is arrived at by faith in his revelations and not by some algorithmic induction. So we can't ever fully know God but that's not a problem (I think) since we aren't suppose to. Aristocles clearly stated that humans only have an imperfect idea of the perfect world of the forms, where God resides. Just like in the real world, we don't obtain answers...we approximate them.

[@peterc.1419]

@@Rothbardlover Yes I'm also a scientist as part of my work which includes professional work. Well they can and no, what I said did not say they couldn't as in not allowed to, or not able to. However, as you know we plod along empirically regardless what Kant or Hume belched out. But as you also may know there is too much work and not enough time, so if you are captured by musings of Hume you may as well invest the time in your work. It's not as if Hume can do anything to undermine this work.

[@Rothbardlover]

@@UncannyRicardo Kant and Hume "dealt" with sensory experiences--by denying that we could truly understand them. My point was that Kant and Hume's philosophies would undermine almost *all* knowledge. (Especially, Hume.) Jay attached himself to philosophical critiques of knowledge that are deeply self-undermining. I don't know if you're Catholic. If you are, you should realize that holding to this violates Vatican I (as Trent mentioned above--namely, the RCC teaches that God can be known by reason not the presuppositionalism Jay was arguing for). Again, I don't know if you're Catholic (apologies if you're not) but here is a good source for you if you are: web.archive.org/web/20110929144858/thomism.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-thomist-objections-to-kant/ I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence: "Aristocles clearly stated that humans only have an imperfect idea of the perfect world of the forms, where God resides." Forgive me but I'm unfamiliar with Aristocles. He sounds like a Platonist, so as an Aristotelian, I wouldn't subscribe to his theories. But your statement, "Just like in the real world, we don't obtain answers...we approximate them." I find that quite radical! If that's true we could never really understand the world through science at all. I think this book might be of use in explaining why: books.google.com/books?id=gxFyu6oUV3EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Oliva+Blanchette+Philosophy+of+Being&hl=en&ei=HS7PTNL3Aou8sAOiqrXmAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

[@borneandayak6725]

Good one, Trent

[@a.d1287]

Great job trent. Your case was compelling

[@smedrano1964]

Trent easily won this debate. Superior arguments and he actually debated . Trent can think on his feet. Jay wants to win this debate by reference and not engaging in debate. He makes a presentation by reference notes he does not debate. He could have stayed home and sent his reference notes to the debate.

[@glof2553]

I think we need to have a new term... Gish Gallop is outdated. I like the Dyer Dump: make a statement and then dump a bunch of references upon your opponent while claiming they all support your position (whether or not they actually do is not relevant). After that, hope they aren't actually checked.

[@JJ-zr6fu]

@@glof2553 It was hilarious that he accused Trent of quote mining.

[@glof2553]

@@JJ-zr6fu pot calling the kettle black rofl

[@stcolreplover]

@@JJ-zr6fu lol

[@francisgilson4429]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5O9gIqAm9KSjKs

[@ryanpope7891]

I really don’t understand the Dyer appeal - he never gives his actual argument and just references a dozen papers to throw up dust in the discussion. Then the next day, there’s posts about some bizarre Hollywood conspiracy. A day later, the posts switch from theology discussions to promoting homeopathic pills. I don’t get it.

[@Regular_Pigeon]

the esoteric hollywood stuff is pretty good though

[@glof2553]

Thing I've noticed with Dyer and the new e-Orthobro movement is you have to check their sources constantly. They can't be trusted to provide an accurate representation of their side without bias. They'll say something like "the Catholic's Chienti document affirms that the Orthodox ecclesiology was correct in the first millennium" when thats... not what it says. At all.

[@Consume_Crash]

Agreed. But let's be real, the Hollywood conspiracy stuff is probably true lol

[@ryanpope7891]

@@glof2553 Right. And he’ll bring up 20 sources in the debate that you have to address in a 5 minute rebuttal. If you don’t, he just claims the point wasn’t addressed.

[@glof2553]

@@ryanpope7891 the Gish Gallop is so 90s. They're Dyer Dumping now (say source and dump 20 references down saying they all support your position. Whether or not they actually do is irrelevant).

[@sherwindique8518]

Both Trent and Jay did a good job of defending their position, however I don't think it has been effectively demonstrated that we should outright reject Natural Theology (especially not through scripture or any Church Fathers). Even if it were to turn out the Presuppositionalism is a more effective system than Natural Theology, that wouldn't necessarily mean that Natural Theology cannot be used.

[@glof2553]

Presup can only get one halfway, at best.

[@sherwindique8518]

@@glof2553 The issue that I see with using Presup is that the burden of proof on the individual defending the position can seem too much. Especially if you take the position that the "Eastern Orthodox view of God" is the best explanation for reality and that should be our starting point. If you were defending a kind of Deism, Unitarianism, or even Pantheism than that would be a much more modest position to take. But to defend the "Eastern Orthodox view of God" requires a lot of background explanation and assumptions that have to be made before the argument even gets off the ground. If a Catholic Presuppositionalist comes a long and offers a better defense as to why the the "Catholic view of God" is better explanation of reality, we then end up in a dilemma that could go either way.

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@sherwindique8518 this presentation is flawed because it doesn't even explain what "natural theology" is.

[@Mkvine]

@@sherwindique8518 Would it be fair to say that presup can be the starting point for grounding logic in God, but then natural theology can then step in and finish it off by giving evidence specifically for the Christian God?

[@sherwindique8518]

@@hello-cn5nh Fair enough. I guess Trent assumed that Natural Theology means coming to know about the existence and nature of God without appealing to any kind of divine revelation. There is question that needs to be clarified about whether a priori arguments fall under Natural Theology, because it seems like Jay was mainly critiquing the use of a posteriori arguments.

[@soccerlife5041]

1:10:10 dyer doesn’t give any justification why his theology of trinity is the only presupposition that fits TAG over catholic one?

[@Kevin5279]

Jay went into the debate conflating classical foundationalism and natural theology. But there are multiple ways of doing natural theology without relying on classical foundationalism. A popular example is William Lane Craig. He rejects classical foundationalism but still employs a different expression of natural theology. Jay's arguments were also outdated ones from the enlightenment put forth by relativists like Hume and Kant. It's quite a stretch that somebody has to rely on these forms of arguments to attack a system which was widely used in the East as well. Gennadius Scholarius and even Mark of Ephesus were open admirers of Aquinas even though they disagreed with his form of Divine Simplicity.

[@Giorginho]

Hume's and Kant's arguments aren't outdated if it cannot be answered on Trents presuppositions.

[@Kevin5279]

@@Giorginho That doesn't change the fact that Jay's presentation was targeted at strong foundationalism and doesn't do anything to refute natural theology. The topic of the debate was whether Christians should use natural theology and Dyer failed to prove his case. We have several examples in the East and West where different expressions of natural theology were used. If Dyer were to be consistent in his usage of Hume and Kant, he'd end up with relativism. That's what sets apart Kabane and Dyer. Dyer's theology is purely reactionary and does little to posit a positive case on itself. Kabane has studied figures like Mark of Ephesus, Scholarius and the various fathers Trent was quoting and he comes to an altogether different conclusion about Natural Theology.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@Kevin5279 Hey! I found a cultured man. I also loath Dyer but I like Kabane.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@TheBiblicist I'm subbing you so I could watch the video. Like Ubi Petrus, you need to check every reference Dyer makes.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@Kevin5279Google read an article it is called Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos...

[@nickdon]

This is the only Debate that has been compared to the UFC match. Two days before the debate was aired, the members in the chat forum have been debated like anything. It was a verbal war between the Orthodox and Catholics!

[@namapalsu2364]

Correction. Between Catholic and Orthobros/Dyer's minions.

[@smedrano1964]

Jay makes illogical arguments like this one. I do not get presuppositional orthodoxy from arguments or logic or reasoning but from a PARADIGM. which of course comes from arguments logic and reasoning. This illogical argument reminds me of when Stephen Hawking said absurdly that the universe will and can be created out of nothing because of GRAVITY. Everyone pointed out if you have gravity then you have something because gravity is something not nothing. The same way a PARADIGM like a universe does not come from nothing. And it is beyond ridiculous to say that your presuppositional orthodoxy does not come from reasoning arguments or logic but from a PARADIGM when this is exactly the way PARADIGMS are formed.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

Best as I can understand it, Dyer is trying to say following Kant we cannot trust a foundationalism based on ground up sense data. He doesn’t reject that we can have a metaphysical system, but that we must first presuppose and build to our conclusion of God’s existence, generally speaking. I am overall sympathetic to this approach. But I suspect most atheists wouldn’t be swayed by it, they would mostly be drawn to some kind of inductive argument. I believe that Richard Swinburne, who is Eastern Orthodox believes that while it is fine and good St Gregory of Palamas thought it better to draw on the more subtle thinking of the Eastern Church Fathers, nonetheless this points to a need for natural theology in this day and age where atheistic scientists posit a godless universe through theories of the multiverse and the like. Very simply, the priorities of the day present us with a necessity to explain God’s existence in an inductive way as much as possible, even if we presuppose him based on revelation.

[@smedrano1964]

@@aloyalcatholic5785 Very Good points but the objection that Trent raised was valid. Why presuppositional orthodoxy? Why not presuppositional Catholicism the kind Trent and I believe in.? Why not a form of presuppositional protestantism? Why not a form of a presuppositional muslim religion? These all believe in God through revelation but all have arguments logic and reasoning that support their presuppositions of not a revealed God. But their particular concept of God. Jay has arguments reasoning and logic too but says he doesn't use these he uses a PARADIGM. Which just means his particular arguments reasoning and logic for his concept of GOD. WHICH HAS NO LOGIC. This special pleading of Jay and him not even understanding what he is doing is actually embarrassing.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@@smedrano1964 I agree this is all ultimately special pleading. Like I said, a smart atheist will reject it. A normal atheist might be brought over to Theism with presup, but as Richard Swinburne says we need “evidence that builds on evidence”. Simply saying there are “problems with metalogic” and epistemology in foundationalism isn’t going to negate the need to provide a proof within the world that both God and Christianity are true. Plus, we don’t need to feel like continental philosophy is going to inhibit any inductive cosmological argument at the pass and just stop using them. Kant was wrong, so there’s that too

[@UncannyRicardo]

@@aloyalcatholic5785 But I don't think there are any inductive arguments, God is about having a presupposed axiom (or paradigm) worldview. In this our case it is the faith that God was revealed through Christ, as told in the Scriptures, through the apostles and church tradition. This cannot be proven, anymore than one can prove the axioms of probability. Rather this axiom is simply the requirement to be in God's domain. Whether it convinces others to belief is irrelevant, since faith cannot be convinced. Best one can do is simply contrast the different lifestyles. A catholic paradigm at least makes sense of this chaotic universe and provides a basic purpose to one's being, i.e. obtain the Beatific Vision and such.

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@@UncannyRicardo I agree with this but I think we all presuppose a bias. The difference is we need induction for it to be convincing *enough*. Dyer somewhere agrees with this I believe, he just believes Kantian criticism is enough to subvert all such ground up attempts, which just flat wrong

[@whatsinaname691]

Jay is heavily educated in an extremely niche field which artificially elevated his level of credibility in a debate, however he was really barking up the wrong tree the whole debate by pushing so strongly for coherentism vs strong foundationalism as opposed to any independent reasons that natural theology is harmful. The best you could come out with if you accepted him as winning is that Presup is stronger, but that wasn’t even the core controversy of the debate.

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

This debate seemed backwards to me. The affirmative should have been “Natural theology is valid in Christian apologetics” that way Trent could have defined the thing he was defending before Jay criticized it. Jay was pretty disorganized at the start, and I think it’s because he was struggling to define natural theology and repudiate it at the same time. Not only that, but, as other comments have mentioned, I don’t even know whether Jay was even attacking the same idea as Trent was defending! I think Jay was arguing against very specific methods of natural theology - like Aquinas’ or Descarte’s - used in the west, on the basis of other western philosophers like Kant and Hume. But Trent was - a bit more in line with the topic itself - defending the generic concept of proving the existence of God through natural reason. Part of this is probably Jay’s fault. He struck me as being in over his head; his statements came across as rambly; he wasted much of his time by making numerous references to other authors whose arguments he didn’t explain in enough detail for their significance to be made clear, when he could have just directly stated the arguments he wanted to make (if Hume has a good argument that you like, just restate it in your own words! What does it matter that Hume said it? This is a debate between Christians so none of us are going to believe you just because Hume agrees with you). Notwithstanding, I still wonder if he was set up to fail.

[@kiroshakir7935]

Dyer never actually answered anything Alot of weird pretentious word salad that answers nothing

[@relsonfernandes1123]

Trent schooled that guy jay That jay guy want to put logic in every argument if u want to put logic in every argument can u plz tell egg first or hen first by putting logic

[@triggered8556]

Average Trent horn fan

[@relsonfernandes1123]

@@triggered8556 m not fan of anyone u don't even know me clown

[@Sm64wii]

I love Dyer apologetics but I think Trent won this one. Sometimes I think Dyer overplays his hand and thinks the same argument can be used for everything. His argument works well against atheists, Muslims, cults like Mormons, but when he tries it on another apostolic church he seems to have to redefine basic terms in order to win the argument. It’s pretty clear that we can understand God exists just by his creation, and the problem with telling Trent that he can’t trust sense data etc etc only really works against atheists and Muslims who can’t possibly have knowledge because the lack of a God and a deceptive God can’t justify anything. I use TAG almost exclusively when debating atheists, but I accept it is natural theology to some extent. I’m not sure why Jay wants to die on this hill, still think he’s insanely smart but Trent won this one out. Catholicism continues to reign supreme.

[@agnesbukasa357]

Jay Dyer followers say he won, then Trent followers say that he won the debate. So who actually won? Dyer compliments Trent, and the only thing Trent can say is it's same. Okay.

[@DanielWard79]

Trent won he was more charitable. He's the obvious real Christian.

[@Cklert]

There is no 'winning' in debates. Most often debates don't change minds as you've shown. What matter is what was actually addressed.

[@namapalsu2364]

The topic of the debate is "Should Christian Reject Natural Theology?" Dyer has not make the case that Christian shouldn't.

[@kylekloostra5659]

A couple of thoughts: First, Ironically, considering he is an atheist, it appears that the philosopher Graham Oppy would be very much in favor of the main philosophical line of reasoning taken by Dyer rather than Trent. Oppy, in my opinion, makes a compelling case that to intellectually progress, particularly when dialoguing in the realm of metaphysics, one must take the entire systems that are in question as a whole and then ask what system best makes sense of the universe and the contents therein, rather than trying to work the other way. Reference Oppy's work on the problem of arguments in today's debates between atheists and theists. Second, one issue that seemed to plague this discussion was that while there was agreement on the topic and agreement around the debate process, the intended audience to which Dyer and Horn were speaking seemed different.

[@JayKumar-hw7ko]

Trent horn win 🤘

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@TheBiblicist Google and read a simple article.Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos..

[@zeroisnine]

Basically, Jay's position is that one must be a philosopher (and a modern one at that) to arrive at Christianity, i.e. the philosophical truth is greater than experiential truth. Which is fine, I just think that he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[@namapalsu2364]

That's not Dyer's position.

[@zeroisnine]

@@namapalsu2364 no, that is his position.

[@zeroisnine]

@@namapalsu2364 Jay is basically adopting a modern/quantum physics position to religion, in the sense that for example string theory is something arrived at mathematically, not experientially. Similarly his metaphysics are not epistimologically derived from experience either, but manly from his most-modern philosophy mixed with orthodoxy theology. Trent position is analgous than to classical physics which starts experiential data. I.e. Trent sees apple fall to the ground and ask why it does that. Jay takes paradigms to whether apples should fall to the ground and sees whether his paradigms match reality. Which is fine, it's just bizarre because ultimately physics (and theology) would necessitate the reconcilation of the positions (which he seemingly doesn't deny), he just contends with sort of a philosophical propriety to where one should start.

[@bradspitt3896]

Nope, he just thinks it can't rest in the individual subject, but the subject of the Church.

[@juandoming6688]

​@@bradspitt3896which is made up of individuals

[@criticalbruv]

Man. I haven't watched a debate in ages. This is a good. One.=)

[@Greg-n]

Dyer is insecure.

[@slavicgypsy5535]

Dyer. Still a Calvinist ....... he can't whipe that dust off him no matter how many times he switches doctrine.

[@Paul-op8lz]

Hey Trent, Anthony Rogers (a Presbyterian I believe) with 15.7k followers has recently made a video titled: “Justification by faith ALONE: Sola Fide in the Fathers”. I think it would pretty interesting if you could rebut his video and someday debate him.

[@andrewvalenza7817]

Sam Shamoun and William Albrecht did a rebuttal, haven’t watched it but they really both do a wonderful job of refutation. It’s on Sam’s channel Shamounian

[@yeshuadvargas5552]

I lost all interest or respect for Dyer's perspective after his debate with Ybarra. Ybarra cornered him and he just stated councils can be wrong, Church fathers can be wrong, Patriarchs can be wrong, etc Essentially, anyone can be wrong except Jay Dyer. This debate is a reaffirmation that Jay Dyer has a lot of attitude, and very little content to back it up.

[@TonyEspana182]

Not only that. Ybarra seemed to be winning with using evidence of Rome's authority and Jay went on tangents about clown masses and things that were irrelevant. Once you go off topic you clearly lose.

[@yeshuadvargas5552]

@@TonyEspana182 Agreed, and It wasn't the first time Dyer had employed the use of petty red herrings. He is infamous for doing so when he finds himself on the losing end of a debate, which makes him very irritating to watch.

[@davidf343]

Agree very arrogant it’s hard to watch a debate with him and I feel bad for Trent he is very smart and good thinker but Dyer just shoved his views at any cost without himself thinking

[@glof2553]

@@TonyEspana182 Jay affirmed to Ybarra that there is nothing that can convince him of Rome's authority. At that point (which is clearly an admission of bad faith), why even have a discussion?

[@yeshuadvargas5552]

@@glof2553 Exactly.

[@pochomano]

So many people seem to not understand the the title of the debate. It’s should Christians reject natural theology, not is natural theology a coherent and logical framework of logic and reasoning.

[@garrisongosling7739]

If natural theology presupposes a worldview that isn't coherent and can't account for logic and reasoning then Christians should reject it because it can't prove Chrisitanity, because it's incoherent.

[@automatonpilot5040]

I like Jay Dyer, but I can't for the life of me comprehend why someone would try to deny natural theology. Isn't natural theology just an analogical tool to reason from creation to creator? Somebody help me. 🤣

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Read an article _ it is called Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos...

[@automatonpilot5040]

@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας I'll check it out. Thanks.

[@bradspitt3896]

Jay's point is that if you begin with your own subjectivity you'll always be locked in. Real knowledge is ontologically grounded in the Church, not the individual. So temporally the apostles experienced the incarnation, and through the nous, not just the senses, the holy Spirit then gets passed down. Then we can think and experience things about the world but we really don't have knowledge without the Church. Our knowledge isn't grounded in our experience, but Christ and the Church.

[@soccerlife5041]

@@bradspitt3896by that logic no knowledge should be possible for non Christians which isn’t the case.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@soccerlife5041 No justification is possible. At most you'll have pragmatic "knowledge."

[@tethyn]

51:30 I think the resolution at the end of the day is the problem and who was to take the affirmative and negative position. Dyer’s philosophical position, whether EO or not, is what determines whether natural theology is possible or not. Although philosophy undergirds most discussions in theology, it was not expected to be primary in this debate. I believe most expected a historical, biblical and theological debate about natural theology and what we got was a debate on the philosophy on whether we can do natural theology as opposed to whether we should. Also, dyer seems to be debating as if he was the negative position and shifting the burden of proof to Trent which I think is weird. The asking of questions from the tradition of Hume and Kant to raise doubt of Trent’s argument seems to tip his hand that the heart of his real argument is not natural theology but the foundational philosophy of Catholicism. He was trying to raise doubt about Trent’s claim as if he was the one affirming the resolution.

[@YovanypadillaJr]

I'll be honest I see no trouble with the statement that people like Abraham and Moses didn't know the Trinity. Why should they, isn't the whole reason Christ came down and became human was so we could know him and have a relationship with him?

[@TheZeroSbr]

@Nathaniel J. Franco Lack of knowledge isn't the same as denying.

[@glof2553]

@Nathaniel J. Franco whether they were worshiping the Trinity or aware that what they were worshiping was the Trinity are two different questions.

[@HaleStorm49]

No one who has actually seen/knows God, as Abraham and Moses did, advocated anything resembling the current doctrine of the Trinity.

[@glof2553]

@@HaleStorm49 I saw this during the debate. Trent said something like the OT Patriarchs were unaware that God was a Trinity, and the Orthobros went absolutely bonkers saying Trent was a heretic and denying thr Trinity or whatever. No charity or interest to understand whatsoever. Also quite unlike any cradle Orthodox I know in real life. It is, however, very similar to many Protestants I know. Which is why I call the Orthobros "Byzantine Protestants"

[@YovanypadillaJr]

@Nathaniel J. Franco if I asked a Moses hey do you believe in the Trinity? Would they say yes, no, or maybe? I'm not denying the Trinity but denying the fact that Moses and Abraham would hold to the view since Christ didn't reveal himself.

[@andrewferg8737]

Jay seems to falsely assert that there is no self-evident argument. Being itself is the singularly self-evident argument upon which the cogito and other apparently evident propositions rest. Being itself is also the most fundamental "attribute" of God available to our understanding both naturally and as revealed in the scriptural declaration "I AM".

[@jedediah9622]

yeah... i thought it was weird that Dyer was using Kant and Hume as proofs for his selective hyper-skepticism. if you go down that road of doubt, why should you not doubt your ability to reason about the supposed revelations? there's no end to this sort of skepticism, unless you arbitrarily choose to end it - arbitrary to an outsider, but personally important to Dyer. so it's an embrace of the subjective and rejection of the objective, if we're honest about it.

[@Rothbardlover]

@@jedediah9622 Agreed. Dyer made many strange moves for an Orthodox Christian to make. Many of the arguments Hume and Kant make would be devastating to Orthodoxy if used. I'm honestly confused why he used them.

[@bradspitt3896]

You can't "just" argue for being itself. The argument itself would require presupposing logic least. It's a performative contradiction.

[@andrewferg8737]

​@@bradspitt3896 "You can't "just" argue for being itself"--- Existence in and of itself, to be, truth, or logic are ontological synonyms for the transcendent: that which is without beginning or end and which cannot 'not be' as is demonstrated through antinomies such as "there is no truth" or "nothing is", etc. Existence in and of itself, or any of its synonyms, is the singularly self-evident axiom from which all else is derived. That is the referent for the term God in classical theology, per the ineffable Mosaic Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ derived from the existential verb hayah meaning 'to be'. (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, i, q. 3 & 4) Peace be with you.

[@floriangeyer1886]

Jay Dyer met his match in Trent.

[@triggered8556]

Jay won

[@glof2553]

One question for Trent or whoever else is theologically knowledgeable: does natural theology, by definition, exclude revealed theology? Doesn't the Church use both? Because I know several Orthodox theologians that do not reject natural theology outright (Staniloae, for one)

[@glof2553]

@Nathaniel J. Franco dictionary fallacy from an Orthobro. I prefer this definition: "a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature." Nothing exclusionary in there.

[@glof2553]

@Reactionary Hermit my .02 is that both revealed and natural theology are both permitted and needed (which is in line with the Church's stance on something like fideism, for instance) which is how one arrives to the Christian faith But I'd agree, it was a lot of talking past each other.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@@glof2553 your observation about closing the door on “Sola Fide” was correct. In response to Luthers “total depravity” the Church issued clarifications about her teaching and condemning his line of thought. This was further bolstered in the Vatican 1 document which declared it dogmatically. Also, in short answer to your question, yes, Natural theology excludes divine revelation. But, not necessarily “actual” Grace.

[@glof2553]

@@MountAthosandAquinas I guess my question is why? Why is arriving to God by both natural and extrabatural means necessarily mutually exclusive?

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@@glof2553 Because they are two different categories. One is trying to reason to God from created effects to the first Principle. The other, isn’t reasoning to, but rather God is coming down upon the creature to elevate them to a new mode of being. Both Reason (apart from Faith) and Reason illuminated by faith have the same object (Namely God). But one has God as object to be found. The other has God as object to be loved. One is us seeking God (Reason). The other is us being found by God (Faith). When we are found by Him, He tells us what we didn’t know about Himself. Hence why Paul says to the philosophers that they all “grope in hopes they might find Him.” But Divine Revelation is God saying openly “I am here.”

[@lukegetz9785]

Been years and I have yet to see Trent lose a debate. The evidence he presents excellent.

[@bassemmi1]

I stopped at minute 1:20:00 because at that time Trent confirmed my thinking that they never were disagreeing on natural theology. So strictly speaking nobody won the debate. The main difference is whether the word God only refers to the Trinity or to generic properties of God that everyone can agree with. That’s a totally different topic. Jay thinks the natural world proves the Trinity, that’s interesting.

[@Kevin5279]

Jay lost the debate since he took the affirmative position that Christians should reject natural theology

[@josht1901]

jay is right that presuppositionalism can demonstrate Christianity true because of the impossibility of the contrary, but his mistake is to believe it proves Eastern Orthodox is the Christian denomination it proves to be correct over other Christian denominations. Trent seemed to point that out.Trent also pointed out the 'baggage' problem that both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism both have to deal with. Neither will affirm that we ought not accept scripture written after 70 AD from the time of the apostles. they both have their theologian 'guys' that they put on par with the apostles and presume Christ's Church is an earthly institution and not one with Christ as the head of in a spiritual reality.

[@juandoming6688]

Not in this lifetime. U are stripping proof of its meaning.

[@josht1901]

@@juandoming6688 i have no idea what aspect of my comment you are disagreeing with. if you happen to think Christianity is false and your worldview is true, which one is it? otherwise im just going to give you worldview comparisons/criticisms for a worldview you dont hold

[@juandoming6688]

@josht1901 u can't prove christianity. U can make a compelling case but u can't prove it on evidence.

[@josht1901]

@@juandoming6688 You're dodging the question. Since you aren't listing what your view of reality is, I will give an example of comparing a worldview against the Christian worldview just to give a demonstration that the impossibility of the contrary claim is not without teeth. There are 4 main worldviews. I don't know which you hold, but to give you an example demonstration, let's critique a common atheist, materialist worldview. I am not putting words into your mouth by saying you are a materialist atheist whose philosophy is empiricism, but if there were someone of that view, here are some comparisons. Atomism/materialism: Holds that all is made of atoms, which constantly change, and are extended in space (not universal/everywhere). Truth in moral oughts and laws of logic are merely two of a vast swath of universals which are unchanging, pre-exist humans(not convention), and everywhere(universal). We have no good reason to believe matter can produce things with the exact opposite attributes as cited. Let's compare those opposite attributes again: constant flux - unchanging, extended in space - everywhere, contingent(came after the universe came to be) - eternal(existed before universe). What are "Laws of logic"? - law of non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. We use one of them with every thought. Darwinian evolution assumes life already existed (abiogenesis) - see "James Tour" videos on the absurdity of unguided abiogenesis. If we came from Darwinian evolution, we came from a process not aimed at truth. No human tribe has another set of laws of logic; it's so basic, you have to use it to deny its existence. With 8 billion people, worth billions of years of evolution every year on the planet, there should be a new no-longer-human specie who has a different set of laws of logic by now. Allegedly homsapiens are only 200,000 years old. If atomism is true, it does not follow that we have freedom of choice, making moral choices unintelligible. Induction: that the future will be like the past, which science requires. Christianity has a reason for induction, which makes science possible. In contrast, materialism holds that the ediface of science is based on no reason at all. If all came about from time and chance acting on matter, it does not follow that we should have an orderly universe which allows repeatable experiements for science. It does follow from an orderly Christian God. No one lives as if atomism is true, nor could it coherently(without self-contradiction), justifiably(good reason to believe) explain(explanatory power) our world and human experience. We haven't even cracked the Bible open at this point - but if your worldview can't account for making human experience and our universe possible, you really should consider the only view from which it follows that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves. What is so objectionable about Christ as King of the universe who demands we love our neighbor as ourself, will punish injustice whether in thought, word, or deed, and Who gives the option for undeserving humanity to reign with Him in the future new heaven and near earth if we join His kingdom? Unlike earthly kings, Jesus does not force Himself on anyone - that wouldn't be love, would it? But you know do understand what love is and do not live as if you are a cosmic accident from stardust, with no meaning or purpose. That King came to earth 2000 years ago and made a way for us to not get justice for the crimes we all have committed - do you know what He did? If God loves you, why would you reject that love if the point of view of reality you have is not powerful enough to allow us to conjure a single thought if we didn't have laws of logic or the ability to love, single an all-material reality would make decisions impossible, thereby making love impossible. Do you have a different worldview than materialism? If so, we can do a critique of that one instead. To be rational is to have reasons for our beliefs. There are reasons for human experience and our world, in the Christian worldview. If a point of view contradicts itself, lacks explanatory power, or has no good reason to believe it is true, then that point of view is not rational.

[@juandoming6688]

@@josht1901 I'm christian.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

I have great respect for Trent Horn, but as an Orthodox Christian I agree with Jay Dyer and the Orthodox position. What I would love to see is a book coauthored by Trent and Jay on the subjects we agree on to help on the friendship of Orthodox and Catholics that is there but needed even more so. I know, some might say I sound like an ecumenist but im far from it. We still have to get along without compromising our dogmatic beliefs and I could see Jay and Trent writing a great book together on this topic.

[@Regular_Pigeon]

If you think Trent and Jay would be able to co-author a book together, you've probably not seen much of Jay's content.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

@@Regular_Pigeon exactly why I’d love to see it. It would never happen, at least in recent times.

[@aisthpaoitht]

Jay is a charlatan who oozes slime. What crypto codes is he selling now? 😂

[@OrangeXenon54]

"I know, some might say I sound like someone who wants the Church to be one again but im far from it." Schisms are bad and should be reconciled, actually. All ecumenical councils were to help end particular heresies schisming the Church.

[@jonathansoko5368]

Dyer hasn't learned one bit and is still as condescending as ever. He wonders why people don't debate him. It isn't fear.

[@glof2553]

@Nathaniel J. Franco "Lol you made a typo, I win"

[@giacomofilosofia]

Actually a lot of us have conceded that Jay is getting more charitable in his behaviour during debates. Here he showed much more respect to his opponent

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@giacomofilosofia what do you mean by "charitable" ?

[@jonathansoko5368]

Condescending **. Also his cult like following is also a problem. They make any chat room miserable to be in.

[@hello-cn5nh]

@@jonathansoko5368 how is condescending a synonym for charitable?

[@davekushner5340]

My understanding is that pure reason cannot bring you to belief in The Trinity, faith must play a role at some point. Likewise, natural theology is used to bring people to the undeniable presence of a God/Creator, and reason can help guide the will to find Christianity, but if faith doesn't come in, it isn't freely chosen, because there is no choice to believe. If reason without faith gets you to true belief, then what role does faith play?

[@science_is_fake_and_gay2710]

Faith in rationality?

[@LostArchivist]

Okay so Faith is one of the three theological virtues along with Hope, and Charity. These can only come from grace. God must act first for us to believe in Christianity. It is still free because the Holy Catholic Church does not believe in irresistable grace, you need to cooperate with it (i.e. you can always say no). The Church does say that knowledge of God as Creator is possible by reason. The Church also holds that God grants the means for salvation to everyone and that our choice in response to His offer dictates how we go more or less within our ability and situation etc.

[@davekushner5340]

@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 faith with rationality.

[@erakus]

the metalogic thing is easily regressed to rediculousness, you can go meta infinitely.. Meta therefore meta, therefore meta......metametametametalogical argumentation should be debated.. Your using the presupposition to basically stop the loop at where YOU want it to end.

[@youtubecharlie1]

Jay cheated. At 41:45 you can clearly see him takin a swig of holy water.

[@CesarScur]

"There are no proper basic belief" Is this a proper basic belief? If yes Jay is wrong contradicting his position. Here you have one axiom that you are basing your reasoning that comes logical before your knowledge of God. (Because there are proper basic believes I believe God is a proper basic belief) If no you are wrong again for contradicting the proposition itself. Where did this proposition came from? How can you afirm ANYTHING without, first, presuposing something exists? Here I think Jay lacks knowledge of the classics. Kant is wrong because he committed the same crime Jay does: Not knowing Aristotle or knowing a false version of him.

[@jpmisterioman]

Jay doesn't deny logic or a basic belief, he's just saying we can't justify them without God

[@CesarScur]

@@jpmisterioman if what you say is true then he would also agree with Aristotle. That is the foundation of the Aristotelian epistemology. And if he agrees with Aristotle then his remarks against Aristotle using Kant (Kant thought he refuted Aristotle even thou Kant never read Aristotle) are a contradiction. What I think Jay said is that there aren't universal that you can observer, you need to presupose God to arrive at them. What you are saying is that there are universals and we don't need to presupose God to know and be sure of them.

[@jpmisterioman]

@@CesarScur Yeah, pretty much. Jay just inverts the Aristotelian claim that we must start from nature to God and inverts that to a deductive scheme where we must reason from the principle to the particulars.

[@CesarScur]

@@jpmisterioman in your statement: "to a scheme where we must start from principles to particulars [or universals]" you make a gross confusion. That **cannot** be what Jay is stating. Reason being that that is the Aristotelian worldwide. Jay is rejecting first principles in favor assuming something. He rejects first principles because according to him you cannot know them.

[@jpmisterioman]

@@CesarScur Eh, no. I'm merely using aristotelian terminology to say that the first principle, for Dyer, is God. What I was trying to say is that Dyer merely changes the Aristotelian scheme. Aristotle thinks we start from nature and go up to God or a first mover. Dyer is saying no, we cannot know nature without a first mover in the first place.

[@TKDB13]

Jay did more work than Trent here to convince me of the value of natural theology. His arguments against foundationalism leaned very heavily on modern skepticism, which has the glaring problem of being *so* good at undermining classical notions of logic that it undermines the very arguments it uses to do the undermining! Arguments that fold so readily to retorsion are, as far as I'm concerned, not at all convincing, and indeed if you do take them seriously ultimately lead you to a radical obscurantism where nothing at all is knowable. Which I suppose is where presuppositionalism would come in to bridge the gap back to sanity, but as Trent noted the choice of *which* presupposition to apply is entirely arbitrary if you're starting from such a basis of such radical skepticism. In fact, you could very well just go with foundationalist principles themselves as your presupposition...which really brings me back to my point that this skeptical line of reasoning ultimately just *does not succeed* in refuting anything but itself.

[@peterc.1419]

Surely this undercuts his own presuppositionalism. He is just offering special pleading or a form a fideism. How can "metalogical" arguments not use logic. How can one jump beyond logic? If we are consistent then we have no knowledge at all and he has no way to know if Jesus Christ even existed let alone or that any of his EO fathers wrote.

[@bradspitt3896]

It's not a problem for Jay because he doesn't rest his epistemology on logic (or experience )but revelation. He then has a justification to begin using Logic. And experience of the subject of the church, not the subject of the individual. Seems like what Jay said went over everyone's heads.

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@bradspitt3896 But by the same reasoning, you can't know if you have revelation, or if you only think you do. Just like a Muslim can claim they have special revelation that proves to them that Islam is true. Another commenter called what Dyer does special pleading, and I think that's accurate.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@EmberBright2077 It's not about empiricism at this point, it's about justification and grounding knowledge with a logic. The Muslim still couldn't answer why a super transcendent infinite God could interact with finite beings. Jay could.

[@EmberBright2077]

@@bradspitt3896 So if I were an atheist (which I would be if I accepted Jay's reasoning), why should I take his brand of Christianity more seriously than someone else's brand of Islam?

[@hugomunoz9039]

Thanks for the debate! I'm curious to know how this topic was agreed upon. Also, a debrief would be great. Maybe you can have a cohost? I suggest Cristopher Tomacseski (I know I spelled that wrong) or another prominent Thomist.. perhaps a Thomist Friar?

[@sf4323]

Just saying that something is a mellological question over and over again doesn't explain what meta logics Actually is. And it's not because people can't keep up with it, the job of the debater for the persuader or the apologist or whoever is to explain their position in a cohesive and understandable manner. And that's actually kind of the issue for Jay, Trent is making the correct assessment that there is such thing as objective reality that one can reason at least to where is Jay seems to fall into subjectivism, which is the foundation of A lot of reformationist thinking. The whole formulation of the protestant theory of faith alone is entirely subjective, It's one of the reasons why presuppositionalism is such a cornerstone of reformationist thinking.

[@dboan6847]

Jay claims the atonement theory of recapitulation is missing in Catholicism. Wrong . . . try again.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

What at first in orthodox theology and catholic is the methodologies they use for knowledge about the Deity. Google an read an article it is called Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos...

[@leos3123]

Would Metalogic in the used sense be conform with Kants term of formal logic?

[@andrewferg8737]

Trinitarianism can be naturally inferred from human consciousness, as Freud demonstrated--- although Freud did not apply this understanding in a theological sense.

[@jpmisterioman]

Actually, Freud got that from St.Augustine. Anyways, I wouldn't use Freud to prove Christianity lol

[@andrewferg8737]

@@jpmisterioman This truth was clearly expressed throughout the Old Testament in nascent form, and was later articulated in "trinitarian" terms. Freud's relationship to Christianity was complex. Given his personal and family history and the period in which he lived, it is unremarkable that he would have sought a secularized expression for a theological truth. If one defines consciousness as self-reflection then both unity and complexity are implicit. This is indeed what we read both in scripture and later in the Church Fathers, and then not coincidentally in Freud theory of the human psyche. I would not use Freud or anyone else to "prove" Christianity. Rather, Freud's theories simply reflect that some theological truths can be derived from natural observation. That is Trent's central argument in the video.

[@mememe1468]

I think the interesting position for natural theology that the Catholic Church has is that it is equipped with a paradigm for such a school of thought. Jay dyer usually argues against Muslims and protestants who use this train of thought. People who only have a conceptual, doctrinal position to argue that they take for granted. Natural theology doesn't do these groups any favors in solidifying their place on the world stage. Though, if God is real and interacts with the world, like all theists believe just about, would He not have a people? Emissaries on the earth? Wouldn't He perform miracles for them and keep them not only linked together but ever more powerful? The superiority of the Catholic position is that it need not stand in the debate halls to prove herself. All she has to do is point to her miracles, and saints, and foundations of civilization, and her unity, and her seeming inability to be destroyed. The only place natural theology could ever work is in an apostolic church.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

This a joke? Please study your Metaphysics before making a claim

[@Gericho49]

Psalm 19 refers to, if not defines natural theology aka natural revelation. the latter was recognised and expected by all the pioneering scientist who expected law in nature because they believed in a LAWGIVER. "The heavens declare the glory of God.....day after day they pour forth SPEECH. PS 19. Gods immutable, universal laws and their foundation in the language of advanced mathematics, are revealed in the heavens for the unbeliever, (who may reject his written Word) but then suppress the truth by their wickedness. Gods extra-biblical Revelation in the beauty of the natural world and the biodiversity of life is clear to them, so they are without excuse. Rom 1:18

[@spurcalluth6300]

1:00:46, Oh my goodness, if Jay can just stop assuming he is omniscient and let someone answer his questions, he might learn something. His complete ignorance is a result of assuming that nobody can answer a question in a way that he doesn't anticipate.

[@emmanuelsimon8607]

Would love to hear Trent's thoughts on how he thought the debate went-.

[@alphawolf1513]

It is interesting to read comments here, very odd, attacking Jays character rather than his arguments. Why is Trent even a christian? He believes there was death before the fall , that Old Testament prophets did not believe in trinity, denied personhood of tripersonal God and that Muhammad worships same God as we do. Demonstration of jays point why natural theology does not lead to Christianity.

[@nuzzi6620]

Yeah, they'll be the first the say he's uncharitable, mean, on drugs or otherwise viciously slander him, and then proceed to virtue-signal and say their side acts in good faith and the other does not. It's just tiring.

[@elederiruzkin8835]

Not the same: Does God have personhood? Is God *a* person? Is God tripersonal? Not the same: death, death as change, natural death, occasioned death, physical death, spiritual death, human death, animal death... Not the same: God as God, God as 'what,' God as 'who,' God as Creator, God as Love, God as Merciful, God as Absolute, God as (un)known... As DonnyBlips says: Nuance.

[@JohnCenaFan6298]

Foundationalism and coherentism are two ways (I'm assuming there can be more but I need to study epistemology more) to comprehend God. They both have flaws in them based on the conclusion of these exchanges so frankly I have not been moved one way or another. People have said there wasn't enough time dedicated to the debate and that seems to be true. Nothing really was proven in this debate at all really although I will have to have a relisten since I missed jay's opening statement and some other parts. Perhaps it would be best for people to just read the philosophical literature on foundationalism and coherentism instead.

[@Giorginho]

Jay's view is not strictly coherentism, its ultimately revelatory theism. From what I understand, he doesn't believe you can talk about God without appealing to the revelation, you should watch his debate review.

[@glof2553]

@@Giorginho correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jay appeal to the univocity of being in this debate? I hope he doesn't affirm nominalism (he should if he's going to reject foundationalism and wants to be epistemologically consistent)

[@Giorginho]

@@glof2553 I'm not sure about univocity of being, why is that problematic and when did he do it? He doesn't affirm nominalism, he rejects it. How does his epistemology require him to do that?

[@bradspitt3896]

​@@GiorginhoThe only comment that gets it in this whole audience.

[@Enthusedsock]

Interesting top comment from Jay's channel. Pinned by Jay Dyer None of your business 16 hours ago In this debate Trent Horn denies the most basic and fundamental principles of the Christian faith, whilst affirming outright heresies. In this debate he: 1- Denies that the trinity is in the old testament and was known by the old testament prophets 2- Denies that death entered into the world at the fall. Meaning evil is a creation of God rather than a privation from God. Thus making God the author of evil. 3- Claims that all religions worship the same God. Only the most ignorant viewers could come away with the idea that Trent Horn won this debate. Seems like a miss characterisation of what Trent was saying in point 1 and 3. Also seems to miss understand what actually needs to happen to win or lose a debate on a specific issue. Those three things seem like separate issues to me. Unless he's trying to say that natural theology leads to those conclusions. Which would be separate again.

[@jendoe9436]

I don’t get how stating “Moses and other OT figures didn’t have the Trinitarian view as modern people do” leads to “sO yOu’Re sAyIng tHe TRINITY iSn’t iN tHe OT?!!!!” In modern days you have groups who explicitly reject the Trinity, so why would the OT people believe if we don’t see any close articulation in Scripture. Seems like an extreme reach to me. For 2, I don’t see the issue. Most animals are vegetarian prey, but there are predators who need meat for nourishment. Do people think they ate tofu or something? Plus, the dinosaurs died way before humans walked the earth, so I don’t see how ‘death’ as a thing is purely and only man’s fault.

[@UncannyRicardo]

@@jendoe9436 Unfortunately, Jay Dyer and his gang are creationists. They don't believe in dinosaurs or the like, so they would reject your example using animals.

[@jendoe9436]

@@UncannyRicardo how sad. They sure are missing out on some great science, topics, and understanding of God’s world. Where do they think oil comes from?

[@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry]

@@jendoe9436 where does water come from?

[@jendoe9436]

@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry are we talking how the atoms form to create water? As in the 2 Hydrogens and 1 oxygen makeup that is how water is classified? Water in just its liquid form and/or as vapor in the air? Where it originally came from? How it was originally produced? Cause I’m not about to go into a general science discussion on water if someone is gonna nitpick every time I do or do not mention something. I can provide basics and a few theories I’ve heard, but the general molecular history and actual processes are not my forte.

[@Firewall-q7x]

From a birds eye view seems at times Jay wasn’t addressing the issues at all. Hıs arguments also seem to undermine themselves. Also, the cross examination needs to be at least 15 minutes each side.

[@dolphinitely_bro3944]

Jay made more sense to me this debate

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

Trent got shellacked, and I've heard multiple cite this as a turning point for them in their spiritual journey. Had I still been in Rome, I think I would have been moved similarly. This just lays it all out there: the emperor has no clothes. Glory to God. ☦️

[@RafaelGarcia-jb3me]

What are you talking about lmao this is not a sports game where one side “shellshacks” the other.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

@@RafaelGarcia-jb3me Actually a debate certainly can be graded on performance. Trent had a poor performance.

[@zeloraz8101]

I still dont get his objection with the 7th council's logic condemning the logic of natural theology? At best its grasping at straws. The debate ist as meaty as I wanted it though do one of the papacy.

[@sebastianofmilan]

Whose objection? I'm confused.

[@breambo3835]

Trent should have understood the TAG before critiquing it as being circular. Reasoning needs to be justified for Natural theology, that’s Jay’s argument. However I don’t agree with Jay’s claim that there was no death before the fall.

[@33legion]

"Reasoning needs ro be justified for Natural theology." How are you going to justify it, if not by reasoning? That's Trent's argument.

[@namapalsu2364]

The comment section in Suan's channel (Intelectual Conservatism) are filled with Orthobros. I engage with many, and these Orthodox keeps saying how proponent of Natural Theology think that reason alone is enough to get you the triune God. These Orthobros don't know the most fundamental thing about natural theology.

[@glof2553]

The Catholics generally seem to want to learn and understand and the Orthobros seem to want to win. Exceptions to everything but that's what I've gathered.

[@glof2553]

@DonnyBlips if they say "become Orthodox", ask them "Moscow or Constantinople?"

[@LtDeadeye]

I understand most of what was said on both sides and. boy. Did my mind wrap around itself on this one.

[@jonphinguyen]

A lot of it was "word salad" to try and weasel out of accepting positions

[@charlesheck6812]

Absolutely it should be rejected

[@homescholed]

1:01:15 we have finally entered the fallacy of fallacies. Where both debaters just say the agreement of the other is false because of fallacy whatever making it so you don’t actually have to make a defense.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

You dont understand philosophy

[@33legion]

​@@DANtheMANofSIPANo you don't. (See what this comment is getting at?)

[@jedediah9622]

and... Tim Gordon is still the only person to beat Trent Horn in debate.

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

Lol

[@FirstnameLastname-py3bc]

Do a part 2 maan

[@Lordoftheplains]

Dyer has a very smug personality.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

Psalm 119:130 - the word of God gives understanding to the simple. Nothing in Dyer´s presuppositionalism stops me from saying God created humans in such a way that we can get to the knowledge of God through foundationalist natural theology. Boom, problem solved. I am kind of kidding, though I think there is a more difficult presupposition for Dyer to address that underlies all this: is there such a thing as "Orthodox" theology? I am not convinced there is even an Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox church is completely absent from my country. If I joined an Antiochian church I would be considered an excommunicated schismatic heretic in Russia´s eyes. There doesn´t seem to be an "Orthodox" binding position on this issue, as on many others. So Jay has a lot of interesting objections, but his ecclesiology is proving increasingly less capable of making any actual binding definitions on this matter. So I am sticking with Catholicism, which is perfectly capable of assimilating all of these objections, and making unversally binding definitions about the proper way to address them.

[@obbeachbum69]

That was painful

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

How can you say the death of the animals didn't exist prior to the fall... so explain to me what happened to the dinosaurs

[@francisgilson4429]

Jay Dyer is with the evil one. We must pray for conversion.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

So Jay lost the debate because he is mean lol. Level of comments: soy The Hellenistic project of Aquinas is somewhat solid, but his generic theism has nothing to do with Christianity in general.

[@namapalsu2364]

Then why is many Orthodox praise Thomas Aquinas? These are usually the intelectual ones with position in Church.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

@@namapalsu2364 Who praises him? DBH? Surely one can praise Aquinas. But the Orthodox Church doesn't base her theology on his works.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@bennyredpilled5455 Gennadius II Scholarius. Marcus Plested. Etc.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

Nama Palsu You know what cherry-picking is? I am making the same argument: Catholics accepts homosexuality, cause Fr. Martin accepts it

[@namapalsu2364]

@@bennyredpilled5455 Martin never said explicitly that homosexuality is not a sin. You ask for Orthodox who praise Thomas Aquinas. I answer your question. You don't like it, don't ask.

[@Jimmycrdns]

Trent Horn vs Seth Rogen.......

[@jacobstrahan3495]

LETS GOOOO

[@cerb4414]

Poggers chungus wholesome

[@jakajakos]

Great job

[@automatonpilot5040]

Has Trent done a debate review? I see that Dyer has.

[@frederickanderson1860]

0:58 both are proving nothing but intellectual confusion. Imagine jesus and his disciples doing this kind of debate. Jesus showed signs to explain his mission and his parables, even his disciples we're confused.

[@michaelspeyrer1264]

Jay doesn’t understand what a self evident principle is…..unless he’s the one using it.

[@science_is_fake_and_gay2710]

Self evident principles are viciously circular.. he posted after the debate a youtube post about it

[@michaelspeyrer1264]

@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 NO they aren't, that's you not understanding the concept. 1+1=2 is a self evident principle not circular reasoning. If you can't understand why its self evident that's a personal failing. That persons require free will be definition of what a person is, is a self evident principle. You either understand the concept by virtue of the definition or you don't'. That a true thing can't be self contradictory at the same time in the same sense as part of the law of non contradiction is either understood or it is not. It doesn't require further explanation to be a defended as a concept.

[@IndiaNumberOneCoubtry]

@@michaelspeyrer1264 ‘if you cant understand why its self evident thats a personal failing’ can someone say fallacy? 🤮🤣

[@aisthpaoitht]

​@@IndiaNumberOneCoubtrysounds like you have no rebuttal.

[@dboan6847]

Summary of Jay . . . Orthodoxy is true, because it self reveals itself as true and all you guys don't believe in what it teaches . . . so you are all wrong.

[@Spsz6000]

Basically

[@DRWH044]

Jay commits a logical fallacy in his initial statement when claiming Trent has a logical fallacy. He says that reasoning that there is one God does not mean you worship the same God as others that have reasoned the same because saying that everyone are born of a woman does not mean they are born of the same woman. But doing the full analogy, if you concluded that there is only one woman, then it would mean that they were born of the same woman.

[@garrisongosling7739]

While it is true that all men who are born of a woman, and if there is only one woman, it must be concluded that they were all born of the same woman, it does not follow that all the men born of this woman believe in the same woman. If the men discuss their mother but all of them describe a fundamentally different woman with fundamentally different traits, then while it will be agreed that one woman bore all of them, they do not identify the same individual woman as their one mother. You are assuming that the only fundamental trait that the mother has is that she is a woman, but there is more to any woman's fundamental identity than her sex. In this same way, while numerous religions all believe that we were created by one God, it does not follow that we all believe in or worship the same God. There is more to the fundamental identity of God than just that He is one. That IS A fundamental trait, but not the only one. God being three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are all separately as well as together entirely the one God is a fundamental trait of the one true God, so if a person rejects this concept of God, then they do not worship the same God as the Christian.

[@DRWH044]

@@garrisongosling7739 not really, there are siblings that, if you ask them to describe their parents, they describe them in completely different ways. It's all about perception and lived experiences. I don't know how many religions believe in only one God. But three of them, Judaism, Christianity and Islam say they believe in the God of Abraham. You say that Islam describes a different God, if you ask Jews they say Christians also describe a different God.

[@garrisongosling7739]

@DRWH044 Describing someone in completely different ways isn't the same as disagreeing on the fundamental traits that make a person a person. Also, just believing that you worship the God who appeared to Abraham doesn't mean you worship the same God as everyone else who believes that they worship the God who appeared to Abraham if the God that you all describe is fundamentally different. The Jews rejected Christ and in doing so the Father, so they don't worship the same God as us. Both Muslims and Jews reject the Trinity, which is fundamental to the Christian/true God's nature, and therefore they don't believe in the Christian God. Those religions just believing that their god is the one who spoke to Abraham, and just agreeing that a god spoke to Abraham does not mean that they worship the same God. I guess you would say that if there was only one woman on the planet Earth then the only fundamental trait that makes her who she is is her being a female. Which doesn't make sense because that's not the only fundamental trait that makes women who they are as individuals today. And identify isn't defined by how many other people who share a trait with you there are, so a woman being the only female does not somehow magically make her only fundamental trait being a woman.

[@garrisongosling7739]

@DRWH044 If someone said that they worship one god, but described a fundamental trait of that god as being evil and opposed to good, would you say that we worship the same god as them just because they also believe in only one god? If so, that's heresy, because a fundamental nature of our God is that He is good, so if someone believes that the only god is evil, then they believe in a fundamentally different god than Christians.

[@garrisongosling7739]

@DRWH044 Theoretically it's absolutely possible for siblings to describe fundamentally different people when describing their parents if they disagree over fundamental traits that made their parents who they are or were. Just agreeing that you share a parent with someone does not logically equal you agree on who that parent is or was.

[@andyfisher2403]

I enjoyed how Jay responded to Trent's responses to the Jay's questions. Lol

[@zachlehkyi9951]

Word up bro

[@LostArchivist]

Natural theology is I believe essential (though not necessarily exhaustive of utility) because it also patterns after God`s makeup of human beings and how He intends us to operate, and this reflects I believe in Our Blessed Lord`s usage in the Gospels. An example Our Blessed Lord must become trustworthy with earthly treasure before we can be trusted with true treasure, as in Gospel of St.Luke chapter 16. We must trust in God`s care for us just as He cares for the sparrows and the lilies. Certainly these are to be sacrificed for the sake of the Lord, but the fact we are as we are where we are is not irrelevant and clearly Our Blessed Lord utilized the culture He was in to reveal thr truths of the Kingdom of God. This implies there is an inherent value to this method as it is likewise our default method of reason. I think it very unwise to discard this for another system unless it is proven it can fulfill all these same requirements (i.e. it needs to be universally applicable and universal in explanatory power, naturally intuitive, draw the same conclusions as the Sacred Scriptures and (for us Catholics, though as Catholics hold Catholicism to be true I hold these must be as well) Infallible Doctrines of the Holy Church, and allow for knowledge and allow natural and supernatural realities. Basically, there is a robust set of non-negotiables any philosophical system must meet if it wants to replace what is already here. It needs to at least do as good a job as what we are using, otherwise we are exchanging a superior tool for an inferior one. I am not saying Our Blessed Lord was a Scholastic or a Thomist, but that He did come at a certain time and place in a certain context and if we discard it as unimportant we risk ignoring something as vital as all of the Old Testament and the Incarnation. The Good Lord clearly cares about when and where He came as He set up the Israelite people and became the Messiah. We can not just unmoor ourselves from these realities and expect to stay on the straight and narrow path long.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Google an read a simple article it is called Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos...

[@dariusmonk2847]

In this debate Trent Horn denies the most basic and fundamental principles of the Christian faith, whilst affirming outright heresies. In this debate he: 1- Denies that the trinity is in the old testament and was known by the old testament prophets 2- Denies that death entered into the world at the fall. Meaning evil is a creation of God rather than a privation from God. Thus making God the author of evil. 3- Claims that all religions worship the same God. Only the most ignorant viewers could come away with the idea that Trent Horn won this debate.

[@xravenx24fe]

Idk man, Jay is a meanie and frequent interrupter, I think that means he's wrong by default.

[@raymk]

1:55:28 If you wonder why Trent chuckled when he said "highly counter-intuitive", it's actually because he thinks that word can be translated as "extremely stupid" or so... lol

[@user-fk1nh2mi6f]

You will realize ( hopefully soon) you are also; “Leaven.”

[@BrendaPickering-u9z]

Young Dorothy Gonzalez Linda Anderson John

[@dubbelkastrull]

Who is "Dr Russ Manion"? Did Jay Dyer invent him?

[@danstoian7721]

4:12 Actually, much of Maximums' work is based on what he and everyone else then tough to be "Dionysius the Areopagite", which we now and call Pseudo-Dionysius, so really he's works are based on fake writings.

[@jpmisterioman]

They aren't fake Lmao

[@danstoian7721]

@@jpmisterioman I don't want to fight on semantics now, enough to say Maximus and Orthodox theologians where thinking they are dealing with the writing of the companion of St. Paul, when in fact they where not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@danstoian7721 first Google and read a simple article called Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by Metalinos to see the difference between orthodox and carholic methods ...