Mathematics In Nature Proves God & Refutes Atheism: Jay Dyer

[@josephvlogsdon]

I never saw atheism devastated so profoundly until I found Jay Dyer. He opened me up to a world of transcendental arguments and apologetics. I still believe classical apologetics has its place. I think classical arguments can work well with people of other religions or spiritualities, but when it comes to critiquing rationalism and empiricism, transcendental arguments are far stronger. I’ve already read some, but I’m still trying to find the best books on transcendental arguments.

[@qzvl]

Same. I understand the argument but I’m trying to get a book on it, hopefully you can recommend me one because I love making the argument.

[@josephvlogsdon]

@@qzvl I’ve been trying to find a really good book on the argument, but it’s been a struggle. I was hoping some other people might recommend a book to me. Immanuel Kant makes transcendental arguments in Critique of Pure Reason, but you have to sift through a lot of other unrelated things to get to them. Alvin Plantinga wrote a book called knowledge and Christian belief. The book critiques empiricism, but no specific transcendental arguments are given. I was thinking about getting a book called Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen. He popularized the transcendental argument, but I feel the reading might be a little too light. I’m still searching for other books.

[@harmonicproportions6588]

A whole new world 🎵🎶

[@paulr5246]

It occurred to me while listening to this, that classical apologetics in the variant of creation science do use a type of transcendental argument by pointing out that the evidence is always going to be interpreted according to ones world view, because world views transcend data.

[@mattstiglic]

Just read Russ Marion's paper on The Contingency of Knowledge.

[@sojjjer]

jay 5 years ago looked american but hes been becoming increasingly greek looking

[@cigler3299]

Or are Greeks starting to look more Jay Dyer?

[@BatsBeyondStar]

Τζέι Ντάιερ 🤣🤣

[@GregoryHallam]

I hope that was a joke.

[@FreshPelmeni]

Jason Dyerios

[@kaykay865]

iasonas diakos

[@we.aretheearth]

me: "Hey honey lets watch this new video by Jay dyer, it looks amazing, its all about Mathematics in nature that prove God and refute atheism." Wife: "okay that sounds great" ..... 5 minutes in Human sacrifice, sex rites...the fall of adam from the garden, demons, the demonic plan to control humans through our passions.... LOL Great information so far though

[@Ginab3001]

Same, I kept waiting to at least hear about Gematria.

[@shadowpony9312]

Dear Mr. Dyer, I would like to suggest a topic for a future vid. "Wizards and witches have been trying to contact demons for knowledge in exchange for worship throughout history." This is supported a little bit by the book of Enoch and it would explain things like karnak (Egypt) and carnac (France) both structures being basically the same or pyramids all over the world and many more examples. Stories from Amazonian tribes in witch shamans get high and get to talk to spirits/gods (obviously demons) and this entities teached the shamans how to make dmt so they could have stronger communications. Interesting topic imo. God bless you, I'll keep you in my prayers.

[@be2691]

Fr. Stephen de young present this topic shortly on his book: "The religion of the apostles"

[@HGenesisV6]

Mathematics is God’s universal language! :)

[@Yves_Robertsson]

Its the Language of the Creator of this World. Dont fall into Numbers. The Numbers only explain your Body-Existence mirrored in this mathematical World. Think outside the Locked-Numbers-Box. Numbers are only a expressions-Vehicle. Dont get stuck at this Point. Go further.

[@lolsing2205]

@@Yves_Robertsson do you smoke dmt?

[@Yves_Robertsson]

No.

[@lolsing2205]

@@Yves_Robertsson interesting what else do you smoke

[@maximuspike]

Beautifully articulated once again, thank you!

[@nikitaafanas]

9:20 thought this was another spam AI youtube ad kept waiting for the skip button to pop like a monkey then realized it was part of the video.

[@satepestage3599]

Thanks for the re upload!

[@butterface4u]

Man this blew my mind! Ave Maria!

[@p_pabl0]

I watch this video already 3x Thank you

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

When I was 12 years old, which was 1 years ago, I had an existential crisis because of my atheistic worldview. I believed that this universe came from nothing, though I did not know anyone else who agreed with me on this topic (I was not a philosophy fan, but I came up with this theory by myself). But then I asked myself, "If this logically possible word came from nothing, then wouldn't all logically possible worlds come from nothing? If nothing produced something, but there is no reason for nothing not to produce another thing, then why can't nothing just create all logically possible worlds? And if all logically possible worlds exist, then wouldn't that disprove causality and induction? Disproof of induction if all ontologically possible worlds became real worlds: Let's think of each unit of time as a "time unit". Whether you think there are infinite "time units" a second, or time has some sort of limit, the problem still applies. If all possible worlds became real worlds, then there are obviously an infinite number of worlds (doesn't take a genius to figure that out). However, there would also be an infinite number of ontologically possible worlds that are the exact same as this possible world (though a smaller infinity) leading up to a certain time unit, x. Up until time unit x, the events that occurred were a copy of this universe, an exact replica of this universe until time unit x. Once time unit x happens, however, there are an infinite number of ontological possibilities that can occur. It is possible that the laws of physics reflected patterns observed in all infinite of these possible worlds. But each possible world has a different thing happening on time unit x, some contradicting the laws of physics. Some might say, 'How can this contradict the laws of physics' but that assumes science as a logical necessity, since a possible world is only possible if it is not logically contradictory, but it could be scientifically contradictory (unless you're a necessitarian, in which case you have the burden of proving your own opinion). There are an infinite number of possibilities that can happen on time unit x as there are an infinite number of possible universe that, leading up to time unit x, are replicas of this universe. There is an ontologically possible world that is a replica of this universe until time unit x but, once time unit x occurs, a cow pops up in the living room (even more grand would be the whole universe shifting around in one time unit). "It contradicts science. Therefore, it's impossible," assumes a necessitarian worldview, which must be accounted for. The question could then be asked, 'How do we know that, when time unit x occurs, a cow won't pop up in the living room?' The problem is that there is an infinite number of possible universe that, up to time unit x, are replicas of this universe AND that, once time unit x occurs, the unobserved does not act like the observed. But the other problem is that there is a finite number of possible universes that, up to time unit x, are replicas of this universe AND that, once time unit x occurs, the unobserved DOES act like the observed. There is only a finite amount of these possible worlds, as there are certain rules that must be fulfilled for time unit x to act like all time units leading up to time unit x! You cannot find an infinite amount of ontologically possible worlds in which, on time unit x, act like all time units observed before time unit x! So the chances of the unobserved like the observed is x/inf, in which x is a finite number! Then how does it just so happen that we live in the ontologically possible world where the unobserved SEEMS to act like the observed. You can imagine that, on each time unit, there are an infinite number of possibilities where the unobserved doesn't acts like the observed but a finite number of possibilities where the unobserved ACTS like the observed! So you can imagine time as a one dimensional line, each time unit branching off into an infinite amount of possibilities and (somehow) choosing only out of the finite set of possibilities where the unobserved acts like the observed. Disproof of causality if all ontologically possible worlds became real worlds: This one is much easier. If all ontologically possible worlds became real worlds, then there simply is no justification for cause-and-effect relationships. Each time unit, you must imagine the one dimensional time unit branching off into an infinite number of possibilities (as shown by the thing above, where there are an infinite number of possible universes leading up to a certain time unit where, on said time unit, an infinite number of things can happen as each of these possible universes have their own thing going on that may just have no relationship to the past whatsoever (this universe turning into unimaginable torture with all planets destroyed within a time unit an all laws of physics violated, for example)). Therefore, there are no cause-and-effect relationships as, even if it seemed so, it is only one possibility out of the many infinite possibilities that could happen. They don't have any relationship with one another as each time unit simply branches off to an infinite number of possibilities that have nothing to do with the past (I'm sorry if I have bad articulation, I understand better than I speak). (There are also an infinite number of ontologically possible worlds in which the external world experienced by people's consciousnesses do not exist) Disproof of knowledge if all ontologically possible worlds became real worlds: Even if we accept the notion that there are universal truths, the chances of us having knowledge of these universal truths are x/inf (x is a finite number over infinity) as there are an infinite number of ways the mind can be organized (and none of these contradict logic) in the ontologically possible sense. There are an infinite number of ways they can be organized for the mind to simply not have intuition or have intuition of really stupid ideas. Each time unit, said possible mind can exterminate itself or just change itself completely, as such possibilities do not contradict logic. Overall, the chances of a universe like this where we have knowledge of all transcendental categories are x/inf, because the amount of possible universes of the mind organizing itself to have intuition of universal presuppositions and staying that way is an infinite number infinite times less than the actual amount of possible universes with a mind itself. The fact that we have knowledge of moral, logic, and other truths only narrows the chances of us just so happening to live in this world. The fact that the minds of someone with stupid intuition may contradict science or intuition does nothing, as a possible world is only possible if it does not contradict logic. My question would then be, how do you know that you have intuition of universal truth axioms (for all transcendental categories) as I can imagine an infinite number of possible worlds in which you don't have intuition of these universal truth axioms or you have intuition of completely false axioms. However, the infinite number of possible worlds in which this is the case is higher than the infinite number of possible worlds in which you actually have intuition of these universal truths (a bigger infinity than the smaller infinity)." These existential questions were what eventually led me to Orthodox Christianity. (Knowledge applies to knowledge of every transcendental category, including morality, meaning, the myth of the given, logic, etc. "Oh well, over time we started to realize these knowledge axioms reflect patterns observed in reality," but I can imagine infinite possible worlds in which this was not the case. Stop using your normative method of reasoning and transcend all your intuition to see the bigger picture. Don't tell me these possible universes contradict science if it's not a logical necessity. Don't tell me that knowledge arises from evolution if I can imagine a possible world where knowledge refuses to develop in spite of the predators and said species still survives due to random revival of themselves due to nothing but randomness and chaos. Anyways, just because it is gentically necessary doesn't mean it's true (moral transcendental argument, for example). Don't tell me that the possible universes I came up with are false due to some stupid reason. All you need to do to tell me theses possible universes don't exist is to tell me that they are logically contradictory. Even if this is the only universe, the chances of it having sentient knowledgeable beings, causality, and induction, is impossible in the ontological sense. It necessitates some God, whether you like it or not. Give me proof that the universes I mentioned are logically contradictory, not that they contradict science (or evolution and intuition, or some other stupid excuse). AN ONTOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE WORLD IS POSSIBLE AS LONG AS IT IS NOT LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY AND NOT SCIENTIFICALLY, EVOLUTIONARY, OR ANY-OTHER-ARY CONTRADICTORY, ONLY LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY; STOP THINKING IN THE NORMATIVE WAY)

[@lolsing2205]

man all of this at 12 years old

[@xd_elta9970]

@@lolsing2205 real, based chad 12 year old

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@@xd_elta9970 I need to make a video drawing explaining this better, but just imagine set theory. I know my explanation is bad and probably not understandable, my articulation is bad. I mostly understand more than I articulate.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@@xd_elta9970 Like imagine a set of all possible universes containing a brain that doesn't change (whether there are multiple brains or one). Now, in this set, there are an infinite number of sets containing a certain "permutation" of the brain's knowledge of transcendental categories. One set includes all possible universes where the brains have no knowledge, another includes the set where the brains have less knowledge, another includes the set where the brains have false knowledge, etc. etc. We live in the set of possible universes where the brains have true knowledge of transcendental categories (according to atheists), but the problem is that this set is only one out of an infinite number of other sets where the brains within the universes included in these sets have faulty knowledge of transcendental categories. Therefore, the chances of us "just-so-happening" to have true knowledge of transcendental categories is 1/infinity, because the set containing all possible universes containing brains with knowledge of transcendental categories is one out of a set of infinite other sets, each containing universes wherein the brains follow a certain permutation of knowledge of transcendental categories, only one has true knowledge.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@@xd_elta9970 AND THAT'S EVEN IF WE GRANT THEM UNIVERSAL TRUTHS EXIST TO BEGIN WITH!!!

[@Johnvwilliams0]

Dude what was the advertisement.

[@Reprobus3]

You don't know about Chad Mode?

[@ctmuist]

Anticipating the fallacious replies from youtube atheists this video is going to provoke... "Math is nothing but a description" etc, somehow managing to miss the point that it has to exist in nature for it to be useful at all

[@garrgravarr]

I don't think many atheists are gonna see Jay's observations as much of a threat to their position to be honest...

[@user-pe3fk1fb1o]

@@garrgravarr Jay's ideas wouldn't be supported by almost all philosophers for that matter, because it's not generally agreed upon that atheists can't make a justification for knowledge. There's a reason why he won't debate Alex Malpass again and never actually makes his premises and conclusion clear.

[@ebobing]

@@user-pe3fk1fb1o I would agree with you but i don't have the necessary precondition for agreeability. May be i should presuppose the Orthodox Christian God.

[@Кивис-ч3й]

​@@user-pe3fk1fb1o Because you don't. You cannot justify knowledge.

[@Кивис-ч3й]

​@@user-pe3fk1fb1o Not generally agreed upon =/= not true.

[@legitlou2246]

Señor Jay, I watched you have discussions with many Protestants who call in. And im just wondering if it would inconvenience you to talk with one more. A growing Protestant channel called “NeedGod net”..Their usual content being “Omegle evangelism”-which I do enjoy. But I’ve noticed him talking with Catholics who can’t really present the arguments correctly. And normally I wouldn’t say anything, but He has a huge audience which leaves me no choice but to send a distress beacon out To The Soldier-of Christ Jay Dyer. Anyways. Love From Texas. Christos Anesti!☦️

[@quickestlaughs]

Glory to God ☦️

[@Toumasu]

godels theorem alone proves that the mathematical rabbithole never ends

[@tekfunk6299]

Every river on this earth, that had not been straightened, or canalized has the same constant number (about 1,6 iirc), if you divide the total lenght in meters through the beeline length in meters. Its the same. Must be coincidence.

[@aidanya1336]

Not really, rivers tend to make half circle ish type shapes. the circumference of a full circle is the beeline length x pi. So half of that would be: 1/2pi x beeline length so: 1.71 x beeline lenght = river length Or in reverse: River : beeline = 1.71 Not surprising that when you do this calculation in reverse you end up close to 1/2pi This is also most likely how they calculated the river length in the first place.

[@tekfunk6299]

@@aidanya1336 Thats called meander and they all do it the same way

[@geoffreyforsgren8056]

❤ the video DJay Dyer, God bless

[@shtffitness4147]

This is one of the best breakdowns of all time.

[@jeremyj427]

You are doing the lord’s work, Jay.

[@skyshorrchannel3474]

I should add, - Ninety year rule of the Aztec priests who - probably - indulged in horrible hallucinogens' as shorts cuts to wisdom.

[@crashfilms8381]

Dude i find it very hard how you can comprehend things like this on any level. Good for you man im guessing this is your last run through on earth.

[@Gofaw]

last run through on earth?

[@shin.511]

20:00 - morality isn't possible in naturalism 30:00 - mathematics are discovered

[@JosePena-if2xh]

Dayer dropping Knowledge son! Respect son!🍻💵💵💵💵😎😎😎😎😎💪💪💪💪🤔🍿😏

[@Artificial-Hell]

Arguments based on belief appeal to the shared convictions of a group to support a claim. While they can be persuasive, they must be carefully used to avoid logical fallacies and ensure that the beliefs they appeal to are well-founded. "argumentum ad populum"

[@echo.romeo.]

Is this supposed to be a refutation to the existence of God?

[@Artificial-Hell]

@@echo.romeo. The fallacy occurs when someone argues that "everyone believes X, therefore X must be true" or "everyone is doing Y, so Y must be right."

[@echo.romeo.]

@@Artificial-Hell That doesn't answer the question. Where was the fallacy in this video?

[@Artificial-Hell]

@@echo.romeo. Omg to many to refer to but when people assume that because something in nature appears ordered, purposeful, or intricate (such as the Fibonacci sequence in nature), it must be the result of a deliberate design, and the attribute that to a higher power or God.

[@echo.romeo.]

@@Artificial-Hell Everything can be described through mathematics. Mathematics is rooted in order, reason, and logic. How can you have logic without God?

[@thefourthbyzantium]

when does he talk about math?

[@sifu9683]

Christ is Risen!!!

[@joannagrimeki7415]

Alithos Anesti!!!

[@sotiristserepis8169]

When does a council gain ecumenical status?

[@RafaelGarcia-jb3me]

Jay have you seen the Graham Oppy and WLC debate? They debated on this subject.

[@pain8117]

I'm not a mathematician, nor did I watch this video. I totally acknowledge that I am in no position to discuss this type of thing, but I have heard that Christopher Langan (the person with the highest IQ ever recorded) claims he has proven the existence of God with math

[@caseyfenscke5895]

Good stuff right here brother.. the Bible is the ultimate truth and all truthers should be grounded in it first.

[@nathanaelghebrab1332]

Hello jay thanks for this video can you add some chapters to that please ? Then we could be more directed in your several arguments

[@eadd00]

So good

[@ZAYA2227]

PB: 29:39 BEST part

[@tiffanyangel1124]

This was really good. Third time watching 👍

[@aftereason]

Ads 😢

[@valahogy]

I have a feeling that seaching for meaning will take us way beyong anything that we have come up with yet, may that be science or religion.

[@1234kingconan]

It’s been proven to me that God is the best argument, and of the theist religions Christianity has the best argument, and of the Christian sects Orthodox has the most reasonable argument and preservation of lineage. So now that I’m convinced I have to go from never having attended church in my whole life to going to an Orthodox Church which is to be honest the weirdest and hardest thing I’ve ever done. I’m convinced the people there don’t like me and think I’m a weirdo - maybe I am - but I feel commanded by Christ to go there and not just stay by myself. From what I’ve read you’re supposed to worship together and not by yourself. So, because my master commanded me to go to this place, I’m trying to do it. I won’t lie it does have a transcendent quality to it. But it’s hard as fuck to go and not leave when I feel like such an odd man out.

[@qzvl]

Im glad you did the mathematical argument for god. I’ve heard about it but never really bought into it heavily like the moral argument or your transcendental argument. I also want to thank you for teaching me a lot of philosophy just through mentioning the concepts in your videos. On that, do you have 5 philosophical books you would recommend to help with apologetics or just generally a basic understanding of philosophy? Please and thank you for your time.

[@kyriacostheofanous1445]

Jay do you subscribe to analytic idealism?

[@hippopilot6750]

Hey I'm trying to find your videos that expand on the eschaton as the reaction to the divine energies as hades/heaven based on theosis to share to a friend. Specifically stuff about the river of fire satan is thrown into and how that can be the same deifying fire for the faithful (if I'm remembering it correctly). I've listened too so many it's hard to keep track. Any direction, sharing would be much aporeciated.

[@Frankierios22]

Great clip 🔥

[@MRProgressor]

Asking the big questions here: Why the hell was Jay's nose censored a few minutes after the last add? 🐽

[@sorrysirmygunisoneba]

When people argue though, we have formulated maths to nature and the universe and not extracted maths from it, what is the response? Yes I have typed this without watching the whole video.

[@Nikolai.A.McGuire]

That argument is the equivalent of saying "Isaac Newton invented the laws of physics", it's stating that we invented it, which is blatantly false, look at any mathematician, they don't say their "Great invention" they call them "Discoveries", because they didn't create them, and it's also dumb because it states that the person that says 2+2=22 is equally as right as someone that says 2+2=4, because they can just state that they made their math differently where 2+2=22, which this argument stumped me for sometime in till I realized the, for a lack of better words Stupidity of it. So basically what you could say is "Well that's false, because that would imply Math itself is arbitrary, so if someone decided to say 2+2=22 they would be equally as correct and someone who said 2+2=4, and also worthy of note, no mathematician has referred to their conclusions as "inventions" they call them discoveries, because they did not invent math, they learn about it, If it were made by us, no one would agree on any calculations or outcomes, because it would then be arbitrary, and no one across the world would be able to agree, on the outcome of any sort of math", that could be a pretty general response to that, it on the surface is scary but really has no grounds, and is just a fallacious argument.

[@truthtailer_orthoworld]

I love this

[@ebobing]

18:37 atheists believe in "pure random chaotic matter" how would determinism follow from this, wouldn't indeterminacy follow? Sounds incorrect to me. Surely for determinism to follow we would need things to all ways follow a order. If every time i did action X, Y will follow, this would be deterministic. If every time i did action X, A,B,C,D,E etc could happen, that would be random and indeterminate. Any Jay scholars able to clarify my confusion, many thanks.

[@echo.romeo.]

In order to claim that there is order in action and reaction, you have to ground that order in something. It has to be justified. What is your purely materialistic justification for order?

[@ebobing]

@@echo.romeo. This doesn't seem to be a reply to my original comment about Jay's statement, that the randomness of matter would equal indeterminacy. Do you agree with his statement? Your question is a Red herring(i never said what you claimed i did)but ill try answering it, just noting for any one reading. Your asking for a explanation/justification for "order in action and reaction" I would interpret this question as why does B follow every time A happens. Example: why every time when i let go of a object on earth does it drop to the ground. I would say the "order" the explanation would be the laws of nature gravity etc. You could then ask, whats the "justification" for the laws of nature or regularities of nature. I would say its just the property of the universe. If your not happy with this i can ask you what is your "justification" for the question. You would say God and his Omi properties. but then i could ask you, what is your justification for God and his properties you would say his a necessary being and their is no explanation. If your happy with saying God is a necessary being with no explanation then ill posit that the begin of the universe and the laws that govern it are necessary. Ill then win on it begin a simpler explanation then yours. Look forward to hearing your reply. Rob

[@echo.romeo.]

@@ebobing Determinism follows the atheistic belief in chaotic, random matter because it essentially credits human choices to some external force outside their own will. Therefore, humans are just a consequence of the happenstance of universal forces. That's determinism. The issue with your claims about the nature of the universe is that you also have to believe in abstract concepts - truth, existence, order, purpose, numbers, morality - in order to make any claim at all, which you can't in a worldview justified by the forces of the universe alone. These concepts are not particles or waves or forces within a purely material universe. They're not observable through empirical sense data. Your justification for the machinations of a material universe doesn't hold unless you're first beholden to the notion of those aforementioned transcendental concepts, none of which could possibly be the result of the human mind. That's why my question is not at all a red herring. It's a fundamental question that requires an answer in order to form any argument. Here's a perfect example of what I mean. If our choices and actions and lives are solely the consequence of physical and chemical reactions that began at the start of the universe, then there is no free will. If there is no free will, then you don't even have the capacity to truly make an argument. You're not making any claims. The universe just set things into motion, and your actions are just the result of matter and energy. You aren't you. You're not an individual, defending some position you hold. You're just some mindless blob with no accountability, purpose, or agency. Congrats. The transcendental argument claims that all abstract concepts are of a divine mind, both because they're above material reality and because their distinct, universal, and intertwined. That's the end-all-be-all for what is.

[@ebobing]

@@echo.romeo. 1/ "Determinism follows the atheistic belief in chaotic, random matter" I don't think you want to use the word chaotic in your argument, that was the issue i had with Jay's formulation. E.g if you take something that is Deterministic like a vending machine. Every time you put in 10p and select number 1 you get a diet coke. The outcome is determined by the programing and ultimately the laws of nature effecting it(its ordered) If every time you put in 10p and selected number 1 you would get a different drink, You would say its not determined/ordered but the outcome is chaotic/indeterministic. It seems to me, you and Jay have the idea in mind that if Atheism is true humans are like the vending machine. Determined to act based on the previous causes and effects combined with the laws of nature. Not free to do other wise, ordered and the out come is set. This doesn't seem like chaotic, its ordered. 2/ "The issue with your claims about the nature of the universe is that you also have to believe in abstract concepts - truth, existence, order, purpose, numbers, morality - in order to make any claim at all" How dose it follow if i say the universe exist necessarily that i have to believe in abstract concepts? i would like to see a logical argument for that as it doesn't seem to follow to me. I'm a nominalism: i don't believe abstract objects exist, they are just labels or names humans come up with. I explain human's minds in terms of matter and the laws of nature. so my explanation for the abstract concepts are: the universe > matter > humans > human minds > abstract concepts (labels or names created by humans) Free will: I'm a compatibilist Purpose: no ultimate purpose people make their own up. Truth: a label we give to statements, u can define truth as: that which corresponds to reality. Numbers: just labels/names humans create Order: all ready explained. Morality: A mechanism that evolved to help animals living in groups survive. Existence: Existence of what? the world we live in, explained by the necessary existing universe. 3/ "If there is no free will, then you don't even have the capacity to truly make an argument." I think that is false, if determinism is true then you can still make arguments. its just each argument you make your determinied to make them and you could not have made any other argument. Don't mean you cant make them, just means your not free to make any other argument. Look forward to hearing your reply. Rob

[@echo.romeo.]

@@ebobing Free will: Comptatibilism is self-contradictory. Purpose: How can anyone make up their own purpose when we live in a universe of predetermined, physical and chemical cause/effect? Truth: Your definition presupposes a reality, and yet you have no definition for reality. Numbers: You confuse the concept with the language. Numbers are not "1, 2, 3," etc. Numbers are quantities themselves. Amounts themselves. That's like saying trees are just labels. No, they're not. The object exists. The word "tree" may be our label for it, but it exists before we labeled it, just like numbers did. Order: Not explained. As a compatibilist, you're still faced with an obstacle to order. Why are humans free to do as they wish despite everything else in the universe being subject to laws and consequences? That's just an assertion without justification. Morality: Prove animals perceive morality and need it to survive. Existence: There's your underlying problem in all of this. You claim the universe exists necessarily, but that isn't consistent with your worldview. Existence is an abstract concept, which is supposed to be a consequence of the human mind according to you. And yet here, existence is tied inherently with the universe, a material thing. How can you know the universe exists if it's just an abstract label created in the human mind? How do you know all human minds believe in the same existence? If they don't, who's conception of existence is correct? How do you know it's correct?

[@wallaceloonan7212]

Thank you for you endless vids on tag and other things, one question could you link a video or tell me how if I’m an argument an atheist says logic is a man made concept and how to respond to that?

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

“Logic is a man made concept.” So does logic have any external ontological status outside of the mind? If so, logic would have to be subjective. If they say logic describes reality but still has external ontology, they assume the external world in which they observe logic’s description, induction, causality, the past, and other transcendental categories. If they say that logic prescribes, rather than describes, reality, they circle back to saying logic was discovered and not invented.

[@kellystone7501]

Finally gets to math around 29:10 (kind of - not much there, honestly - definitely no proof). Math is a tool we use to do things like create models that describe how things in the universe work. There are an infinite number* of mathematical models that do not conform to reality. The use of 'discovery' vs. 'invention' is merely a trick of language and there is debate over whether either is correct. * Maybe more than that. Not sure what the cardinality of that set is :)

[@pianetaerrante96]

He clearly misses all the "math Is discovered or math Is the language we use to describe the real math", but let toss aside this for a moment. Its all his argument just another "we don't know from where math comes so must be God" argument? Im missing something?

[@KauhuSom]

​@@pianetaerrante96I'm wondering the same. How are there even people claiming this is somehow profound or convincing

[@pianetaerrante96]

​@@KauhuSom probably something like "Im a believer, lets see some videos that proves my believe. Oh look, this guy is saying that math proves God and I don't understand shit about math and I want my believe to be true, so he is saying a profound undeniable proof of God for sure."

[@spilledbeans4226]

​@@pianetaerrante96piangi non puoj giustificare l uniformità della natura , principi logici etc...

[@spilledbeans4226]

​@@pianetaerrante96 la tua argomentazione è : non posso giustificare queste cose e non voglio, ora giustifica l esistenza di dio in modo che soddisfi i miei standard arbitrari (i quali anche loro sono senza giustificazione) i quali precludono la possibilità di ciò

[@chrisjones-rd8it]

HEYYYY leave my aunt out of it .... knyuck knyuck knyuck PS good veios well presented

[@borkdude]

I went looking for the text you quoted that everything was made through or by number(s) in a deutero-canonical text but couldn't find it. Do you have the reference?

[@ThomasB-v2g]

Can you do a discussion with Jeem he says we should keep the food laws of the Old Testament.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

He doesn't.

[@ThomasB-v2g]

I asked him on discord and he said it doesn’t lead to salvation but we should still do it.

[@ThomasB-v2g]

@@TheActualCorrectOpinion I asked him on discord and he said it doesn’t lead to salvation but we should still do it. (This was before he deleted it)

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@JunkyJeeMail He has very unique viewpoints when it comes to the trinity. He doesn't seem to talk about the trinity in the same way I see a lot of Orthodox Christians talking about the trinity.

[@joannagrimeki7415]

Math reveals the sovereignty, infinity, and perfect wisdom of God. Chaos is devils work... “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness (chaos), but will have the light of life” - John 8:12.

[@anachronistxs1339]

You cannot just add a random bible verse as a proof behind some made-up semideep sentence 😂

[@joannagrimeki7415]

@@anachronistxs1339 Oh yes i can! Proof me wrong if you can.

[@anachronistxs1339]

@@joannagrimeki7415 Bears can fly in the morning in September. "And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’- when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:21-22

[@ninjaofspades]

does Jay have stock in cough drops? He makes me want to buy them for everyone around me. Great vid

[@youarenotme01]

i can PROVE God with maths, in minutes, undeniably. BUT don’t conflate God with religion because they aren’t the same thing. the exact same equation disproves every religion that has ever existed.

[@garrgravarr]

Undeniably? Why are you here in the comments instead of picking up your Nobel prize for the most important discovery in the history of humankind?

[@ThirdEarlXXl]

Just because jay claims that mathematics proof that god is real, does not proof that god is real. Just because you know philosophy doesn't mean that you can prove god's existence. Mathematics was invented by humans not discovered the same way they invented musical instruments to play the sounds that thay could create or make with their voices.. no mystery. This guy has some good insights but he's just promoting subjectivity. Once l learned that he's friends with jones and musk l can't take too much as serious. The unreal should not be taken serious.

[@kyriacostheofanous1445]

just because thirdearlxxi claims these things doesn't make them true. do you realise how foolish you sound?

[@cac9926]

Great video, I've only really heard WLC and other really basic level apologists speak very little about Mathematics in nature especially TAG it's super devastating to the atheist worldview. At this point they either accept logic or say it's completely meaningless.

[@francisa4636]

It's not clear why you think that the WLC argument from mathematics is terrible, as is TAG. I've yet to see a good version of TAG at all. They all fall apart logically or show something different to what's intended.

[@Nikolai.A.McGuire]

​ @francisa4636 "It's not clear why you think that the WLC argument from mathematics is terrible" He didn't say that, he just said it was basic level apologist speak, not that they were terrible. "They all fall apart logically or show something different to what's intended" You sited 0 reasoning for this, and you merely just stated it.

[@ChrisAthanas]

Just because math is discovered doesn’t necessitate meaning it came from god Math exists in the realm of logic and requires no creator

[@JayDyer]

That is an assertion without a justification.

[@pianetaerrante96]

​@@JayDyer sure, but whats your point? Literally everything, also math, needs to start from axioms and saying that god is what is under the axioms doesnt mean anything. With this I mean that I really enjoy listening at your videos and arguments, but for me almost always they are just a God of the gaps argument with some good philosophy on it. We don't know where the math come from so must be God? But you are using as hypothesis that math must come from somewhere and you don't have any basis for that. What if math was already there always? What if math Is eternal? It cant because everything Is not eternal? so we need an exception to the rule which Is an eternal God that created math? Its just a passage more using a ad hoc exception to the hypothesis rule that you put at the beginning. Its literally the same argument that I see everytime about the beginning of the universe. In my opinion we don't know (and probably will never know) if math was invented by someone or if It was eternally there waiting to be discovered, but for our experience of reality (Total absence of any presence of any deity) I thing that the first option not only is totally axceptable, but clearly more probable. Im missing something?

[@overthelight1914]

@@JayDyer Mathematics is basically a set a postulates that consequences can logically be drawn from, and is in itself inherently meaningless, until we employ it to model a system. Especially physical systems, because these have measurable quantities that are related to one another through arithmetic, algebra, geometry etc. For mathematics to be evidence for God, something like the soul would have to be quantitative, and describable in mathematical terms, but this simply is not the case because the soul is purely qualitative. Or maybe theology is a sort of mathematics, and its arguments can be expressed in terms of arithmetic -- It is a proven mathematical fact that this system cannot prove its own logical consistency (Second Incompleteness Theorem), and perhaps a mathematical analysis of Theology could even prove that it is an inconsistent system. And as for that which is posited by Christianity/Theology, how do we evaluate its veracity? Physical postulates can be deduced from experiments, and our theory of the universe has obviously been successful thus far.

[@pianetaerrante96]

​@@overthelight1914 his answer to your argument would be something like "You cant justify the Logic you used in your argument cause you don't have a basis to justify the logic you used". Its literally the only argument I see him use and to me is clearly wrong, but maybe I'm missing something, althought all his videos about the topic ate just the same thing with some more philosophy on it.

[@overthelight1914]

A good rebuttal would include a discussion about the ontology of mathematics and other abstract things, Jay seems to believe that numbers and logic are things that exist outside of ourselves and are 'universal', and this was the popular consensus for a great period of history. The thing is that logic and mathematics don't really have any meaning inherently, but are convenient tools for describing the world. So I don't see why I have to have a metaphysical justification for a vacuous formal science.

[@nmsmartone926]

Flat Earth and Fingerprints prove a creator(s) aka God(s).

[@jaydee2012]

The KJB has 823,543 letters and numbers (chapter and verse numbers). The sum equates to 7 to the 7 power, or 7x7x7x7x7x 7x7 Gods number of perfection or completeness 7x7x7x7x7x7x7 How deh doo dat w/o computers? They didnt.

[@Dandelion2.0]

Out of the park Jay...... Out of the park. God bless you and yours.

[@skyshorrchannel3474]

Mathematics as God's language unto humanity? Yeah; I'm in. What if the discovery, development and use of mathematics has been given to us as a tool to eventually plant life onto barren planets? Thus the purpose of human progress? Human history indicates that the creation of such a technology would require an essentially Biblical society. Not a society of human sacrifice, open hole rituals and pagan terror such as the 90 year rule of the Aztecs. Hell on earth or humanity's fulfilment - as God's freewill servants - to spread life.... Using Math.

[@Fromtitwar]

ok but why christianity is the truth?

[@jesusisthetruegod777]

He has so many videos of this

[@Zeal_Faith_Humanity]

That's honestly a hard question to answer in one sentence. But it all begins with the fact of being willing to discard modern secular-relativist presuppositions. Don't reduce truth to absurdity based on how many alleged "truths" exist. Being willing to question the modern secular state of usury and global mammon-worship and self-worship, and its original ontological and philosophical origins, is another step.

[@beauty.of.the.struggle]

Lecture was utterly ruined by the corny, way too long ad RIGHT in the middle of what he was saying

[@thenaturalhuman9568]

100%

[@geoffreygklein]

Thanks for this Jay, I have trouble making a good argument for the God not real tho debates. Now I have some ammo.

[@johnbuckner2828]

👍🏻

[@billgatesfauciouchie1696]

@JayDyer refer to the sephre itzra where it states god created or breathe d the world into existence with numberd n letters . Jewish and greek alphabets letrers are assigned numerically , called gematria for jews and isosophy in greek . Or in the secret teachings of all ages where manly p hall discusses English gematria ciphers. The English cipher being the one used by the Illuminati or whatever powers that shouldn't be . My boy Zach Hubbard at gematria effect news has been working hard for 10 years to decode news , sports , politics , weather events . Cant say i always agrre with him on everything but hes definitely on to something. Would be interesting to see you guys collaborate. Think youd guys agrre some what

[@1blueeye]

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to share this information.

[@billgatesfauciouchie1696]

@@1blueeye like the masons say all is numbers . It's trippy stuff my friend. Like did you know there was a pandemic simulation done by john Hopkins , gates , etc called Clade X May 15 2018 two years to the date of Trump signing in the warp speed may 15 2020 . In the original Clade X they roleplayed scenarios like masking , six feet apart , experimental vaccines released but causing more harm than good , deplatforming media figures not following or discouraging mandates and protocols in the name of safety . Clade X was also 666 days from March 11 2020 date WHO declared world wide COVID plandemic

[@theodore8285]

Best Boy Jay

[@2l84me8]

Nothing in nature points back to any gods, let alone your favorite god. Your personal befuddlement and awe in nature does not warrant a magical god claim.

[@pianetaerrante96]

​@@evan7391 man, this Is Just another God of the gaps argument with philosophy on it. Doesnt prove literally nothing.

[@pianetaerrante96]

Facts

[@2l84me8]

@@evan7391 You haven’t demonstrated any gods, let alone your favorite one, and you haven’t demonstrated what attributes your god supposedly has and how. I’m not interested in your god of the gaps argument.

[@thelobsterking1055]

​@@2l84me8 "You haven't demonstrated" is not an argument. Believer always may use the same approach like: "You haven't demonstrated God's absence." "You haven't demonstrated how you empirical data is truthful" "You haven't demonstrated that your words have an objective meaning" etc.

[@2l84me8]

@@thelobsterking1055 Wrong. That’s you attempting to reverse the burden of proof. That’s like saying: “well, you haven’t disproven leprechauns, so I guess we should believe in them.” If you claim a god exists, it’s up to you to demonstrate one, not up to the skeptic to do your work for you.

[@absofjelly]

It's not random chaotic matter. There are physical laws.

[@echo.romeo.]

And where do those laws come from?

[@kyriacostheofanous1445]

laws comes form law makers

[@robotrobot4430]

COol

[@Travis-tx7um]

Oh so you don't believe in presuppositionalism? Cool!

[@toddfromwork8931]

So the God that demands faith can be proven? You can't have faith in the existence of something that provably exists.

[@qzvl]

certified slowboi classic. Go look up “faith” before you embarrass yourself further, you have faith yourself the same as a theist by definition.

[@officerdoofy7376]

I have faith that my chair can support my fat dump truck of a rear when I sit down in it without breaking... though I'm no structural engineer

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

lol. The Greek translation of the word “Faith” is “allegiance to”. The first Bible was written in Greek.

[@henrik_worst_of_sinners]

You have to be able to justify what is "proverbly the case", that is ground it. Atheism cannot do that, while Orthodox christianity can.

[@pianetaerrante96]

​@@henrik_worst_of_sinnerswhat do you mean?

[@aidanya1336]

As a mathematician i kinda cringed at the end. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what math is here. Math is a human language, but its purpose is to describe reality. We fit it like a tablecloth over reality so we can use it to describe reality. Wherever we find that math does not match reality we change it so it does. Sometimes having to invent new language to do so. In some area's we have done this for so long and math aligns so much with reality we kinda just assume they are identical (1 + 1 = 2 for example). But in other area's like higher dimensional mathematics it does not. Because our model has been adapted to reality so much (and reality seems to function on a set of consistent unchanging laws (laws of nature)). We now have theoretical physicists. Who use our math model to predict something about reality we do not know yet (the multiverse for example). Than go look in reality if it is also really there. Sometimes it is, sometimes its not. Other times we do not yet have the ability to test it (like the multiverse). When this reverse process works. We have "discovered" something in math that also matches reality. The mandelbrotset is a good example of this. So yes, we can discover things in math while it is a human construct, because we have tirelessly worked to shape this construct in the shape of reality and with success.

[@thelobsterking1055]

Idea of "math is discovery not the invention" based on Plato's Theory of Forms

[@Jupiter__001_]

That's Cartesian thought, not Platonic. Cartesian thought eventually leads to the denial of absolute truth, and then leads to Hegelian dialectics (and from there to Marxism and even Fascism). Platonic thought holds that to know things is to participate in a higher order of things, the World of Forms. Ideas are real things in Platonic thought, not only mental constructs/illusions.

[@thelobsterking1055]

@@Jupiter__001_ well there is the thing called Mathematical Platonism. In fact it was formulated by german mathematician Gottlob Frege under the influence of platonic ideas

[@aidanya1336]

@@Jupiter__001_ How is this Cartesian? The language still refers to its counterpart in reality. The same way me writing a word can refer to the real thing in reality. Besides its the empirical data that guides and validates the language. While not all math has a direct counterpart in reality, but if its derived and directly follows from mathematical proofs it stays consistent.

[@aidanya1336]

@@thelobsterking1055 What i describe is consistent with plato's theory of forms. But don't confuse the tool with the discovery. Most people on this are usually talking about the same process, just with different labels. If we all forget about math and would have to reinvent/discover all of it. Would we reach the same endpoint? The letters, and equations would all be different, The language would not be the same. But the concepts remain because they are rooted in reality. 1 + 1 would still be 2. But we might write it as * f * @ ~ If you think math is the constructed language than math is invented. If you think math is the concept behind the letters than math is discovered. I personally see math as the language. But if other people see it as the concept itself we might disagree on the invented/discovered issue. But we might still have the exact same view of the world, just use different labels.

[@jjmackey]

I take it you have not studied mathematics. It's actually pretty evident, pal. Anyway, we create mathematical axioms or constructs. They're not some independent structures waiting to be discovered. No. We literally make them up to explain phenomenon, or at least try to model physical phenomenon. There is no "mathematics in nature": we make that up to explain nature. Just as right and wrong don't exist in nature, neither do numbers. As a rule of thumb, don't venture into areas you know little about.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

Oh, so mathematical axioms have no external ontological status outside of the mind?

[@kellystone7501]

​@@TheActualCorrectOpinionYour comment indicates you don't have much, if any, higher math education.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@@kellystone7501 what about it indicates that?

[@kellystone7501]

@@TheActualCorrectOpinion You used the word 'ontology' and 'axiom' in the same sentence. So, what is your level of math education? Did you get to anything like Foundations of Modern Math?

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

@@kellystone7501 omg it wasn’t even a math question 🤣 it was philosophy!

[@maikeru01]

This isn't proof of anything. It's just preaching Christianity. If you have faith good for you. That's not proof.

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

It is proof of Christianity.

[@joshuaparsons887]

What counts as proof?

[@Vendéen32]

Cry harder about it💪🏻✝️

[@sappallow]

Everybody has faith. The question is: is your faith in nihilism or God?

[@eggsmcmuffin809]

Did you not watch the video?

[@amandasimmons147]

Math is not in the scripture of truth, no where does God test the hearts and minds of man with mathematical equations. Which is a good thing because I would totally fail .Unless they put ephedrine back in mini thins and I get to pop 12 of them before the math test then I'll make a 100 like I did in high. Super focused.

[@JayDyer]

"But thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight." -Wisdom 11:20

[@amandasimmons147]

Weighing on scales which gives you the number on the scale. Digital ones are nice.

[@cartesian_doubt6230]

@@JayDyer Why did you delete my comment on the Dirac equation?

[@a.n.1102]

​@@amandasimmons147what does your comment have to do with God being the underlying reality that accounts for math.

[@JayDyer]

@@cartesian_doubt6230 I didn't

[@bdbestxyzIII]

Math says God(person + person + person) = 3 God persons

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

Math says God (energy + energy + energy) = 3 energies

[@TheActualCorrectOpinion]

And these three energies are in one divine essence

[@joshuaparsons887]

What if they're one in essence, will and operations?

[@dtphenom]

Why additive instead of multiplicative? 1*1*1 is still 1

[@secretweapon8367]

it's important not to conflate formal science and natural science. as a formal science, mathematics is a non-real ideal. at best this makes it a reliable and sophisticated approximation which when applied is dependent on certain qualitative assumptions. the handiwork of God that you're supposedly observing involves many such qualitative assumptions and is probably more valuable, specifically aesthetical, than factual.

[@JacobMakesWaves]

this was one of the arguments that brought me back to Christ years ago (after grad school) 🥲. Glory to God