Відео

I don't understand the idea of platonic shapes. It feels to me like simple categorization. Like dividing colors into red or blue. Blue things in a blue box and red things in a red box. Some colors will be the closest thing to the defined wavelength of blue and some things will be so hard to define that we should really consider making a purple box. Similarly some things will have a shape that is very clearly triangular and almost ideal and some things are not quite triangles but also not quite squares to the point where we should consider making a trapezoid box. Am I missing something or is it really something like mistaking the things you put into a box for the box itself?

I’m so glad I don’t have to argue against Jay Dyer. He’s incredibly intelligent. I would love to call him and ask him a ton of questions I have about Christianity

I will say though it’s weird how pissed Jay gets when people say his name.

They really think atheism is beyond reproach. They think they’re just default ppl.

If you don’t have a position then please stop talking forever.

I agree with him and acknowledge he's beyond dumb

lol atheists are cute .

Lol Mike’s not used to debating non-TikTok 18-year-olds

I'm not understanding jimbob's point. even under his worldview everything would be deterministic bc god knows all things, is maximally powerful, & created all things. meaning god would have control over all things. meaning that u would have no "free will" bc u couldn't go against what god already knows u will do. u as the human may have the illusion of free will, but god already knows & determined what u will do so much so that he knew before you were even born.

Showing you something that isn't there isn't contradictory to the truth... nice.

Wait. I don't understand. So Jesus didn't die for our sins? Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

2:12:37 this literally explains the whole disconnect throughout the debate 😂 just like matt dilamonkey the mentor of her , couldn't grasp basic 💩 in the jay dyer debate , the student is also completely stumped just like the mentor. ig we all were unaware of Matt's great philosophical brilliance, solving the problem of induction, is ought gap etc 😆

Im a calvinist and a monophysite!

U ARE A EDOMITE AND U ARE GOING INTO SLAVERY WHEN CHRIST COME BACK FOR WHAT YOUR PEOPLE DID TO US 🕎✡️🕎😁

5:37 i’m sure chase knows this but a great tweak to this argumentation is to say it slightly different. rather than say “you can’t say _____” try telling someone like mike “when you say _______, you are being arbitrary.” but i agree with chase and jimbob here, i’ve just dealt with this indignant response of “why not” “look im doing it” or my favorite “it just is”

5:37 i’m sure chase knows this but a great tweak to this argumentation is to say it slightly different. rather than say “you can’t say _____” try telling someone like mike “when you say _______, you are being arbitrary.” but i agree with chase and jimbob here, i’ve just dealt with this indignant response of “why not” “look im doing it” or my favorite “it just is”

I know God, but i dont think your argument here justifies God’s existence. The logical fallacies you cite are of man. Now whether man discovered them in the universal mind or created them is debatable. But obviously most of your debate partners don’t naturally or inherently recognize the fallcies as given or they wouldn’t use them (except in bad faith). The circle is universal and immutable-does that prove God to you?

This guy... "I go to a Bible Believing Church". Oh ahhh okay which church is out there that doesnt "believe" in the bible. These evangelicals go out like thats a thing to say and that it means whatever i say after is true doctrine

Mike "why not" Brigandi

So you can't preach to people on the street to accept Jesus or evangelize or anywhere with your fake gospel. Orthodox are such demons man. Bible says believe on Jesus.

Can someone tell me how the temple being destroyed in 70 A.D. is equivalent to heaven and earth passing away?

Close encounters of the third time...

Sophist vs Sophist

Thank you JimBob, these fools are unworthy of your time. Atheists are so dishonest, juvenile and dumb.

I dunno why you think this was a good showing for presuppositionalism. It's someone refusing to justify P1 of a transcendental argument. Good presuppositonal apologists often get past this point.

The guy with the beanie is completely out of his league here 😂

Gold.

Beautiful. Poetic, even.

“Logic is descriptive not prescriptive” I heavily disagree with that. The universe operates on its own internal logic via natural laws and processes. Just because the laws of physics and nature are not immediately intuitive doesn’t mean they don’t operate under a sense of order.

That made me actually want to cry at how ignorant people can be i feel like an actual infant can perceive more than he can like micro bacteria is less ignorant Gods patience with humans is unfathomable ❤️‍🔥truly

What even was the dude's point? It's not like Saudi Arabia has the original 7th century 1st edition of the Qur'an (with the autographs of Allah and Muhammad) sitting around in a museum in Mecca. Not that there has ever been an original copy to begin with, as it was orally recited and written down in fragments until compiled later on. Much like the Old and New Testament. Muslims seem to have some sort of "sent down from Heaven in finished form" idea in their heads.

The “leaders” of the satanic groups most likely don’t even believe in it. They look for weak minded impressionable people with enough ego to think they’re free thinkers. Then the leader trains them into doing their dirty work. Aquino probably didn’t really believe it. His job was to do psychological operations.

Short summary: 1) Chase makes transcendental argument 2) Nikki refutes transcendental argument due to "lack of evidence". mentions how she does not claim that god does not exist, thus concedes the debate in her opening statement 3) Nikki claims she can justify logic itself because she is using logic. Chase clarifies that use of a thing is not the same as the thing (repeat this about 500 times) 4) Nikki finally admits she cannot justify logic after having wasted half the open dialogue time 5) Nikki requires empirical evidence for jesus christ and his miracles. Chase clarifies there is no empirical evidence for the past except scriptural transmission 6) Nikki accepts this claim with other historical figures, but rejects it with Jesus ("because he is claimed to be divine"), thus betrays her own standard. repeat this about 100 times 7) Whenever Chase gets at the point, Nikki distracts with some side discussion, probably because she realizes she is out of options 8) Nikki successfully wastes the remaining open dialogue with her non-arguments and circular "logic" 9) Callers try to explain to Nikki that she blew up her own point on both logic AND empirical evidence, she slowly begins to understand

how to debate: whenever your opponent says something, say either "actually it is" or "actually it isn't" depending on what serves your case. end.

is this netgear from collectorcarfeed? lmao

Atheists seem unable or unwilling to think in terms of fractals. Man creating a calculator as a microcosm for God creating man is totally lost on them.

Once an atheist makes a calculator metaphor it’s checkmate.

I’m a slow boi. Even I understood how stupid this was.

Personally, I just like saying Yeshua.

ua-cam.com/video/HHgxOXEQaFU/v-deo.html

They're both embarrassingly stupid

"running for their lives from people like you' "Can you show me some examples?" Ima gonna run now....

Jmonkeymike is so low brow Jay beats him up anytime he calls in

Certified classic

What is the barrier for most people that prevents them from seeing this problem in their presuppositions? I remember when I couldn’t see it either but eventually came around to understanding the critique. It’s very frustrating to debate people like this and anyone who calls JD mean basically tells me they also don’t understand the basic critique.

Jay made a lot of claims, but gave no justification.

Jay did a good job at being respectful to our lost brother. Keep doing what you do Jay.

Boyar Dyer: Could you provide a critique of Thomas Aquinas' superabundant atonement model presented in Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement? I also provided for your critique what might be considered some of the consequences of Aquinas' superabundant atonement model as pertaining to Christ's Church, if so interested. ST Part III, Q. 48, Art. 2: "I answer that, he properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. FIRST OF ALL, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; SECONDLY, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; THIRDLY, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). - and - THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [Sacred Texts Com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm] 2. In the anthropology of the human person regarding acts that are informed by reason and deliberated by the will, there are three components: Intention, circumstances and object. It is the intention that determines the nature of the act, as in the case of homicide, whether it is (A) manslaughter, (B) second degree murder or (C) first degree murder. Therefore, the intention is the greatest component of the human act. 3. In Aquinas'' answer above, he lists Christ's intention first, followed by His identity as God and man second, and the circumstances of His passion third. All three were components in the atonement which was the desired object, but it was Christ's love and obedience that determined how great was His atonement on our behalf, even preceding His identity as both God and man which gave the atonement its eternal dimension. 4. Aquinas' "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His mysteries/sacraments to Christians: (A) Seven in number to the Catholic and Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East; and (B) two in number generally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches. 5. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as analogous to Aquinas'' "superabundant atonement" model: A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God. B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism, until its perfect fulfillment in the heavenly banquet: Revelation 19:6-9 (KJV): And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, "Write, BLESSED ARE THEY WHICH ARE CALLED UNTO THE MARRIAGE SUPPER OF THE LAMB." 6. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. John ...

So TAG is basically, substituting "God" for whatever grounds our set of knowledge... even though it could be literally anything?

My favorite part was how he claimed to only have a minute, then proceeded to argue for several minutes before getting booted, CAME BACK, proceeded to talk trash, and got booted AGAIN for the same behavior that got him booted the 1st time. Lol.