Discussion between Fanatic Thomist and Jay Dyer

[@newglof9558]

Catholics are Jay's only opponents where he consistently loses his cool

[@ConsideringPhlebas]

Jay's consistent refusal to let other people speak is strategic.

[@MajorasTime]

Looks like this debate is gonna leave a mark on Jay just like the Erick Ybarra debate did lol. Jay Dyer had to keep interrupting because he knew he was getting schooled by Fanatic Thomist lol. Then he resulted to cussing and rage quitting at the end to avoid further humiliation. Pray for his soul 🙏

[@missydee2700]

The witchery expert just humiliated himself, this is going to scar him, this will definetly impact tarrotcard reader jay dyer. The oldman is a skirt, the second his rhetoric doesn't work and he is facing someone who knows what they are talking about jay turns into a cat and runs, he did it when dr Jarred Goff called in, jay ran 🏃‍♀️

[@1984SheepDog]

​@missydee2700 when did goff call in?

[@chad_hominem]

That debate with Ybarra was glorious lol

[@101caliber]

​@bbdl2147 To my recollection, several years ago Dr. Goff was commenting in the live chat of a video made by Jay. I don't know exactly what happened, but I heard Dr. Goff was blocked.

[@catholicpenguin]

Common Dyer sophistry

[@CrucifixSalvation]

Astro W

[@hypedbeauty4204]

Wow..I can’t believe Jay Dyer actually lost a debate then had a meltdown at the end. Who is this brilliant man Jay was debating? Interested in looking into his content.

[@jebbush2527]

It’s in the description

[@hypedbeauty4204]

@@jebbush2527 Thanks!

[@TheRealDealDominic]

Par for the course. Jay can't frustrate his opponent (I use opponent purposefully), he moves on to phase 2 of his attempt to look good which is what we heard. Listening to Jay is like nails on a chalk board

[@chad_hominem]

He also got schooled by Erick Ybarra on Reason & Theology years ago as well. Highly recommend

[@SchizoidCajetanian]

He has a discord server

[@JamesIdentity]

I love how he says "right" all the time after Astro speaks, despite it being obvious he hasn't got a CLUE whats being said.

[@MajorasTime]

😂😂😂

[@milkshakeplease4696]

no pure act with zero potency logically means eternal creation because to go from never creating to creating means there was a potency to create. making distinctions that the guy tries to make are just ad hoc rescue attempts that don't solve the problem. it's just not many people can think deeply enough to realize it.

[@aguspare1992]

7:23 is Fanatic Thomist's (FT's) answer to the question "what is the distinction qua distinction between essence and divine attributes?" FT said: "The basis is in the divine essence, which is simple, is contained all these perfections. Since those perfections have different objective formal concept, they can not be identified in concept with each other. So there's omniscient... [cut by Dyer] Dyer: I understand [I don't think he does tho]. You said... but you said, that in the thing itself there's a basis in the distinction [Yeah! FT just explained that to you]. But by "basis" you're saying that basis is in our head virtually, right? FT: No, no. There's a two folds basis. In the thing itself and in our mind. Dyer: What is the nature of the basis of the distinction in itself... in the thing itself? FT: I just told you. [Dyer doesn't understand the answer] What happenned was Jay asked about the minor virtual distinction that has basis in the thing itself (this is about the one and the many between the divine attributes). He asked what is this basis that is in the thing itself. Gotta say that's a fair question that poped on my mind when studying these distinction. The reason is for the question is because in one hand there's "distinction that's in the mind but has basis in the thing itself" and there's "distinction that's in the mind only with no basis in the thing itself." So.... to clarify Virtual distinction that has basis in the thing itself and in our mind is divided into major virtual distinction and minor virtual distinction. Animality and rationality in man is example of major virtual distinction. Essence and attributes (also, person and essence) in God is example of minor virtual distinction. Now, animality and rationality is what is distinct in the thing itself (as pertain to major virtual distinction). AND THIS IS WHAT DYER IS ASKING! JUST LIKE IN MAN HOW WHAT IS DISTINCT IS "ANIMALITY" AND "RATIONALITY" HE IS ASKING WHAT IS DISTINCT IN GOD TO WARRANT THE DISTINCTION! But this is his mistake. Major virtual distinction is NOT minor virtual distinction (tho both have basis in the thing itself). The reason why animality and rationality in man is major virtual distinction is because you can pin point what and what that is distinct in the thing itself. But with minor virtual distinction, in this case between essence and attributes of God, you can not. Because they're in each other "intermingling" with each other so to speak (while rationality and animality are not. You can be an animal but not a rational one [tho you can not be a rational one but not an animal]). But although you can't pin point what and what that is distinct in the thing itself this distinction (ie. Minor virtual distinction) does have a basis in the thing itself. Dyer doesn't understand that ... even if you can't pin point what and what that is distinct in the thing itself there's still something in the thing itself that causes the distinction. Dyer's confusion is very understandable. So how does minor virtual distinction has basis in the thing itself if there's no what and what that is distinguishable in the thing itself? Well, let me get Fr. Totleben's thesis. ... here we go: ======== each concept signifies in act what the other concept signifies in act, but each concept signifies one thing explicitly and distinctly, and the other thing implicitly and "confusedly" 148 What does this mean? Something is included in a concept implicitly and “confusedly” when it is included in act (that is, the concept is not subject to a further determination toward this something), but the concept nevertheless does not explicate or distinctly express this something. ... It is like when we see a plurality of things a long way off: we see the plurality, and included in the plurality in act is a variety of things, but we do not perceive them distinctly. Or, it is like when we consider a house as a whole without explicitly considering each of its rooms. The rooms are included in our conception in act, but not explicitly Rather they are iὀcluded implicitly aὀd “confusedly” What is expressed in one concept is implied in the other concept.149 ====== Such is how this distinction is "in the thing itself." Different from how it is in the major virtual distinction. Now, the first part about minor/major virtual distinction I don't think Dyer looks that bad. But the second part (how providence and divine glory is the same in God) and third part (how an eternal God creates temporal creation) is going downhil fast. Fanatic Thomist was trying to lay the groundwork (meaning, necessary distinctions) since Dyer is questioning the cogency of thomism. But Dyer kept interupting. On the childish pretense that Thomists is trying to save the contradiction in their system by making distinction. Well, maybe that is the case, but you must let the guy make his case instead of continously interupting him. But since Dyer doesn't want to wade through the subtle distinction (or maybe he just can't) he cut FT and repeated the cliche accusation to Thomists.

[@newglof9558]

Great breakdown

[@alt8938]

So, an example of a minor virtual distinction in God would be his all-powerfulness and his all-knowingness. Both of those concepts imply the other, but they are still distinct and inherent in God. You cannot have one without the other because they mutually imply each other by their definition (you cannot be all powerful if you are not all knowing, and same vice versa). Is this correct?

[@fura21]

Jay dyer has been doing this for years, he challenges you to debate him in his discord or twitter space, to then, interrupt you constantly, insult you and finally block you.

[@chickenbonelives]

Damn this was hard to listen to. Jay is hard to empathize with because he refuses to listen.

[@jebbush2527]

Oh this is epic

[@JamesIdentity]

Manchild Dyer impervious to reason? Shocker.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

Jay is spiritually and emotionally immature. When he has children he will grow up.

[@CP3CP3CP3]

His wife can't have children supposedly.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

That's sad to hear. Adoption is an option but I hear it takes a while. Many children need a home. @@CP3CP3CP3

[@Linkgt]

He’s been married to his wife for a bit now, no children so we can assume they have fertility issues. Not saying this to make fun of him, as I have dealt with this in my former pre-Catholic life, but it’s perhaps a cause of his frustration.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@Linkgt on theology can you talk and leave the personal attacks

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@Linkgt are the energies of God deity and distinct from the essence or not ?

[@J7Sss]

Jay Dyer was ridiculed due to his poor arguments, had to turn around and become offensive

[@billyhw5492]

I thought Jay gave up doing theology.

[@christeeleison9064]

He ran out of topics is all debates now

[@vertiasluxmea]

where was this ?

[@saint-jiub]

Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement Name-calling Ad hominem => Responding to Tone Contradiction Counterargument Refutation Refuting the Central Point

[@christeeleison9064]

Invincible champion of the theologians pray for us, sinners.

[@SchizoidCajetanian]

Most Charitable EO

[@lordcharlesthomas]

Most charitable Orthobro

[@stephenbrown7924]

Jays question per virtual distinction: "what is the basis of the distinction"? It seems to be relative to created being because we as creatures, get our concepts from our created experience. So analogy of being is from created being. That's just my theory. The example of God's providence vs God's glory. The difference would seem to be based on our experience of the same attribute. In general, God's glory is something which terminates in God; whereas HIs providence is more readily experienced by us in our needs. The material, God's attribute vs the formal distinction. The idea of providence vs glory come from the same God (as attribute) but glory is distinct from providence as ideas.

[@Polumetis]

"But then, as to our selves, we do not think it safe, as we have said a little before, to connect the 'Energeia' with the 'Ousia': since we judge of it by its Works (i.e. effects), and know the 'Ousia' to be without beginning, simple, and without end: but the 'Energeia' not to be without beginning; for if it were, the Work (effects) itself would be without beginning also, as well as without end..." Who said this: Jay Dyer or the Arch-heretic Eunomius?

[@watsonblack7481]

"But God, he (Eunomius) says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence?" Was it St. Basil or Jay Dyer?

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@achilles4242]

Jay said on twitter he let him speak for 15 minutes uninterrupted. He lasted maybe 6 minutes haha. Jay is a smart guy and I’m genuinely interested in his point about modal collapse when he brings it up. I think he’s wrong, but it’s a good point. But the guy cannot help himself. He definitely does not have the patience of a saint, to use a play on a popular phrase.

[@JohnKlimakos]

Jay does this intentionally, and there is a certain logic to his constant nagging. But he would do better to sit back and let his opponent hang himself with his own position.

[@warnersmith2802]

lol what are all these comments. always about something other than the argument. the guy never addressed Jay's point. Totally lost at 19:40

[@nathanielus5296]

Cope

[@JamesIdentity]

Gigacope

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

It's not about winning or losing, it's not a competition, it's about convincing arguments. If you can't convince others of your arguments due to your delivery nobody retains anything you said, they switch off rightly or wrongly. I have this problem too, my delivery is wrong and my arguments sometimes fall on deaf ears no matter how good I think I did. Working on it though.

[@warnersmith2802]

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker I agree but I guess I might be missing the problem with the delivery. I'm more engaged when the debate is engaging. When a debater just drones on about something over and over again, I lose the patience and just skip forward since I've heard it already. Jay interrupting and pointing out that Fanatic keeps repeating the same thing doesn't switch me off at all. It just highlights that he isn't getting the objection. btw these debates are never about convincing each other. Fanatic nor Jay would change their minds no matter how long they talked. I do see it as competition, a blood sport, to win the most support and who can convert the most listeners to their side.

[@DrChaunceyBlevins]

@@warnersmith2802I believe the consensus is this: if you start stomping and swearing, you’ve lost your cool, and you’ve lost. There are a myriad of ways to end a devolving conversation that do not involve rage-quitting.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

God's energies are always uncreated and deity ,operated from him or not in the creation...

[@sirlottawin]

He just interrupts the whole time

[@ThruTheUnknown]

The problem still exists on the Thomist view how God's thoughts of other worlds are acts (or not?) that aren't actualized. One can say it wasn't of God's will but then there becomes a distinction between God's will and thought does there not? Although unfortunately Dyer was too inept at drawing out that distinction in his argument against Thomism (pun intended)

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

Do you want to debate him?

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 Who? I dont really see the necessity, if the question can simply be answered that is.

[@missydee2700]

​@@ThruTheUnknown🦗😶 🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️ 🤡

[@missydee2700]

​​@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 what an amazing idea, do you think the schismatic eo has the 🏀's?

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

EO's aren't schismatic, it was mutually revoked 50years ago.@@missydee2700

[@dubbelkastrull]

Dyer crushed this kid

[@ClassicalTheismIsBased]

Nah

[@skmcee7863]

The kid crushed Dyer

[@dubbelkastrull]

@@skmcee7863 By adding more and more distinctions, and re-stating Thomism as an argument.. ok..

[@skmcee7863]

@@dubbelkastrull Nice non argument. Distinctions are made that are cogent to the conversation because Jae (laughably) thinks that act is solely what he thinks it is (ie. that God acting in eternity past means he’s creating in eternity past) but Jae doesn’t understand the distinction between eminent and transient act. When you have an utter fool like Jay who has no clue about Thomism you need to educate him on the basic distinctions, which is what Fanatic did. That’s why Jay ran from the debate and then made a 3 hour cope stream refusing to post the debate audio by itself. 😂

[@skmcee7863]

@@dubbelkastrull I understand you’re WAY too dumb to understand the conversation, but Fanatic’s argument was that God did act in eternity past but this act was a transient one (just like when you say to yourself “I will build a house in 2 years”, this would be a transient act and an eminent one when you actually build the house) and that doesn’t entail an eternal creation because God acts in his thoughts and then acts by creating. Cope harder, heretic

[@Danielqu976]

Fanatic thomist doesn't know what he is talking about. He just said the act of creating is necessary. So basically God had to create the world making creation necessary to God. 😂😂 Transceint and eminent act? What? How can you make this distinctions if the act of creating the world is necessary? This is just like saying the father had to beget the son. 🤡🤡

[@SchizoidCajetanian]

It is true that the free act of God is none other than His very necessary immanent act by which He wills Himself, yet, since His goodness does not depend on the means to be perfect, this act has a non-necessary termination outside God although he wills himself necessarily and creatures freely and voluntarily.

[@Danielqu976]

@@SchizoidCajetanian This doesn't answer my question on how the act of creating and the capacity to create is identical to the essence making creation necessary to God.

[@SchizoidCajetanian]

@@Danielqu976 It quite literally does.

[@Danielqu976]

@@SchizoidCajetanian it doesn't, is the capacity to create and the act to create identical to the essence like fanatic thomist said?

[@SchizoidCajetanian]

@@Danielqu976 yes.