Thomas Aquinas & His Follower's Pseudo "Debate:" Review and Analysis - Jay Dyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- #catholic #debate #jaydyer
Today's debate didn't go very far due to the typical Thomist penchant for avoiding answering objections by simply repeating the position. When we agreed on what Thomism teaches, I asked specific questions which resulted in further stating of the Thomist position. When I said the conversation was "bs" the opponent whined it was a personal insult (it wasn't) and tried to play victim, so it was going nowhere. Here we will open up the chat for any Thomists to finish the discussion for Astro.
The Dr Bradshaw paper on distinctions & kat epinoia is here: mega.nz/file/i...
Send Superchats at any time here: streamlabs.com...
The New Philosophy Course is here: marketplace.au...
Orders for the Red Book are here: jaysanalysis.c...
Subscribe to my site here: jaysanalysis.c...
Follow me on R0kfin here: rokfin.com/jay...
Use JAY50 promo code here choq.com for huge discounts - 50% off!
Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY53LIFE for 53% off now - Розваги
A good portion of Scholasticism is inventing ad hoc distinctions to ignore contradictions - i.e. saying the Filioque doesn't violate the Monarchia of the Father and subordinate the Spirit because the Son is only a "principle with a principle" and only "passively spirates" the Spirit when the entire issue is over the Father being the sole principle/cause in the Godhead, period. You see it everywhere from their treatment of the papacy, to the immaculate conception, to ADS, to grace, to things as "minor" (as they'd say) as the Calendar and liturgical rites. Its a completely different and diametrically opposed phronema to that of the Holy Fathers.
The "ex cathedra" distinction is the ultimate example of this. The Pope can do and say anything, and as long as it isn't "ex cathedra," it doesn't count.
That was all there was. pearl clutching thomists found out their 20 minutes of glory was a nothing burger
he won when he repeated Jay's name and activated the altars
It reminds me of Atheists explaining their position a billion times but not adressing the logical inconsistencies pointed out by their opponent.
@@joshuaopell4301there is no "problem of evil" in the Orthodox paradigm and neither is their "Divine hiddenness" we have scripture, tradition and saints who perform miracles abundant.
@@joshuaopell4301In what sense are you using the word "demonstration"?
@@joshuaopell4301nothing you’ve said proves inconsistency in Christianity. An atheist paradigm can’t account for the good or evil. You just presuppose what an all loving God SHOULD do according to your paradigm and then have an issue when God, who sets the parameters for love, good, evil etc, doesn’t do those things that you arbitrarily decided he should do.
@@joshuaopell4301 Evil doesn't have origins in God though in the Christian system. Created beings have the capacity of evil since they are freely choosing beings, and second causes. For God to remove all evil requires the removal of free will, and to make everyone an autonomaton. Since the Bible states God saught to make man free and in his image, making man a will-less puppet seems to have not been the goal. Being given choice is seen as the ultimate act of love, so to make us unable to chose between God and self would be seen as contradicting his trait of all-loving. So no the problem of evil argument is not an interal critique because it doesn't engage the Christian concept of evil, but rather forces a utilitarian concept of evil (evil=suffering).
The problem of hiddeness is again not a problem in the Christian system, but something projected onto it. This objection always comes from an atheist essentially saying "If I was God, I would reveal myself to the world in X method. Since I haven't seen God do that he doesn't exist" I'm sorry, but that assumes that God has your opinion on how he wants to communicate to the world. In the Christian system God is not hidden, he has communicated with man (prophets, scripture, incarnation) and continues to do so (the saints, miracles). Also God isn't self evident to humans due to the fall, it's a big part of Christian anthropology.
@@joshuaopell4301You just reasserted your earlier post without engaging with any of what I said. Which is especially funny because that's what OP said atheists do. I'm not going to infinately just respond to reassertions so if that's what this devolves into this will be my last reaponse
First, your point on forknowledge is a formal logical fallacy called the modal fallacy, and has been discussed in formal logic for a long time. I would post a link to a paper on it, but youtube doesn't like when people do that. I encourage you to look this up as it's more indepth than I can type. To sum up why it's a fallacy is that the statement "If someone knows what you will do in the future then you have no freewill" posits determinism. For determinism to be true it must be proven that all outcomes are necessary. Claiming because someone knows what will happen in the future means that future event is necessary is a non-sequitor. This is because knowing, and necessity are not inherently comprable. For example if I know my girlfriend likes ice cream, it doesn't logically follow that she necessarily must like ice cream. Or if I know humans lived in Greece in 1000 BC, my knowledge does not project a necessity into the past that humans must be in Greece in 1000 BC. Again there is more that goes into it so I encourage you to read up on it, but your points on forknowledge are a formal logical fallacy.
Again, the problem of evil critique isn't internal you are projecting a consquentialist ethic and claiming Christianity must adhere to consquentialism. Christianity has virtue ethics, so the existence of suffering or pain isn't considered an inherent evil. Consequentialism is a necessity for the problem of evil to even make sense. In virtue ethics murder is wrong because of the individual murdering desires to kill his fellow man, however the fact that some one has died in and of itself is not evil. For example, in Christianity God came to the world to be murdered. Christ being killed is considered good due his intent(and it's effects), Pilate's decree is not considered evil because he didn't want Christ to die, and the Pharisees are considered evil because they wanted Christ to suffer and die. Everyones death is not always considered to be good in the Christian system, but at no point is suffering considered to be bad is the point. A person preventing rape and murder is considered good because it is a selfless act to help another, and it doesn't involve removing free will from humans. For God to universally stop murder and rape requires the removal of free will, and in the Christian system that is the most unloving act. If this seems evil to you, then you prove my point that you are not interally critiquing the Christian view, but rather are projecting your own view onto it and claiming theres a problem.
The problem of hiddeness I already addressed. You literally just proposed a method of revelation you would use if you were God, and then acted as if that means God not using that said method is a contradiction with being loving. Maybe that would make sense if Christianity held the position that people who are ignorant of Christianity in life are punished after death, however a majority of Christians (Catholics, and Orthodox) do not believe eternal punishment awaits people just for being ignorant of Christianity. Only certain forms of Protestantism even hold that view, so again another critique grounded in ignorance of the faith you're critiquing.
Lastly, your point on if the Garden was perfect how was the fall possible is just ignoring the Christian doctrine of free will. Were you a Calvanist or something? In the Orthodox view the Garden was perfect, and Adam was eventually meant to be given the fruit of the tree of knowledge by God. However, Adam had to show he was a vituous person prior to said access. Thus why the tempting of Adam, and Eve was allowed. Upon failing this test the fall occured. It seems you believe it would be good for God to just strip people of free will though, so I'm sure you'll just project your moral view and claim that it makes it an interal contradiction. If you say that God made Adam knowing he would sin that is the modal fallacy as I previously pointed out. God did not make the world with Adam's transgression being a necessary act, if that confuses you just read up on the modal fallacy.
Is it my imagination, or does that painting make T. Aquinas look like Sylvester Stallone?
Would it be accurate to argue that if we understand ADS as essentially the first deduction of Plato's Parmenides, then simplicity is violated by even virtual distinctions due to absolute simplicity being the complete lack of content, all content together undifferentiated?
For the One to be beyond all things, prior to being, essence, and all their differentiations, this would include "all virtualities." Virtualities/formalities are all differentiations, and so, therefore, the One is prior to them as their "cause."
When I first listened to the debate, I thought the Thomist won. But listening to it again, I realize that his position is incoherent.
There's definitely a strong allure to being able to articulate a bad position well.
that's what traps all these young dudes into Thomism, its elegant statements and high brow intellectual flexing allure attracts a lot of people. Most end up just repeating the position without being able to articulate why it's true
From 11:06 to 19:31 is the audio cut. Then Dyer explains what we missed
I had to take a shot for that one. Classic dyer😂😂
Someone needs to tell him to unmute
*Boomer tech moment*
Jay Dyer becomes stronger the longer his hair grows
Anti-Thomist Samson
The Thomist here isn't addressing the inconsistencies of Aquinas illustration or explanation. Maybe the man has been bewitched by the language rather that what it means. Now I understand how Thomism leans into materialism and possibly a type of anthropomorphist depiction of God?
I'm far too slow for this but does it mean that the Thomists don't realize that their system implies that God doesn't have free will
1:30:10 confirmed
@@morpheus6759 No, God doesnt will creation from necessity
@@Lucerna999
"God, from whom potentiality is wholly excluded, and who, therefore, is simply actuality and perfection, Actus Purus."
If He has or had no potential to not create the world or create it in another fashion then He had to create it in the way He did and 'when' He did. Since He is eternal and had to create, then creation is eternal lest there was a 'time' when he was not acting 'purely'
Sounds likes you should talk to thomists about determinism instead of god.
“Unmute” lmaoooo
You run into some similar problems with Absolute Divine Foreknowledge. If the past, present, and future are set in stone, then everything is purely actual. Time is therefore an illusion and no free will can exist because it was all set in stone from eternity.
Edit. Another thing I have seen some Thomists do is call an argument by a name and think it is defeated because of that fact. It goes something like this, "That is just the X argument" or "This is just more X," with X often being a term I've only ever heard from Feser. The power of the name is a trope and doesn't really show an argument to be wrong.
amen
@@JayDyer I take it you've encountered similar arguments?
Oh, I'd like to thank you for your analysis of Thomism. I have some friends who hold the system in very high regard and your analysis has been able to help me understand some of the more opaque aspects of it. I'll have to check out more of your videos when I have more time, which shouldn't be long.
Please share these videos to help grow the channel which gets little algo promotion. Be sure to like, share, comment and subscribe as well as turn on notifications.
This is why Sam Shamoun bugs me. He makes comments about Jay on his streams like calling him a conspiracy theorist and today he was talking about this and totally misrepresented what happened. Believing Jay was just going mean mode and starting fights. When people could watch this and boom no drama and no lies. You can see it. Everything. I think Jay is literally the most slandered and misrepresented person in this space and its just starting to piss me off now.
@@skorraq cringe boomer reply
My only interactions with him have been to compliment him once which he acknowledged and then I asked him what his criteria was for being a “true believer” and he stated the typical bare bones requirements most Protestants give and then said he would muzzle me like a dog if I said anything lol dude has problems I just left the stream and didn’t even respond
@Yungmanewitdacross that's what kills me. He's got such a great read on scripture and a lot of things. But my annoyance is the hypocrisy. I just watches him last night go off on a mod and calling him a queer bait Christian and how pathetic he was because of what he said to a Muslim and I'm like bro you do that all the time and if Jay debates someone without being nasty at all, he will act like he's above anything like that. Sam would just literally shut down with rage if you tried to tell him too so it's kinda like whatever. I just unsubbed tbh because I can't watch the fake piety and crying stuff anymore. It's an ick for me.
@@roughhands305That's what would always blow my mind. Sam straight up goes into hate rants calling people dogs for the smallest things. Do people call him mean? No, because he doesn't critique Catholics. Meanwhile if Jay validly calls a Catholic out they act like Jay just beat up a disabled child. There's no consistency, and it's become clear to me that it's because they can't refute Jays points so character attacks are all they can do.
@@TheMeatyOne360 yup. Exactly
Complex stuff, still trying to wrap my head around it. To my understanding, part of the elegance of Thomism is that it defeats the idea of an infinite regress. Is the Palamite view also against the idea of an infinite regress? Does it hold that there was a first moment, before which there was no change?
A blonde catholic thespian walks into the conversation and asks "so what does God do in the third act?"
All dad jokes aside, I find it funny how most non-Orthodox apologists default to "checkmate, you used a bad word".
Reminds me of when E. Michael Jones said that Orthodox is Gnosticism because he heard a priest use the word “emanate”
It is a bit hard to exectly pin it down but the thing with Thomists are that they are not really philosophers but poets. They seem to think that if a explaination sounds really nice then its true. I remember when Pints with Aquinas first came out how he read out loud from the Summa.
Bishop Baron who is a die hard thomist, his whole stick is to have a siliky rethoric.
It is a form of prelest.
The validity of Palamas's (and Scotus's) objections to Thomism became crystal clear. If there is no univocal ground for our experience of God, then one is in danger of falling into Kantianism/Hegelianism-for all we know are the operations of our own mind.
Have you had a Scotist on the show? It'd be interesting to learn more about how Palamas and Scotus agree and disagree.
ua-cam.com/video/OH7tRW_K0aU/v-deo.html
Jay is mean, therefore all of his points are invalid. Now, if you'll excuse me I need to gaslight people and tell them how pope Francis is secretly based.
First time I understood what I was chanting during the liturgy δυναμης
2:21:57 Jay’s Orthodox Furry Outreach program
Yeah I was into that stuff in my early teens, I'd probably say I'm furry adjacent now that I'm an Orthodox catechumen and still like cosplay and character design as a hobby, but outside of the costuming the Fandom is really degenerate and proud of it.
I actually went to a furry con in 2019, I had fun, but was also disgusted at a lot of things as well. Thank God my mom was there with me.
@@ThumbKnuckle Correct, your hobby is degenerate and children should be nowhere near that stuff, but as long as you aren't fornicating or actually believe you are an animal, at worst you're just a weirdo. So welcome home regardless.
LOL and he wanted jay to post this debate...
@@Link25. Damage control? Is that what you call teaching people?
Learn fallacies, people. I see over and over that people debating Jay are using fallacies that they think are logic.
Guys.. I don't get how Thomism is actually proposed as a tremendous theology of a great philosopher and defended till today. Maybe I don't understand something..
1) Isn't it obvious that God MUST have 1st and 2nd actualities or else he is not a free being? That this way he must be always doing everything he can possibly do (he doesn't) and the world would be eternal and necessary (it isn't)?
2) That if he doesn't have 1st actuality, God is able to both do and undo the same said thing (create and uncreate), so this way all his actions would cancel out resulting in nothingness?
3) If the act of creating was also eternal understood as an expression of God's "one united act" but just didn't produce created effects before time (mental gymnastics but for the argument's sake) how does an act not producing created effects, and then doing it, not mean change in God's act, therfore in God's Essence?
Did I make a mistake somewhere? Because it seems to me it's too easy to dismiss such an important theology...
From pretty much the moment Thomas died there was a massive Propaganda campaign to present him as essentially the perfectly divinely illuminated theologian who synthesized and perfected the entire Patristic corpus - turning him into a super-Father who renders the others irrelevant. Hence the motto of neo-Scholastism, ite ad thomas, and why on the High Altar at the Council of Trent two books were placed upon it - the Vulgate and the Summa. Thomas is to the medieval, post-gregorian reform latin church what figures like Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin are to the post Vatican II Church.
In both instances it is a case of a new theology and phronema being crafted ("developed") in order to defend the new paradigm Rome has adopted for political reasons (in the case of the medieval latins, to defend the Frankish/Germanic Empire and Hierocratic Papal Monarchy super-structure; in the case of Vatican II, to give the latin church a place, prestige, and power within the post-secular post-wwII world order. Hence the flip flops on ecumenism, religious liberty, Judaism, and collegiality. And, in both cases, completely new canon law, catechisms, sacramental rites, liturgical calendars, etc. were implemented as well to go along with Rome's newest revolution and corruptions (as they call it, "growth in understanding and deeper penetration of the mysteries of faith")
Next down the pipe will be approval of sodomy, priestesses, and the further breakdown of "sacramental" discipline as the political needs of the Vatican continue to evolve.
As always, follow the money rather than the theology and every new development in Rome makes perfect sense.
@@-Justinus-I completely agree
Intro is always ❤️🔥
destroyed the atheistic trashtalker
Maybe it is becasue I'm tired, but this Thomist guy has a really annoying voice.
Fanatic Soymist
36:57 if love and glory and just created effects, how do you know these actually say something about God? You don’t, that’s why Palamas say this leads to atheism.
The intro with some dabs is on point ☝️
God Bless
Thomism is a sneaky heresy.
Thomistic is B.S i agree with Jay Dyer 🍔😁
Is the debate posted anywhere to watch?
There was no live debate or video. It was audio and Jay played it during this stream.
That was the “debate”
@@joshuaopell4301🧂
@@joshuaopell4301Is that cope I hear?
@@joshuaopell4301. Cry more
Can anyone read lips?
1:14:25
☦️☦️☦️
9:30-11:09
19:31-20:36
You Jay can u do a video centered on God’s foreknowledge and Free Will from an EO perspective? I’m slowly leaning into Neo-Classical Theism but I’m trying to be traditional as possible
The only view is the Orthodox view.
@@JayDyer can u link me videos to watch on this topic that you covered?
This is not the debate (that was promised to be posted). This is the review of it.
Waiting for the debate.
🌠 in one 🫴🏻 and 💩 in the other... see which one gets filled first
LoL He played the entire debate during the video
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão Nice. Would you mind cutting and put them together for me? Just the debate part, not the cop... the review. Thanks before hand.
That was all there was.
@@JayDyer Ok.
boody baise
Jay please stop muting yourself for such a long time, it's nerve wracking... 😅
Samson dyer
1:59:32 hahaha
Hey why don't you post the debate recording over here,
Afraid or what??
the entire recording was played in this video
most honest RC