God's Existence & Transcendental Arguments Debate: Jay Dyer Vs Dr. Alex Malpass
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- #God #debate #atheism
Note: I did mistakenly reference the text about induction as Quine's, when I intended to reference Nelson's Goodman's New Riddle of Induction. Quine is, however, continuing the Humean skeptical approach to epistemology so it is relevant, but I had in mind Goodman's argument.
Uploaded with express written permission. Non Sequitur invited me back on the show to debate the status and validity of transcendental arguments. Dr. Malpass takes a skeptical approach to both TAG and whether Aristotle uses a transcendental argument in his Metaphysics. Our chat wasn't so much of a debate as an exchange and the conversation went great. Very civil and Dr. Malpass grasped the flow of the argument. It was nice to finally interact with a philosophically grounded professor and not a total goofball.
Non Sequitur is here: • Arguments in Apologeti...
Dr. Alex Malpass
Alex Malpass. runs a podcast, called Thoughtology, in which he interviews professional philosophers about the things that they are working on and the ideas that they are excited about. He want to bring their knowledge and expertise to a wider audience, because he believes that philosophy shouldn't just be for those who are privileged enough to be able to go to university to study it. Malpass was fortunate in this regard, and has a BA, MA and PhD in philosophy, and he wants to be able to share the joys of philosophy to as many people as possible. It also means that he knows a bit about the field and knows who to talk to about different topics.
Be sure to like, share and subscribe!
Love, love, loved this! Can't wait for part 2. I would also love to see you take on Tom Jump sometime.
WTB Round 2
@@troelsvestergaard6644
Why
When is Part 2 coming out? This was really good, & I thought you did a really good defense of the Transcendental Argument. I also thought the two moderators did a wonderful job of moderating this debate. Can't wait for Part Two of it!
Jay is exactly like me in an undergraduate supervision: desperately throwing out authors/texts that don’t actually answer my supervisor’s straightforward question, but suggest a level of my “awareness” of the “complexity” of the arguments that could be devastating, if only we had time. Jay, I think the fact that you know how much bad faith you used here is punishment enough.
Dr. Malpass a humble character on display, you can see him interested, tracking and finding things yet unresolved in real time. A very smart individual and finally someone who is staying up to speed, beyond not understanding the Eastern father's work. Seems to be the common trend. Jay again, a wonderful introduction and beautifully wise display. Metaphysics matters. Great work here Jay. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
The fact that Tom Jump thought he was on the same intellectual plane as Malpass is laughable.
Well said.
@@HarryNicNicholas The argument is that the atheist paradigm can't justify metaphysical things, which are necessary for reason. Without God, you cannot reason.
@@paulyjackdaniels3432
That’s a non sequitur.
@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515
What makes you think that “the atheist paradigm” needs to justify anything whether it’s metaphysical or not ? It doesn’t claim to .
His claim was that “without god you cannot reason” . Clearly that is false everyone is capable of reasoning . Please demonstrate why a god is necessary and also how you demonstrate that one exists. If you’re unable to show that any such god exists then this unsubstantiated claim doesn’t even get off first base .
@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515
So what’s the atheist paradigm ?
And I was speaking colloquially I should have said everyone who has a working brain can reason. Clearly someone in a vegetative state or in a coma for example would be unable to do that. But if you make the universal claim that “without god you cannot reason” then you need to present the evidence to back it up.
Please demonstrate how you ground anything in your god , merely stating that you can or have is simply an empty claim.
Jay, are we doing a round two of this?
Yes please!
why isn't there a round two yet?
Very interested in this!
Well I guess round two would be too devastating, and also supposes that Dr Malpass go take a look into Orthodox metaphysics...
@Simon Laberge Yes it was productive, unfortunately Jay did not have the time to completely display the TAG, notably concerning Ethics, Linguistics and Mathematics. It was more focused on Logic here, and that's already a good start. But for round two to be as productive, Malpass will have to learn a bit about Orthodox metaphysics, or he will be lost or it would take too much time explaining everything.
Rewatching 5 years later... still thinking we need that "rematch" with part 2 and 3 and 40-50 more conversations like this one.
I’m really not trying to toot my own horn here but I’m really taken aback at how phd level philosophers seem to not only struggle with this but seem to have never even thought to go down this road. I don’t have the background or skills to articulate it as seamlessly and thoroughly as Jay but I basically came to the same conclusion albeit in a skeletal less fleshed out form. These intuitions manifested themselves over long drives when I was free to just think quietly…and I fix drywall for a living.
I’m thrilled to have come across your channel Jay because the people I’ve schitzo word vomited at trying to articulate this can just be directed here to have it formally laid out.
But back to the sobering realization about the ostensible “professionals” that just can’t see this plain as day is somewhat of an ego boost yet also really troubling.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp that’s not what the mannerisms and reaction of Malpass would suggest here. This is something that is clearly novel to him. Not sure who those people you mentioned are but let’s stay on topic as we are talking about Dyer and Malpass and how this was laid out between them.
@@Hreodrich TAG is just another metaphysical position. It doesn't have some inherent truth to it that makes it "the objectively correct one". For example, when Dyer states that "Logic necessitates God", what he actually means is "for you to have absolute certainty that Logic works, you have to have some transcendental thing that is beyond the Universe that justifies it".
Notice how that doesn't at all prove that having "absolute certainty that Logic works" is necessary? It's because it isn't. And to imply that it is is begging the question.
That's why many philosophers are skeptics: they are okay with the idea that the nature of the human reason is inherently probabilistic, and that we might never be sure of many things, but as long as Logic remains reliable, we can trust it.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp Then you should debate.
@@LeoVital
No, that is not what he means or is meant by that statement. But it’s not surprising that you have to work to read it that way. Absolute certainty as a concept hasn’t even been in the picture.
The question is not about having absolute certainty that it works. We are granting that it does with an apparent certainty because to even question that universal phenomenological experience is to dissolve the ability to predicate thus you lose the ability to make any meaningful statements writ large. Pro God or anti God, it makes no difference. If you saw away the branch you’re sitting on you lose any vantage point or coherence for any statement made whatever. The question is more about looking at what makes it possible for it to work at all and what preconditions must be assumed for this thing called “logic” that you just arbitrarily grand as a given to work at all. So you’ve misunderstood the framing from the jump it seems.
@@HreodrichI'd suggest you look into Malpass and his responses to presuppositionalism. He's very gentle in this video but he has absolutely no sympathy for the TAG. He thinks it's a complete failure.
They have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh they do, they just pretend they don't
@Vox Daze could you have done a better job?
This was awesome. I really liked it because Dr. Malprass helped me to understand some holes in my understanding of Jay's argument, where I tend to understand bits and pieces, but needed clarification.
Circular arguments are unavoidable at a base level. The only way to confirm or deny the laws of logic is by using the laws of logic. The only way to confirm or deny the validity of mathematics is by using mathematics. The only way to confirm or deny the validity of language is by using language. The only way to confirm or deny the existence of God is to assume that He has made us in His image and has given us enough access to the laws of logic and validity of language to make the argument in the first place.
@Trolltician Is your comment logical? Then you are using logic to prove the validity and limits of using logic. You are using a circular argument. If it is not logical, then I can logically dismiss it as wrong or incompressible.
Your last sentence does not follow, but thanks for admitting that Christian belief is circular.
@@JMUDoc Thank you for replying with a circular argument, proving my point.
@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 I didn't make an argument; I made a statement.
Explain why one must assume that he is created in your god's image before he can deduce it.
@UCXaiutz8s4WlbGIAeJyQpfg
*Orthodoxy is coherent*
Coherency doesn't entail truth - any decent work of fiction is internally coherent.
*if you agree on that now you move from that to diving into specifics of Orthodoxy*
This is the problem of using presup to argue a specific religion - they either can't bridge the gap, or bridging the gap would be a proof of that god in and of itself, rendering presup redundant.
"Some god must exist, and here's why it must be the god of ."
Just start with the second part.
*When you keep asking questions about the divine mind you get unique answers from Orthodoxy, proving Orthodoxy step by step*
1. You get unique answers from every religion - that's why they are all different.
2. Uniqueness doesn't entail truth - all different _wrong_ answers are unique.
*What you want to do is get all the answers without consuming the information, after competing worldview is shown to be incoherent now you need to find another worldview to make arguments, you're just as much of a need to find this answers as an Orthodox providing it*
Explain what is incoherent about starting from the laws of logic as though they need no justification "from underneath".
The Atheist keyboard warriors from the original video will come crawling to this channel soon enough.
Says the theist keyboard warrior.
hahaha
My ears were burning.
It’s nice to finally see someone actually with the philosophical toolkit to engage instead of Jay just pointing out bad arguments, non sequiturs, and begging the question.
I was reading the other channel and the most common I saw was "did Jay even make an argument?"
I thought it was the clearest presentation of your argument that I've heard. I really enjoyed it being laid out simply and technically. That's the most easily digestible for me.I wish more of your talks were plain and dry like this but I know you have to market and stuff...
I really wish you guys could have finished the conversation.
@@alyoshaty8823 yes, I enjoyed that as well.
That's why there's particular argument forms for complex arguments to clarify exactly what you're saying. You can hide too much and get away with too much while talking conversationally. Jay has tried to put it into a proper form but generally messes it up.
He could have a good or novel version of TAG, but he needs to get with someone with a better understanding of technical logic so that he can get it into a premise-conclusion form that's coherent. He's repeatedly run into this problem with the higher level athiest debaters.
It's the difference between a formal argument and an informal one.
@@josephlawson2768 Who else do you refer to as higher level atheist debaters? Legitimately interested as I want to challenge my thinking and pop atheists are extremely shallow.
@@candanielgraham oppy is pretty good
Debate persona is an interesting phenomenon. Jay sincerely presents his view like he's relieved to talk to someone who isn't insane but interested. Dr Malpas seems to be like a professional insecticide serviceman, who is listening to a new, more advanced hiding place of a trickier more advanced insect he's supposed to find in an apartment complex and kill, whose effects of infestation deludes the residents into thinking the bug is God. He has the "not another rough job" look. And Jay is like keep following, and you may just be saved.
Best comment
@TJump this is how you debate.
Jay u cool, man. Respect, from Romania!
How would we investigate cheese on the moon? Send a Kraft.
“If you don’t presuppose I’m right, then you are a potato.”
Watched most of it on their channel. Great job Jay. Apologist for truth! Praise God!
By far the highest quality debate I've seen on Jay's channel. Good stuff
Huge difference between Dr. Malpass and Dillamonke
malpass is more pleasant but argument still not good
1:10:35
Yes, the English language (like any language) presupposes the laws of logic. The laws of logic provide the fundamental principles of reasoning and communication, and they are inherent in the way we use language to convey meaning.
For example, the law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. This principle is implicit in the way we use language to make truth claims and to argue for or against a position. If we were to violate the law of non-contradiction in our language, our communication would become meaningless and we would not be able to convey coherent thoughts or arguments.
Similarly, the law of identity (which states that something is what it is and not something else) and the law of excluded middle (which states that something must either be true or false, with no middle ground) are also presupposed by the English language. These laws provide the foundation for the logical structure of language and allow us to communicate in a meaningful and coherent way.
Does anyone feel like this stuff went over their head.
It’s taken me a while but I’m starting to understand 😂
Why was Alex being so sketchy at the beginning when Steve asked him to introduce himself? That was weird. Steve asked him if he could mention the school that Alex went to and Alex said "I dont think that's necessary." And then Steve said "well can you tell the audience a little bit about yourself?" and again Alex said that it isnt necessary...super weird.
Malpass isn't trying to garner a living or get attention from these things, he accidentally stumbled into the UA-cam debate community because he was pursuing a particular argument he wanted to dissect. Now he's one of the four or five higher order logicians that the better members of the community cut their arguments against and is generally welcomed everywhere due to his pleasant attitude and demeanor. He's interested in the arguments and logic, not in elevating himself.
where he went to school has nothing at all to do with the arguments. That’s why.
@@josephlawson2768
That's all very understandable, but nobody would hold it against him for talking about himself, at least, not if he kept it short.
Those other 2 guys looked relieved at not being expected to weigh-in. I'd have to award it to Eyebrows... split decision... for ability to come off 'script'. Rematch clause should be enforced.
How do people study philosophy for years... and it's like they never heard any of this?
What Straight White Male and Manfred Arcane said is correct. Philosophy programs operate within the university’s classical liberal / postmodern ethos. Which is an ethos that places significant boundaries on discussion and thought. The presuppositions of this system are taken as a given. They are dogmatic. Ancient philosophy is often treated in passing as a historical stepping stone among many to the enlightenment and to modern liberal thought. Transcendental arguments typically aren’t discussed with any seriousness nor do I think for a minute that most PhDs would be capable of having a discussion about them.
Just to illustrate what I’m saying: One the professors I studied under was specifically an expert on Locke and another specialized on philosophy of art. Both were decent instructors, but neither would have spent much time on these sorts of meta-level issues.
@Straight White Male It's become endemic to academia as a whole. In my short time in an Econ grad program, I found that the higher you go, the more narrow you become. Not that specializing is neccesarily bad, but you need to have a broad understanding first before you go deep in one area. I was in my 30s when I had my grad adventure and had spent a decade plus reading on my own before I got there , and found that the kids I was starting with (right out of college) really didn't know anything about economics or the history of the field, yet were expected to learn a bunch of abstruse and irrelevant mathematics and then jump into writing a dissertation.
I think it's the same reason as to why people grow up thinking it's a given that the 'Holy Roman Empire' was actually *the* Roman Empire. And this reason is poor education in the west, whether malicious or unknowingly or both, the consequences remain.
Lol for some it is definitely malicious, they just can't stand that some hairy, bearded Greek and Armenian dudes could be the emperors of the Roman Empire.
@@dikaioskyrios
The Greeks were great before the Roman Empire was even founded by Latin tribes. There was the Macedonian Empire, if Alexander had not died so early in his life, he would have turned his attention toward Italy and crushed the Roman Republic. The Roman Empire was at its greatest when it was under the control, culture and language of the Latin people. The Macedonian Empire was at its greatest when it was controlled by the Hellenes. The Armenians have a rich culture and history too.
He clearly has heard these forms of arguments, but Jay gave a non syllogistic explanation which he explained with analogy that I could definitely take a million different ways. Malpass spent several minutes trying to differentiate this specific argument from a myriad of similar arguments.
Jay, I have to be honest, I’m often not a big fan of what I perceived to be your debate style. After your stellar performance in this one I realized that what happens in most other debates is just a consequence of how insanely below standard your opponents often are. I really enjoyed Malpasses questions, even though the prolonged bit on Aristotle seemed a little weird. But the questions he asked really helped me understand TAG.
You should read the paper “The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism” by Russ Manion. It’s pretty short and is great at explaining TAG. You can find a pdf online for free. Jay quotes it’s alot.
Question friend, Is it possible that logic only arose because of our physical world? (I don't believe in a physical world exactly, not matter, but something measurable). So if our universe has stuff in it, whatever it is, and it appears in such a way that an apple is not also a pear at the same time, isn't logic just describing the world we happen to be in, not some divine rules? @@triggered8556
@@joecheffo5942 all logically possible worlds are described by logic, not merely the physical world. So logic describes every conceivable weird magical fictional universe that lacks contradictions. It’s not just about describing the physical reality we ended up with, no. It’s all about trying to be consistent with language, ‘and screw what reality is like’.
Exchange was quite..intriguing 🤨
37.50 "Assuming you don't believe God reveals to you personally..." Well yes this is the whole thing actually the transcendental argument works aposteriori from the self revelation of God in Christ who is personal and does in fact confer certainty of faith upon the individual personally through the residing Spirit. If you want to seek God another way then you will end up with no god.
The problem with this position that it justifies non-belief in those for revelation has not taken place.
Didnt catch this live. Thanks for all the content Jay!
Grand Moff Alexander can’t wait to dive into this! 🌊
Clean, excellent talk, it needs all the attention! (I was trying to do two things at one time). When Jay at the end, stated rather abruptly (he was asked for a conclusion) that he finds a cohesion explanation to all three big venues of the philosophy in God and the Orthodox view of the world......there was a kind of vacuum, a hiccup a kind of wow..... powerful.
Need a part 2 of this
Feel like I gain INT every time I listen to Jay.
Awesome, I needed something to listen to while I workout!! Thanks for your hard work, Jay.
Asking academics to admit paradigms affect their studies and thought process is a waste of time. Dyer has a freshness and clarity, he understands materialism is a religion.
Then everything is a religion. The word has to mean something or you’re not saying anything
@@Detson404 every philosophical position when you think it through answers questions about meaning and values in your life. In the same way one's religion can influence one's ideas about human nature and thus one's scientific pursuits. So not everything is a religion, however, when your philosophy and science start to give meaning to your life, then the become a system of what you value and worship i.e., an ersatz religion. I think it is fair to say/ no?
@@msriccio6830 You can define the word that way. Personally I think a religion needs supernatural elements. My concern (not saying you’re doing this) is that a tactic used by religious cranks of all stripes is to create the illusion that their faith based positions are on the same footing as science and therefore we need to teach “both sides” of the flat earth debate or whatever.
@@Detson404 Fair. I think you are right. Bible should not dictate my view of the world when it comes to my scientific endeavors. It sounds like you are battling very simplistic people. However, Nietzsche's critique of science was: that although scientists should be nihilistic skeptics - which would be a consistent atheism, instead they worshiped the hallowed halls of science with the same fervor as they did when they were Christians. Their uniform changed from churchman to science "priest", but the dogmatic spirit stayed the same. These are much deeper problems than flat earth Christians vs darwinists etc. or whatever else is one hears being blabbed by The science guy. I think Jay's comments about how materialism functions as a dogmatic stance, not a purely scientific one. Dont trust me, read Nietzsche and other critiques of the science club.
How about this approach: How is atheism not an application/extension of a world view? That is: if your use of the word "atheism' is to mean the denial of a creator not simply a rejection of organized religions. Dyer talks about materialism/atheism clearly as an ideology that pervades the academies. Nietzsche would see a consistent scientism as including a consistent atheism which was my point above. How can you have a naturalistic/scientistic world view without having a denial of God i.e., atheism? Is there a naturalistic world view with a place for God and a human soul? @@JDO36
This was a lot more wholesome than the Tdump debate
@22:29
“Why is that seeing the world with the belief that god exists plays the role of structuring the world? I don’t have that belief but my experience of the world is one of intelligibility and not incoherence”.
Apt question Dr. Malpass but you’re slightly misunderstanding. It isn’t ones seeing the world with said belief that renders it intelligible. The intelligibility persists regardless of one’s assent. Thats partially the point. That we understand and acknowledge that the intelligibility of phenomenological experience isn’t grounded in the human minds assent to any particular thing.
The fact that you can disagree…while still being able to communicate and perceive regularity in your field of experience is actually a mark in the favor of Jays argument because it perfectly illustrates this fact.
If your lack of assent to a particular description of the origin of said structure suddenly rendered your experience chaotic and unintelligible. THAT would be evidence against what Jay is saying and would ultimately suggest that it is essentially the human that grounds the intelligibility of their experience.
That the human would be “God-ing” themselves essentially if I can use God as a verb.
So that guy was a great debate partner to Jay and vice versa. It's nice to see a constructive debate.
1:25:26 premises
Thanks Jay, I learned a lot. I'm going to watch more of these. God bless
"Alex, tell us a bit about yourself".
Alex: Pfff.....I have a PhD in philosophy...............
Malpass already didn't agree before you made the argument. 😂 Bruh, put your note cards away for a sec. Likeable guy, seems to want to understand, though. Seemed open minded,rare to find.
What is the name of the song for the intro and outro of this video?
Very awkward opening from Alex.
lol
Malpass was on his back foot most of this discussion.
lol, only because he was asked to respond to poorly articulated arguments. Most of it was him trying to get clear on what was being said.
@@kyleseakgwa1049Malpass is a professional philosopher. It's weird that it takes him that much time to grasp it
This is jay at his best. I wish he would argue like this now.
Raymond Murillo what are you talking about? We do every day on discord.
This is a PhD who understands the issues, not a moron on blood sports
@@JayDyer I don’t catch the discord debates all that often but at this time Tjump and some other idiot were the most recent debates. Since then you’ve done great debates and had great showings and defense of the faith.
@@JayDyer Please send discord invite
Incredible work!
chase haggard vs beat the cult and this debate all day
Jay wins his debates as soon as he finishes his opening. The rest of the debate is just to see if the opponent can even comprehend how they lost.
If nobody understands your argument, you’re either the smartest person in the room or you’re doing a poor job communicating.
Err no, having an opening argument that's word vomit making it hard to discern any argument at all isn't a good sign.
dude literally started asking how do you reconcile aristotle with your worldview im finished.
That is not what he asked. He pointed out that Aristotle had challenged one of the laws of logic in his own work, without the rest of his worldview falling to pieces as it were, and asked Jay 1. why it would be the case for someone else's view to fall to pieces should they do the same thing, and 2. Would that be a challenge to Jay's own position someone claiming that one of the laws could be challenged, and yet they held a valid, and coherent world view. He did this because Aristotle the main guy we use for classical logic - did not have an issue with this, and Alex also doesn't see the issue with this. But Jay supposedly does take issue with this, and Alex wanted Jay to lay out his reasoning as to why it was an issue for him, and how he resolves it.
I love when atheists are able to argue in good faith.(pun intended)
Can a fan of Jay Dyer please provide me with a written Premises-inferences-conclusion presentation of the argument that Jay has written??
Jay may have some good ideas, but his presentation has been pretty disappointing. It would have helped tremendously if he came prepared with the argument articulated in a precise premiss and conclusion format. I watched 2 hours of his debate with Dillahunty which took place later than this one, and neither did that debate include the precise argument, so I wonder why Jay didn’t take the time to consolidate the argument after Dr. Malpass asked for one and there was clearly need for one. Honestly this was incredibly offputting and I’m not sure why I should take Jay seriously if he can waste an hour and a half like this. He said he has been studying this for years, he’s debated multiple people, he’s made videos on it, and yet still no formal argument presented...
It’s also pretty funny how Dr. Malpass holds his forehead trying to understand the argument
@jckgrim51 How about this?
P1: If any person does not presuppose the God of orthodox Christianity, then it is impossible for them to explain the preconditions or coherence of logic or metaphysics.
P2: Whenever it is impossible for a person to explain something without a certain presupposition, then that presupposition is true.
C: Therefore the presupposition of the God of orthodox Christianity is true.
@jckgrim51 Yes I still find it really weird that even Dr. Malpass couldn't reconstruct it into a valid argument like that.
He said it could be seen as an argument about God's existence being necessary for certain things (in the external world), OR presupposing God's existence (in our heads) being necessary to explain certain things (in our heads).
But the latter, he said, he just couldn't think of a way that could validly lead to God actually existing as the conclusion. 'Maybe in order to explain something, we have to assume something false', is a point he affirmed.
My P2 bridges the gap between the two potential interpretations he discussed.
So maybe he doesn't believe that P2, but it's seriously not that hard to reconstruct the argument as valid and to start off being about what people presuppose (in our heads), and end up with the conclusion about if god exists (outside our heads).
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke that's not the argument though, that begs the question and basically starts with the conclusion. It's easy to fall into that but you have to start with the immaterial absolutes jay brings up because those would be far more difficult to question. you basically started at the second step i think?
@@prancer9980 Hmmm, if that begs the question, you could deduce the conclusion from one premise alone. I don't think you can, without that second premise in there it might be that we need to presuppose false things in order to have full explanations, and so you couldn't get to the conclusion from P1. :)
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke i guess
I do not know anything about philosophy. As a layman, I want it simple. From what I can understand without the complicated word salad is. God is the precondition of knowledge. If we as humans can obtain knowledge, then God exists. Otherwise without God, all we do is assume. I guess we have to assume God or else all other knowledge claims are assumptions?
@@Damascene749 Then if we say that everything starts with God, that is a subjective statement of an nonobjective conclusion.
@@alexsoto8326 it's the necessary precondition for knowledge. It's an assumption, sure but when we assume knowledge we must assume something else to make knowledge possible
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 is that your assumption?
This is correct but I think it's more than assuming god it's also claiming that reality is hierarchical and hence transcendent. So you need god/oninpitance at the top
Basically, yes.
Logic for example. It is immaterial and can't be proven by the scientific method. Yet we need to assume its existence to even make any scientific experiments. How do we justify something that's immaterial and not empirically verified? If we just assume it exists without the need of a justification, we could arrive to the conclusion that it's possible that we live in a matrix. Therefore materialism and empirisism are logically incoherent. If we'd be in a matrix we couldn't knwo that. So it can be disregarded as well. Skepticism would assume that's it's more likely that we do not live in the matrix by assume it's more like.. Etc. So it's also fallacious. We end up in the problem that we need to give a justification for the existence of logic.
This ended up being Jay giving a lecture to a very inquisitive student, I didn't expect it to go down this way. Thanks for teaching him jay
You should see if you can secure a debate with Jack Angstreich. He is considered among the most formidable atheist proponents, so it would build your brand to defeat him.
@@t-rizzle0509 Makes sense.
@Megaman Op Nah. Did you see what happened when Pogan took on Jay?
Alex has a very calm energy.
Was there a part two to this?
Where the part 2
Fantastic!
Get these me some fedoras!
A working computer , cannot be built using twizllers and gum drops. Reality is that trNsisters can make computers but ice cubes cannot . We learned things through testing and finding answers .
Kant Ends in psychologism was proven in Jung, the Kantian.
Question for Jay: why is it that not presupposing God's existence does lead to inability of answering the problem of induction and its relationship with things like logic? Thanks
Adam Miller Because without creation and divine providence there is no logical basis for belief in induction.
@@JayDyer yes but why exactly? Thanks
@@JayDyer 1. What if you don't see the need to underpin induction? What if induction fills the role for me that your god fills for you?
2. Why is "induction because god, and god just because" any more sound than "induction just because"?
@@JMUDoc Come to his Discord, he has Q&A every week or so. If you haven't already
@@JayDyer Why?
I will admit I’m a complete “Dumb Ass” when it comes to philosophy. How did either of these two intellectuals prove the existence of a god or disprove the existence of a god? With that said a I learned a lot from this discussion.
That's not what the debate ended up being about. It was Malpass pretty much asking Jay tough questions until they ran out of time. Arguing from the worldview that Jay has takes a long time to build the context especially when you bring in essence and energy distinction from Orthodoxy. And when people actually know philosophy and debate in good faith like you see with Malpass and Jay here they really want to learn each others points before critiquing them. It probably would've taken 3 and 1/2 hours to "finish" the debate.
So, part two. Jay. Jay? Jay?! “True in a paradigmatic sense in this world,” yeah.
The computer your using wouldn't be able to work it there wasn't regularity . It's demonstrable .
@Oners82 What's not demonstrated is that this regularity requires any god.
@@JMUDoc It demonstrates that there necessarily exists preconditions of Intelligibility in order for it to be possible for a computer to be made. That's the point of the Argument.
I can see Dyer standing in front of an atheist judge telling him he has no foundation to make any coherent assertion that Dyer is guilty.
RIP Nonseq Show. :( Did Jay ever get a part 2?
A reductio used to prove the law of non-contradiction does not cease to be circular just because you've pointed the reductio at a bigger target.
Well Jay openly states that circular arguments are unavoidable at a fondamental paradigmatic level, so his point is not to say you can resort ultimately to an uncircular justification, but to show that the only overall consistent view to justify how all those transcendantal preconditions can be coherently related is the Orthodox view. If one does not accept the laws of logic, then he just cannot debate without refuting his premise, he is stuck. If he does not accept the laws of grammar and how words convey meaning, than he just cannot speak intelligibly and consistently without refuting his premise. It's the same argument for Ethics, Mathematics and so forth. If you do not have a coherent metaphysical principle for morals, then you cannot truly say what's wrong or right per se, you have no justification for any value or ethical judgement, and to be consistent with such a worldview, you have to live without moral judgement. But nobody lives this way, and nobody can live this way, if not a madman. Even people claiming that "moral judgement is bad and should be avoided" are making a moral judgement. The overall critique is devastating, but Jay unfortunately didn't have the time here to display it comprehensively.
@@theophan9530 What if you base your worldview on the laws of logic without trying to justify them? Why is that not allowed?
Why is it any less sound than basing them on a god you can't justify?
@@JMUDoc Than you fail to give justification to your worldview, and cannot claim that being an Atheist, for instance, is more realistic and logical or rational than believing in God. You are allowed to be inconsistent, we have no problem with that, but then you have to accept it. You can't justify your Atheism, so you cannot ask of believers a justification for God, which ultimately transcends Logic and all created data. What is "more sound" in Orthodoxy is that we have a coherent overall worldview, but Atheists do not. They end up in arbitrary thinking and solipsism, we do not. God in his essence cannot be grasped by reason, He is unfathomable, so we fully accept that there can be no direct proof of God, but we can derive a coherent worldview from our belief in God, that accounts for Ethics, Epistemology, Logic, Linguistic, Mathematic, and so forth. On the contrary you cannot derive all that from a pagan "Chaos theory" or "Big bang theory" or "evolutional irrational flux" theory. If you pick the laws of Logic without caring about proper metaphysical justification for the possibility of Logic, than it is purely arbitrary. You can do it, it is "allowed" in a pragmatical sense, but then you accept your own arbitrariness and cannot claim to know any better than believers, and you are in addition forced to admit that we at least have a coherent worldview that gives account for all those transcendentals we presuppose every day in our life. Chaos cannot give any basis to Logic, nor Mathematics, nor Ethics, nor any of the principles we all accept in daily life to be true, like identity of the self, existence of the past, laws of matter, numbers and so forth. If to you being arbitrary and inconsistent is "more sound" or "as sound as" having a coherent worldview which just fundamentally implies to accept that the transcendent cause necessary to explain the mere possibility of our daily life is per se ungraspable but is indirectly proven by TAG (for a Divine Mind supposes a Personal God), then it's up to you to think that way. I would add that TAG is useful and devastating at a paradigmatic level to show that scientism and assertoric atheism have no better grounding in "reality" than Christianity, but it's not sufficient in itself to have the Orthodox faith. It is merely an apologetic tool, and we should not take it as an "automatic magical converting proof". It does not work that way. Ultimately the "leap of faith" is still needed, and the free choice to trust Christian Revelation and Life in Christ as an authentic means to penetrate into and participate in the Mystery of the Living God.
@@theophan9530
*Than you fail to give justification to your worldview*
The laws are my justification.
@@JMUDoc You cannot give justification for the possibility of the laws to even exist and work in your paradigm, that's what I meant. You cannot justify the laws of Logic by themselves. If you do not believe in an intelligent Creator, I guess you rather believe in a kind of "chaos" theory. But Chaos cannot explain Logic. This is how common atheism is refuted.
Damn this is so solid
Jay's using too many big words for the atheists in the other channels comments.
@Oners82 If he's rambling nonsense Dr. Malpass wouldn't have been able to follow along but he did and got into the discussion instead of dismissing it like the 3rd graders on the other channel did which of whom I'm referring to.
@Oners82 He very much lays out the Syllogism in the dillahunty debate it's in the first 30 minutes. That debate was Matt just playing on pragmatism instead of looking at it through the lense Jay laid out which Matt by the last half hour was getting when he understood what Jay was proposing and they went into the theology from that point. This one with malpass was more discussion about metaphysical categories.
@Oners82 He lays it out very early how, He goes into the foundation of transcendentals and then goes to the laws of reality as we see it and goes into paradigm comparisons for a contrast on that. Matt didn't follow and and danced to avoid meeting the burden of rejoinder for the arguments given. When Jay was trying to get him to question his own foundation it just went into "I don't know" the whole debate. Malpass had to be corrected most of the time because he kept assuming Jay was using Aristotelian/ Platonic or thomist positions and they didn't get to talk about the Essence energy distinction which is essential to knowing what makes the transcendental argument function.
@Oners82 I would say that explaining the differences between the church uses of these concepts are not the standard traditional ones just takes too much time. I think it's more useful to go into the essence energy distinction and then go into how that explains the nature of God
@Oners82 He exactly laid it out in dillahunty debate and dillahunty didnt get it. He just goes "I dont accept the proposition" and it ended up with him ad hocing when asked to justify the metaphysical truths he does use and he wont get into that. You could watch Jay's other videos where he talks about the energy essence distinction for more on that proper nature of God as opposed to Absolute divine simplicity we see so often in Augustinian theology.
Regarding Dr. Malpass's example regarding laws of nature he gave around the 38:00 mark, would he accept the account in (Judges Chapter 6) as a legitimate revealed revelation?
Why would anyone think that the bible is a revelation from god?
@@piage84 Perhaps for the same reason that people believe if you "socially" distance yourself from healthy people and wear a servility badge on your face you will be safe from a virus? There are no clinical double blind peer reviewed studies that I'm aware of that show following Fauci rituals are effective in slowing or stopping the spread of the virus. However some people simply trust his word because in their eyes he is top expert that has there well being in mind and should never be contradicted. It seems that Fauci's acolytes have no care of taking the time to even consider any empirical evidence regarding his claims and juxtaposing them with other doctors in the field that take issue with him. The scriptures on the other hand have been scrutinized thoroughly by believer and non-believers for centuries. We as theists welcome the challenge. A good case can be made that the Bible is historically, archeologically and prophetically more accurate than any other writings extant. For me and other theists we trust that only someone supernatural could have a hand in producing and preserving such a book. One example of this would be the fact that 48 prophecies are given about Jesus Christ from 400 to 2000 years before He was born and they were all fulfilled 100%. One calculation has estimated that to be 1x10 to the 157th power! Essentially what I'm saying is if people trust the source of the information they will therefore trust the conclusions of information.
@@LBBspock prophecies, right! So basically few books (the old testament) contained prophecies for the advent of the Messiah. I don't know the prophecies but, say that one book of the old testament said that the messiah had to be born in Nazareth on the 25 of December (whatever calendar they were using at the time) and that at age of 10 the boy would go to the temple and perform a miracle (I made this up, just an example). Now, the people who wrote the gospels had access to this old testament book. So, how hard was it for them to just write down that Jesus was born on the 25th of December in Nazareth and at age 10 he went to the temple and performed a miracle? The old testaments contains 48 prophecies, you said. You know I can know write a book about a fictional character (or a real character) and make his life correspond to all the 48 prophecies as well? It's not hard at all if I know the prophecies. I can also make my character fulfill the Muslim prophecies, the hindu prophecies (don't know if in the traditions they have prophecies), I can make him/her fulfil all the prophecies in existence. My character will be the Uber Messiah. You can then calculate the probability and it'll be even smaller than your jesus! Amazing! I can create a Messiah! Exactly like the authors of the gospel created their Messiah. Amazing! Reading a prophecy and writing that your favourite person fulfil it!
To quote your fellow Christian Ken Ham, Were you there when Jesus fulfilled the 48 prophecies? Or you just take it for granted by reading the gospels? Cause if you know about the life of Jesus only via the gospel... mmm.. i think you don't much ground to claim that Jesus really did all of that!
Sorry... your epistemology is a bit meh! Try to think more about your beliefs
@@LBBspock Please give one Jesus prophecy from the Old Testament whose confirmation we can confirm OUTSIDE of the New Testament.
You start interrupting when you start getting challenged. Not a good look.
The two most coherent things that happened were: You were asked for a syllogism and you rambled on about nonsense for 10 minutes. You were asked to sell your worldview to him and you rambled on about Plato for 10 minutes. Finally, the first audience question was asking for a syllogism and this is literally what you said:
P1 All worldviews have fundamental assumptions re epistemology, ethics, etc
P2 When we examine them we encounter assumptions (self, meaning, ontology...)
C The way to justify the coherence of those things is to presume a god
This video was a nothing burger. Kudos to Malpass for not laughing when you provided whatever that was that you thought was a syllogism.
@@internautaoriginal9951 No, it didn't go over his head. His perception is spot-on. You though, sound like a foolish presupper who is brainwashed and one of the vast majority who will create more atheists than convert non-believers due to your faulty, illogical, polemic.
@@kennethwalker9354Amen’
Speak for 10 minutes raising multiple points, ask Alex what he thinks, interrupt him before he can answer, speak for another 10 minutes. Fuking tragic.
I've subscribed to your channel keep up the good fight..
Godbless!
Can god make A not equal to A? If not, (if god cannot violate the law of identity) then god is also subject to the logical absolutes. How can god be the Ultimate foundation of an absolute of which he himself is also subject to? You would be better off defining god as the logical absolutes.
Why would God make A not equal to A?
@@larryjake7783 the question is can he not why would he
To play devils advocate, a theist might respond "the laws of logic are properties of God's mind". Basically, they DO just define God as the absolutes. Seems circular to me, but Dyer fans will just deny that.
@@wj2036Yes, these are essential properties of his being. I dont see the controversy in that.
@@treytaylor1511 it's just a claim. That's all presups do is make claims with no proof
Malpass was just outclassed. He was no where near the level of Dyer.
FeedThemCake
The TAG is not a reductio argument, it's an internal critique of ones epistemology, the basis for coming to a belief in anything. Statements of fact stand in causal relations, since an infinite regress is impossible, then what is the ultimate foundation from which one can make statements of fact?
How do you know anything?We don't argue to God, we argue from God.
Shawn H
How do you know anything?
@@FeedThemCake
You are kidding right? How do all other worldviews ACCOUNT for " external reality, laws of logic, concept-realiy correspondence, causality etc."
@@FeedThemCake
I will try to make it more simple so you can understand. When asked how does one "account for the laws of logic" what is meant is WHERE do the laws of logic come from.
@@FeedThemCake
OK fine , then please show in what way the opponent accounts for the laws of logic.
The Dr. can’t keep up with Jay, it’s like watching slow motion video.
Consciousness exists in it's own space time continuum when we dream. Perhaps the same applies after death in the afterlife.
@ 38:30 I think there is another crucial problem for induction in Christianity. It seems to me that any Christian world view would assume that God can and does miraculously intervene in the world, sometimes breaking or ignoring the laws of physics. Because of this, there would be no way to know if in any given situation it is regularity of nature or God intervening. Not knowing when or how God so intervene means induction is always undermined to some degree, so even if you had an answer to the classical problem of induction you now have another that to me seems unanswerable.
"there would be no way to know if in any given situation it is regularity of nature or God intervening."
-- If God were completely unknown and unpredictable, I'd find the problem you raise a powerful one. But within Christian world views, God has a particular character, and there are somethings he would do and some things he wouldn't do. It might not be compatible with his character, that something chalked up to a regularity of nature might actually be God intervening.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I understand that you could reasonably infer sometimes, saying you do have an accurate understanding of when God would and wouldn't intervene. The problem is you would have to have this understanding for every instance. Also I'm skeptical that anyone could have a detailed enough understanding of what situations God would and would not be intervening.
Really the whole reason I bring this up is because ofnthe claim that without God you can't know that nature is regular. I think Christianity brings it's own set of problems in regards to the same question. At least with out God we have no reason/evidence to conclude that nature isn't uniform, but with God you have a serious consideration that it may not be in a given situation.
It is an interesting point you bring up and I'll try to look in to it some. If you have anything specific like scripture you want to bring up for me to look at I'd appreciate it.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke sorry a shorter way of getting my point across is that you would need some solid methodology to differentiate when it is uniformity and when it is God, and I'm not aware of one. I hope that makes more sense
@@eugenecoleman8525 :) I have no scripture to provide, and I agree with you that a methodology which can differentiate the two would be needed. And, that a methodology based on God's character that would work in every instance is an impractically tall order.
I just thought you were stating it too strongly when you said _any_ given situation could be God or regularities to the Christian :)
It's more of a 'some situations' thing than an 'all situations' thing.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke fair enough, and it was probably a bit hyperbolic for me to say. I would love to hear arguments about this from presuppositionalists. I've never heard it addressed even though they bring up this issue of not being able to justify the regularity of nature for theists. I appreciate your input on it.
Jay, you would do well to become more succinct. Less rambling book reports and less talking about what you're *not* saying, and focus on actually answer the questions and presenting your argument in a clear matter.
Your argument, as convoluted and unclearly stated as it is, seems to be a mixture of Matt Slick's "your worldview can't explain the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature etc, so therefore my worldview is correct" and "my worldview is more internally consistent and explains all of the things you can't explain, therefore it's (likely) true". The former is obviously a false dichotomy, as Malpass has pointed out to Slick, and the latter is a non-argument since internal consisyency deals with valisity and not soundness. If I posit universe-explaining pixies, they would also explain the universe. But only if they *actually existed*.
@@FeedThemCake "The denial of the law of non-contradiction precludes the possibility of intelligible, meaningful language."
--- I think I can offer an alternative rebuttal to that, I think I heard Alex Malpass say this. All that's needed for the law of non-contradiction to be false is a single contradiction to exist somewhere. It could be far off in the universe, perhaps long long ago, and have no impact on anything on Earth.
From this, we can see that the law of non-contradiction might be false, and yet our experiences still identical to if it were true.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke grasping at straws
@@milkshakeplease4696 If suggesting maybe there's an exception to the law _that is beyond our Earthly experiences_ is grasping at straws, how about this for a disproof of God?
The law of all minds being biological.
Theists all over the world, suggest an exception that is beyond our experiences (God), so this law is not something we can prove merely by noticing no ghosts walking around. Are they grasping at straws?
The absence of obvious counter-examples doth not a metaphyical law make. That's 'all swans are white because we've only seen white ones.'
The falsehood of a proposed law, does not mean counterexamples would be everyday things.
It reduces to "I have AN answer, and you don't".
Yes... so what?
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke You can't use an axiomatic system to disprove the system. Argumentation itself is based upon the non-contradiction principle. As such, it's asinine to say "but maybe somewhere in the universe it's not like that," as you'd have to appeal to argumentation's principle of identity, which you are simultaneously trying to deny.
GREEEEEEEN SCREEEEEEEN SNEEEEEEEED
What is Jay drinking?
Science does not presuppose we build the computer your using because reality works a certain way . It could be born in a world were every experiment turned out different we weren't though. There no presupps we test get the answer the fruit is technology what is the equivalent fruit for God like how science has fruit of technology
1.) No scientist approaches an observation with a neutral mind. Everyone has a worldview and presups that factor in their daily lives. 2.) Doing science presups a.) the truth/reality. b.) regularity (induction). c.) laws of logic/scientific method
Everything we do in life is done with some degree of presuppositions. For example it is a presup that it is GOOD to develop new technologies.
How would a computer be born?
@2:24 that "im an intellectual guise" signal was so cringe it hurt me.
A human being has to be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality each proposition idea or thought.
How do you dnthis with God.?
All the babbling could been avoided by asking this one question and accepting no answer but to this 9je single question by the theist. Why nobody ever does this behind me .
True or false every human being has true and false thoughts ideas .
How you tell the differencewith the God proposition?
What you fail to understand is that this is a worldview critique. Saying "your worldview doesn't allow X" isn't a valid counterexample if your worldview doesn't allow X either. You would have to say "my worldview allows differentiation between reality and fantasy in such-and-such way, whereas yours doesn't."
There is information and chaos
P1 If the laws of logic are founded by god, then god could exist absent logic.
P2 God could not be god absent the law of identity.
C God is not the foundation for logic.
God transcends rationality, you cannot know God by His essence so you trying to even argue about the existence of the essence of God is pointless.
If you know transcendal argumentation its about explaining the rational by the suprarational. And if you don't presuppose the suprarational you cannot have the rational (epistemology, etc.)
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 two points to that. First of all to say that god transcends rationality is the same as saying that the rules of rationality do not apply to god. This means that you can play it dueces wild, anything goes in any manner you wish. You can literally invent any old crap when you don’t have to abide by logic.... it also makes you guilty of special pleading.
Second point is this: if god is identical to himself then he is abiding by the law of identity and is therefore not the foundation. If he is not identical to himself then god isn’t god. You’re ability to reason and think breaks down when you talk about your god. The presuppositional apologists, ironically, destroy their own ability to use logic because they have to deny that the laws are absolute.
@@thedevilhimself8521 The laws are absolute to us as apart of the curated order but to assert that he who instilled the laws must abide by them is something you need to demonstrate, it's already a given that the nature of God transcends identity and being
@@shiningdiamond5046 to suggest the existence something which transcends the laws of logic is incoherent because existence requires identity... Also, suggesting the existence of such a god destroys your ability to have any coherent thoughts about him because the laws of logic wouldn’t apply to such a god.
And you’re still faced with the devil’s dilemma: Is god identical to himself? (in which case he is abiding by the law of identity)... or is god NOT identical to himself? (in which case god isn’t god).
I don't think there are different "levels" in epistemology. Claiming that things operate in a different way at the meta level is merely special pleading. 59:22
I've never heard someone say so much but explain so little. I'm talking about you Jay.
Can you prove why?
@@ailurophile4341
As far as I see it, a proposition is either "true" because it comports to reality or it is not. I don't see how something can partly comport to reality or be at a different "level", whatever that's supposed to mean.
@@jtvegdifferent level means level of meta logic
Normative logic:
A = B.
If there is B then there is A. If there is A then there is B.
Meta logic:
Why we have A in a first place? How do we account for its existence? What is our pressuposition for such thing?
Jay dyer all mixed up jumbled up. Science wouldn't work at all if there was no regularity in nature. So we have a logical justification .
You’re not justifying the laws of logic required for science. Regularity in nature cannot justify laws of logic.
@@MadebyJimbob I'm not sure he was trying to justify the laws of logic, I think rather it was belief in regularity in nature?
To me that sounds more like the long-term applicability of good models of laws of physics to predicting physical stuff.
No, science wouldn't work at all without God. Without God, you're stuck with materialism, and materialism cannot account for metaphysical concepts. Metaphysical concepts exist and govern our experience and our ability to interact with the universe, so materialism fails. So now we just have to deduce which God accounts for all of our experiences, both physical and immaterial, coherently, philosophically and logically.
You are taking the wrong Christianity as an example. ORTHODOXY is the true Christianity and the truth. Just debate Jay Dyer and make him end your whole nonsense carreer instantly please ?
Wow, Alex was patient
@宏洋高嶋 Difference is Alex knows what he’s talking about. Jay might have some good ideas somewhere in there but he’s trying to express them using language and concepts he doesn’t understand or know how to use. “Other people’s words”
@@wireless849 irony
Boop
beep
Bop
Lots of words lots of fallacies.
Jay or Malpass?
Timestamp them boomer
Wowwwwww, How does God justify his beliefs?
I feel so dumb.
God doesn't have beliefs as he knows everything
@@Tommy-wq4ow What kind of knowledge do you think God has? :)
I realized there it cannot be JTB knowledge, as in that model knowledge counts as a type of belief.
(Also, theres J for justification as part of that, so 4l r3m's question would remain. So interesting!)
@@Tommy-wq4owKnowledge is a type of belief.
How do we justify science lol?
The computer your using right now wouldn't be able to do exist if science was false.
Yourgod on the other hand has no equivalent to the fruit science has.
Very debatable.
Science is about the particular. The question Jay is asking is more along the lines of how do we justify the scientific method using the scientific method. The point is different things are discovered in different ways.
As far as God, if he created everything, would you consider your life without fruit?
What even is a computer? Bunch of atoms? It has structured randomly, otherwise you would believe in free will which would require the immaterial to be true.
Strawman. No one here is arguing that "science is false". The argument is that the very ability to "do science" presupposes concepts that materialism and empiricism cannot account for.
You can denyhe laws of logic while using them what's the problem with that?
The laws of logic apply 4egarding my thoughts but not the scale of reality which is quantum mechanics where they don't.
This what's wrong with thousands years old philosophy is garbage they knewless than 12 years old do today .
So your entire argument is just a big argument from incredulity...
Keep it simple. If God "exists" (your word) then he's made out of the same stuff that we are. If he's not made out of the same stuff as us, then he's no-thing (nothing) because so far as we know there is only one existence. Thus God is reduced to a Jewish fairy tale.
@@jackodell8497 Exactly, just like you can't touch thoughts, concepts, or fairy tales.
@@kieran296 Unless I'm mistaken, the god of the Christian Bible is based on the ancient Hebrew or Jewish god of the Old Testament which was probably derived from older Babylonian gods. What's embarrassing is how people obfuscate this question with complicated formulas and vague abstractions.
Sir, I don't see why God's existence means that we're made of the same substance. Do you know about divine simplicity?
@@adammiller2395 No, I'm not familiar with that.
@gopher Yup. They project their presuppositions upon the argument, then use these presuppositions *as* the standard to judge all matters of life and truth. They conflate these assumptions *as* truth. In which case, when the *actual* truth is presented----to them, (in the contrast) truth is seen as a blatant falsehood and is hereby rejected.