← Jay'sAnalysis
Jay'sAnalysis
HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Gnostic Informant on The Crucible: Neoplatonism Vs Orthodoxy
02:33:30
A fun, energetic exchange with GI on the Crucible on a wide range of topics. Be sure and follow Crucible here: Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks:...
Loading summary
Transcript811 lines
- [00:03]
Jay Dyer
Close your eyes.
- [00:04]
Andrew Wilson
Visualize your appliances and home systems.
- [00:07]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Protected, covered.
- [00:08]
Jay Dyer
Repairs and replacements taken care of.
- [00:11]
Andrew Wilson
Washers, dryers, AC units. Now say it with me.
- [00:17]
Jay Dyer
American Home Shield warranty.
- [00:20]
Andrew Wilson
American Home shield. Don't worry.
- [00:21]
Jay Dyer
Be warranty for 20% off our plans.
- [00:24]
Andrew Wilson
Visit ahs.com listen see ahs.com contracts for.
- [00:27]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Coverage details including limit amounts, fees, limitations and exclusions.
- [00:30]
Jay Dyer
Sam. It's Sam.
- [02:14]
Andrew Wilson
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to the Crucible. I'm your host, Andrew Wilson. It's been a long time since we've hosted a debate on this channel. Remember, we cut our teeth doing that years ago. It's a lot of fun for me to do. I still do it by special request here and there. If somebody asks and I have the time, I have this world's dumbest. Look at how stupid this coffee cup is. It's way too small. Wait, it's like one of those. You can only get one finger through it. It's just a stupid coffee cup. Anyway, tonight, head to head, we have Gnostic Informant up against Jay Dyer. Rules for the debate are as follows. There's going to be 10 minute opening statements for each for the first hour. And then it's going to be followed by 10 minute rebuttals, followed by 10 minute closings. And then we're going to get into an hour of open debate followed by super chats and callers. It's going to be a banger. You guys know you want to see it. It's going to be a banger. And said for those of you who are new here, of which there are many, I just want to point out that we always had the coolest music for the debates. And so we'll give you one of the throwbacks this evening before we bring our debaters on.
- [05:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You hear that?
- [05:02]
Andrew Wilson
Hard cut off. Nobody liked the hard cut off. Everybody was always upset that the guitar just like had that really hard. I don't know, people are always bitching about something. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. The Crucible is fine evening. Welcome to, well, perhaps the debate of the month. Jay Dyer, welcome back. Nice to see you. Take a brief moment, introduce yourself to everybody. Tell them a little bit about yourself.
- [05:27]
Jay Dyer
Thank you. Yeah. Jay Dyer of Jay's Analysis.com also host of the 4th Hour of the Alex Jones show most Fridays and been on the Crucible for several debates back in the past. Glad to be back. Glad to be sitting here with Gnostic Informant. And you can find me on Twitter and you can find me on YouTube under my name.
- [05:46]
Andrew Wilson
All right. I appreciate that before we get over to you, Neil, I just want to let the atheists who are supporters of yours in the audience know. I just want to let you guys know. You may think that because I'm an orthodox Christian, I'm going to treat you like. And you would be correct. But you can remedy that by sending in tons and tons of super chats. In order to support Neil this evening, I will give him fair moderation. Go ahead, Neil, tell everybody a little bit about yourself where they can find you as well.
- [06:12]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, my name is Neil Gnostic Informant. I have a YouTube channel with about 230000 subs. We get into topics like ancient history, ancient mythology, early Christianity, Gnosticism, especially different, different sects of Christianity. The heretics, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, that type of stuff. Justin Martyr, Marcion, Valentinus. If you're into that type of stuff, come to my channel. I'm also on X, but I just kind of talk there. So if you like talking, you can follow me there too.
- [06:42]
Andrew Wilson
That's funny because that's what I do on X. Yeah, yeah. It's my favorite things to post on X. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, without any more ado, I'm going to let Jay go ahead with his opening statement. Jay Dyer, you got 10 minutes on the clock. Go ahead. When you're ready.
- [06:57]
Jay Dyer
Yeah. I want to start by saying that the argument here is about the coherency and the worldview that makes the best sense of reality. And between us, we will be arguing two different paradigms that have radically different accounts of the nature of reality. For my argument, I will be arguing from a divine revelation position that I believe sets forth what I would say is an orthodox Christian paradigm, namely that the basic fundamentals of a worldview, my worldview, anybody's worldview, would be metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. And those fundamental categories would point us in the direction of a worldview that makes sense of and gives an account of those things. It just so happens that within the Christian paradigm, specifically the orthodox Christian paradigm, all of those three elements of philosophy or of a worldview make sense with the God that created this world, that providentially guides this world, that gives this world a telos or a purpose, and has also structured this world with a kind of logos or a logi that is a foundational organizing principle. The Greek philosophers talked about the Logos. And if you go back to those Greek philosophers, even all the way back to the pre Socratics, they spoke about this logos as a universal organizing principle. Other philosophers, like Plato, Or Aristotle talked about the logi or the Logos being something that is an explanation or a definition. When we work through these ancient philosophers, we notice that they don't really give much of an explanation other than conflicting amongst themselves as to who or what this actually is. It's fine to say that it's a law, it's a principle, but that doesn't tell us very much. And also it conflicts the Stoic idea conflicts with later Neoplatonic ideas as to what the Logos actually is. The Hebrew wisdom tradition, and I can give many scholars if we need to here, was not primarily drawing from the Greek ideas. Certainly Philo and other Jewish scholars were influenced by Hellenism and they used the terminology of the Logos that was coming out of the Septuagint, other translations of the Old Testament text during the second century. But the idea, according to a Hebrew scholar, or excuse me, a biblical scholar, the Orthodox, excuse me, from the Oxford Guide to the Bible. It notes that the Johannine Logos is strongly parallel to the concept of wisdom and Hellenic Jewish thought. But wisdom was already associated with the attribute of God in Wisdom of Solomon 9, 1, 2. In the Hebrew Bible the word of God is both creative and active. Genesis 1 and Isaiah 55, 10, 11. And in Greek, Logos meant spoken word or pervading principle. Stoic philosophy saw this as the guiding meaning or layer that ordered the universe. However, this meaning is not a direct background for John's Logos that was already drawn out of, as we're saying, the Hebrew wisdom tradition. In Genesis 1 we have God's word there present as an active means by which the world comes to be as we progress throughout the Torah and we're going to probably get to that later, I'm going to stick to the Torah, although there's many examples in the Psalms and the minor prophets and historical books, there's many examples of this voice, this angel, this form, this theophany, having a personality being distinct from Yahweh, but also being Yahweh, also being divine, also having the same characteristics to redeem, to save, etc. The reason this is important, important is that as I understand, he tends to argue my opponent, that the idea of the Trinity, these ideas are cribbed from Greek philosophers. They don't exist in the first three centuries of Christianity. I've heard him claim, well, I'm ready to counter all of those claims and we'll get to those later, but there's about 20 pre nicene References that I have amongst dozens more ready to go to prove the known fact. The early church Fathers, the first, second and third century were consistent not just with the New Testament passages about the deed of Christ and the Trinity. For example, in the Gospel of John, every chapter refers to either the deed of Christ or to the triad. And some passages have both in that chapter. And that's in continent, in continuity with the Old Testament, where you have all of these Old Testament passages, again, not just in the Torah, but we're going to focus on the Torah when we get to that in some of the rebuttals. The point there is that the Bible teaches this God, this theology, Old and New Testament. It's not cribbed from the Greeks, even though they're similar terminology. The terminology of Logos is really dependent upon the system and the person using it. So for example, Logos used by her, by Marcus Aurelius as it comes up in his Meditations, is all over the place and what it means. It's a universal guiding principle. It's something innate within him. It's all reality. It's a pantheistic conception. It's the embodiment of the Roman Empire itself. So it's so elastic as to be almost everything and nothing. And that's really nothing in common with what John is doing in John 1 when he argues that the Logos is actually the parallel to the voice of Genesis 1. John 1 is a parallel to Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is a creation of the world and created light. John 1 is a parallel that that plays on that with uncreated light and the person of the Logos identified as the second person of the Godhead. But I want to go back to philosophy for a second because what's really at root between he and I will be conflicting and competing worldviews. What I laid out is the revelational position of my theology in general and some of the sources and texts. I understand that he doesn't believe these texts and many of the audience don't believe the text. And when we have competing ideas about the text, that means we have to go to other areas where we find common authority or common ground. And that would be the realm of debate. Debate functions around principles like logic, the laws of logic. The three basic laws excluded middle non contradiction law of identity. Those basic laws lay out how we would argue and then suss out contradictions between worldviews. If his worldview is unable to give a fundamental account of those three basic areas of philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, then it's going to be undercutting his ability even to debate. So that he showed up shows that he has to recognize the laws of thought, critical thinking, or to not engage in fallacious reasoning. And we're going to be having to pay a lot of attention to make sure that he doesn't engage in and rely on a lot of fallacious argumentation. Now, how do I get from what I'm arguing to my Christian conception? Well, as I said, if the world was created by God and it's the God that I'm arguing for, then it would make sense. Why there's regularity in nature, because God is providential. He providentially guides history. History has meaning. History is not something to flee from, as if we were agnostic or perhaps even a Neoplatonist to try to return to the one, or whatever his view might be. It's not something to go away from. It's actually a good thing. So history, it's reality itself, is fundamentally declared to be good. And it's good because it has this logos, organizing and structuring principle within it. It's not identical to the world. And we're going to see, I think, many fallacies and kill shots with his position of priority monism. And that's compared to a position where we don't have priority monism or any of these weird ideas about metaphysics with no justification. We have justification for the idea of an external world, or the idea of regularity in nature, the idea of objective ethics, because we're made in the image of a good God, a holy God who has a requirement, Allah, the ten Commandments of how we ought to live.
- [14:29]
Andrew Wilson
Two minutes, Jay.
- [14:30]
Jay Dyer
In the position of Neoplatonism or in the position of priority monism, we're going to notice that there's no real basis for good and evil. In fact, we might argue, or we might ask, does evil have ontological existence In a situation where all things are essentially parts of the one? We might ask, why would we prioritize one over many? And we're going to think, we're going to see. I think that when he answers those types of questions, it relies on unjustified assumptions. That's why epistemology has to come into play. We have to figure out what are the justifications for the assertions that we have. And do we have good reasons for our beliefs, not just any old reasons, but good reasons. So I'm going to argue that the Logos, this personal God that we have a relationship with, who's not just a unknown Unitarian, far off Platonic idea or monad, but is a personal God who has a relationship with us that gives us ethics, that gives us Life and meaning and gives us an end goal, a purpose. The universe has intentionality. Even within the Neoplatonic conception or the Monist conception, it's hard to figure out exactly why an immaterial one or an immaterial universal, impersonal force or principle would in any way give us purpose or telos in a grand scheme. In fact, all of reality is sort of an eternal generation, if you follow the Neoplatonist argumentation. Maybe he doesn't. We'll have to see. But regardless, there's going to be many fundamental problems that aren't fundamental problems in a Christian paradigm. His paradigm will be totally different and undercut the possibility not just of his metaphysical speculations, but reality itself and knowing reality itself. Again, having a justified, true belief about reality that you can make sense of without relying upon. This is what I feel, bro. This is the easiest answer. It's parsimonious. All of those things are unjustified reasons and assumptions as to why his worldview should be true, when really what's at stake here is which worldview can give an account for the preconditions and the possibilities of knowledge, ethics and metaphysics.
- [16:32]
Andrew Wilson
All right, and that's time. Right on time. In fact. Just want to point out over 5, 000 on YouTube 7000 between all platforms apprec. All of you guys coming in this evening to watch this debate. Gnostic informant, you have 10 minutes on the clock. Go ahead, when you're ready.
- [16:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So I, I guess I heard some arguments there of why his worldview is coherent and accounts for these things. He said the Logos is personal. There's a few things in there, but mostly what I heard was my opponent needs to do this, needs to do this, needs to do this, needs to do this. Worrying about what I'm going to say when that should be. For the next round, you should be giving an argument for your world view, which I'll be doing right now. My world view, which I. I call Apolloist monism, it's metaphysically priority monism. And I'll explain why I call it Apolloist monism in a second. It is basically priority monism as described by the Neoplatonist philosophers. So it's. It's starting off with a. It's called the hierarchical hypostasis. The. The one. The good is the. The. The. The arcade. The beginning. It's all perfect, all knowing, all powerful. And the one emanates from this, the noose, which is represented in different ways by different philosophers. I use Apollo because Apollo is. Is a. Is form, intellect, logos, reason, perfection, the Sun. We can, we, we could, we can use the sun as an example of the brightest, brightest light that we can see in our, in our presence world right now. It also gives off the most radiation, heat in life and life sustaining. Doesn't mean, I believe the sun is the monad. It's a representation, it's a model that we can use to sort of explain the metaphysics. And then there's, and then also there's a triad at play because the, the next emanation, which is the, the first emanation, which is the noose, is the brightest emanation. It's almost identical to the One itself. It's the closest thing you're going to get from perfection. The third emanation is Psyche or soul. And this is the mediator between all the, all the numbers that come after all the plurality that comes after the mediator between the physical and sensible emotions and feelings. I, I use Dionysus as a way to describe the whirling of the cosmos. And from this triad, and from this triad, emanations go all the way down to the physical world of matter. And the farther away you get from the One, the, the less good there is. Evil persists in this realm. Humans are at the top of the lowest realm, but our main objective is to climb the ladder to get back to the good. So I'm just, I'm just giving basic, that's just a basic under understanding of. You can ask me whatever you want if you want to go deeper into it. But it accounts for all things because it accounts for the reason, laws of logic, it accounts for particulars, it accounts for universals, all the things that you ask for. Now it accounts for one of many too, because the emanations allow for the plurality to be distinct, but also have the essence of the One. So even down to the lowest form of life, there's a little bit of essence of the One within. It doesn't mean that you and I are the same, that I'm literally your ear or I'm literally your finger. We are distinct, but we all come from the emanations of the One. That's what Saul's the one of the many. It's a metaphysical argument, just like you would say the Trinity is what accounts for that. Now I think your worldview is incoherent. My worldview isn't because my worldview doesn't have contradictions. My worldview allows for things like empiricism. And modern Platonists today actually accept evolution and we accept the age of the earth because of empiricism. You can even go back and read Aristotle, who is not an evolutionist. But you can see he got close because of his empiricist mindset, because of his discovery of the laws of logic. He got very close. And I actually have a passage from Aristotle that I had got ready from, from low, where he says nature is. From history of animals. He says, nature proceeds from the inanimate to the. Oh, I gotta sign back in. It signed me up.
- [21:12]
Andrew Wilson
Damn, that's an F minus, Neil.
- [21:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, that's crazy.
- [21:16]
Andrew Wilson
That's minus Neil.
- [21:17]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I got signed out of flowing. I got clocked out of lobe. That sucks. I can't find it now. Well, okay, whatever. I don't have to say. I'll just. You guys can look it up. On animals, he says basically he's. What he. What he said. I'll just describe what he says. I'll just paraphrase it. He says that when you look at animals, you can almost see types going into other types. There's almost like a blend of different types of animals. Like there's different types of horses and different types of fish and there's like a gradient line. And he, he gets close to almost understanding that there's an evolution going on, but he doesn't, he doesn't get that far. And a lot of modern Platonists think that he would have. If he would have been around today and saw the evidence of like when we, when we find fossils, he would have said, oh, there's, there's transitional fossils, things like Adams, by the way. I thought this was the defeater for Platonism and that it's actually not. Werner Heisenberg, Werner Heisenberg, who is the one who discovered the law of uncertainty, he actually argues that when you smash atoms together under the atomist Epicurean view, Democratus view, they should get smaller and break apart. But what happens when you smash atoms together is they actually form mathematical symmetries, which is forms. So it actually, it actually, it actually favors the Platonist view more. So those type of things is why I started to become convinced by this worldview. So I'm just kind of laying this out for a little bit.
- [22:41]
Jay Dyer
But.
- [22:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Another thing I want to, I want to stress is the concept that Plato talks about is apori. So Plato in his dialogues, if you read Plato's dialogues, you know, they don't. They never end on a solution. Socrates is always the best debater, but he doesn't. He never really wins the debate. It's always left off on like they don't really know the. Like we get close to it, but things have to stay open. We need to have that scientific mind that we could be wrong. That's just me completely coming to you. Honestly, I don't have to know all things. I am a not omniscient being. However, with using the, with using empiricism, laws of logic, you know, not, not, not falling, not going against the law of non contradiction, the law of identity, you know, the scientific method, I can know things and we can see that Aristotle discovered the laws of logic thousands of years ago and they still stand up today. So we can know things almost to a certainty. But the dog. The only dogma that a Platonist should hold is virtue. If you're doing things that are, that are breeding virtue, they are good and you should do them. If you are doing things that are not bringing virtue, you shouldn't do them. That's the, that's the main dogma that a Platonist holds. Rather than having faith. So it is a gnosis versus faith paradigm. We are disagreeing on that. But I would argue that the how do we know God? So you might ask that question, how do I know God? Well, through negation. What, what God not is. God doesn't contradict himself. For for example, God. God doesn't tell you in, in. In through his, through his scripture, for example, I have numbers here. He doesn't tell you that he wants to abort babies. And then thousands of years later, one of the main dogmas of the church is like no abortions. So in the Book of Numbers you have Yahweh telling the high priest that if you, if you suspect there's any. This is numbers 5, 11, 31. If you suspect that a woman is being an adulterer that you should make this potion, this water from the dust of the tabernacle and give it to her and then put a curse on her so that the baby and the abdomen will swell and the womb miscarries. Then the woman is to say amen, so be it. So that's a contradiction in your worldview. You have your own God telling your priests to do abortions, but you say you're anti abortion. Here's Some more Premise 1. A Perfect Self sustained being lacks nothing and does not require appeasement. The biblical God commands sacrifices to atone for sins. Requiring sacrifice implies a need for appeasement or satisfaction. Conclusion Therefore, Yahweh is not a perfect all sustained being. Not only that, he requires human sacrifice. In the Book of Judges, Jephthah tells the Lord, he says, if you let me win this battle, the next person you put in front of me, I will put on an altar and sacrifice him to you. What is God? What does God put in front of Jephthah after he wins the battle? His. His prepubescent daughter who's a virgin, and they go on with the sacrifice and do it. It's not like the Abraham story where Abraham's tested at the last second. The angel stops him. Jephthah actually sacrifices a human to Yahweh. This is seen as good. Yom kippur. Leviticus 16 says that you can sacrifice goats and bulls for.
- [26:24]
Jay Dyer
For.
- [26:25]
Neil Gnostic Informant
For sins every year at the time of Yom Kippur. So what happened? Did God change his mind and say, wait a minute, we don't. No more Yom Kippur. We need a human? Actually, I'll send myself a person of myself who's literally God. I'll put him in human form to sacrifice him to myself so I can save all you guys from me. It doesn't make any sense. It's not logically coherent. So a perfect being cannot experience emotional states that implies.
- [26:54]
Andrew Wilson
Gotta wrap it there, Neil.
- [26:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Security. Last one or relative change. Premise 2. The Bible attributes jealousy, repentance, and wrath to Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh is inconsistent with divine perfection.
- [27:09]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, now, gentlemen, I've always given people this option after they get past opening statements. If you want to keep the format, get into rebuttals and then get into closings before we open it up, we can do that, or we can open it up right now, which will give you an extra 45 minutes of open debate. It's up to you guys. What do you want to do there?
- [27:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Keep going back and forth.
- [27:30]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, awesome. Ten minutes then, Jay, for your rebuttal. Go ahead. When you're ready.
- [27:35]
Jay Dyer
Just a second here. Yeah. Okay. So we heard a whole lot of list of ideas. Almost like you just sort of spat out all the things that just popped into his head with little to no actual refutation or argumentation about anything in the Christian paradigm, other than perhaps going to Reddit and finding a few of the classic misunderstandings of anthropomorphic language. The argument that I gave, that he said I gave no argument, was that your worldview is incoherent at a fundamental level such that it makes the possibility of knowledge impossible. You might not like that argument. You might not understand that argument, but that's an argument. That's an internal critique. It's a transcendental argument. He said he's an Apolloist, Apolloist, monist. For him there is a hierarchical one, a monad, and that there's an emanation from this, this noose. The noose then produces psyche. There's these gradations. So there's an ontological diminishment in this worldview. He laid out this wild Neoplatonic story. There's this triad. The things at the bottom are less good from the things at the top, which are the highest good. And it's also more perfect. Now, obviously this is a wild bunch of metaphysics that he claims to want to be in line with modern science and scientific data and information, so forth, and maybe there is some reconciliation there. But if you want to appeal to modernity 99.9 of modern academics, scientists and all the people that he wants to perhaps appease or be in good cahoots with would laugh at this worldview and would not believe anything remotely close to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism died out in the Middle Ages, in fact, and never really made a resurgence. Now has nothing to do with what is true or false. But it's just funny to me that there's this desire to want to be rational and academic and scientific when Neoplatonism is anything but. It's one of the most speculative metaphysical disciplines in the history of Western philosophy. Now he says that the perfection is up at the top with the One, and there's gradations down to the triad and then everything else that comes from the triad. How do we know this? On what basis are we supposed to believe from his worldview, from his paradigm, that there are good reasons to believe in this impersonal monadic generation that's going on? Why would the One, if it's perfect, split into many, which is less perfect? His own argumentation about perfection and Yahweh would apply to his own monad. That the monad wasn't able it. It wasn't able to keep it from being many, which then leads to gradations. Think about how silly it is to say that Yahweh doesn't make sense because he did this and this and this in the Old Testament. And that doesn't make sense to me. But then you turn around and say that an impersonal force or one that's operon beyond no ability in existence and any predication at all just split into two, and then that just split into three. It's just arbitrary assertions from the domain of metaphysics that anyone with an empiricist worldview would laugh at. Neil doesn't know the difference between empirical sense data and empiricism as a school. So that was a huge blunder when he made the conflation between these two things. The gradations of perfections would be laughed at by any modern philosopher, for one, because after the Middle Ages, philosophies and metaphysics of perfection get questioned. They're not and they're not believed because there's a Copernican shift in philosophy after human Kant. Why? What does that mean? It means that instead of having metaphysical assumptions and assertions that you make, the question then became, well, how do we know that those assertions and metaphysical things are actually the case? For example, Hume begins to raise questions about the regulator of nature. He has. He raises questions about knowing the external world. Wouldn't you need to know those things before you tell me about ultimate reality and metaphysical gradations and levels beyond reality? Now, in the Christian paradigm, of course, we believe that there are these other realities, but that's because we have a divine being that's outside of time and space that gives us access to that reality. I realize that you don't believe that, but I'm saying we're in a much better position to say how we would think that that's the case given the fact that we believe in divine revelation. If God exists, he could give revelation about himself in these higher realities or whatever to created beings. But in Neil's paradigm, the One is an impersonal monad. It doesn't do anything with intentionality. So notice there's no purpose actually to our lower bodily reality. Even when he says our goal is to get back to the One. How do we know that? Why, the One is an impersonal apparone, a beyond being, a being beyond being, and beyond that being. That's what the operon or the negated existence of the One actually is. So Neil has a position which is purely feedistic and based on faith. He thought that he would come with rationality and reasoning, but his position is completely irrational. In fact, he doesn't even know the difference between empiricism as a school and empirical sense data. Christians do not reject empirical sense data. In fact, we believe that God created us as beings with minds and with senses to learn things about the natural world. We just simply don't accept the empiricist school which says that all knowledge comes from sense data. So again, fundamental conflations. Thus, he made another basic mistake by saying that Aristotle was an empiricist. Certainly Aristotle was more empirical in his methodology than Plato. But he was not an empiricist, as we think of the post enlightenment philosophers like David Hume or anybody from the positivist schools of philosophy. So he says that we can know these things and we can know, for example, that there's only one dogma of a Platonist, and that is virtue. How do we know that that's the one dogma? He began his whole argumentation from the most outlandish speculations about the Monad and the news and the psyche. But then he says, but really the only thing we can know from Platonism is the virtue is to be virtue to be virtuous. How do we know what virtue is if everything is a manifestation of the One? I understand that as a priority monist. He recognizes the reality of particulars and distinctions. But the problem isn't about recognizing distinctions. The problem is what's the difference between good and evil? If all reality is fundamentally one thing, monism and a manifestation of the one, even if there's gradations, then what is moral evil? In other words, even if Yahweh were guilty of the things that Neil says, well, in Neil's paradigm, everything is just a manifestation of the one anyway. Jeff Z. McEffrey doing all the stuff on his island, that's just a manifestation of the 1. It might be a lower manifestation, but it's not an objective evil that one must oppose. Because there is no objective standard of good and evil in Neil's paradigm. That's again another kill shot, which again Christianity, even if you don't like it, at least it makes sense. And as a coherent basis to why there would be good and evil. There's a good God. Evil is a negation, a privation and a moral infraction against that God's commands. So the bad parts of the Bible don't even have any sensibility in his worldview, given that there is no bad for him. The bad is just non being. That's the classical chain of being model that we're talking about. But that's not really bad in a moral sense. It just lacks being. Now for the church fathers, we agree in some places that there is a sense in which evil is a negation. We don't think it has ontological existence, but we have a basis for moral evils because of a moral character that God has and tells us not to do these, and that these certain things. And thus we were also imprinted, being made as image with a moral sense of good and evil. That is, the law of God is written on our hearts in the Christian paradigm. Now, the passage that he talked about, none of those teach the necessity of human sacrifice. If you read James Jordan's book, James Jordan's famous commentary on the Book of Judges, very prominent biblical commentator, he makes a very good argument that when God tells Jephthah to give up his daughter, this is in the tradition of the Jews, just like with Samuel, of committing your firstborn child to go serve at the temple. And this is a known Jewish practice, just like why we believe that Mary was committed to, as a young person, serve at the temple. You had that ability in Judaism to give up your, your, your firstborn or your daughter even as well to go serve at the temple. And the reason that mattered for the kings at that time was that meant they might not have a male heir through that daughter. So it's not just human sacrifice. Because remember already we've been told in the law of Moses to not have human sacrifice. The point of the story with Abraham is that God will provide the sacrifice, not that we. That he accepts human sacrifice. In fact, Neal, and misunderstood the anthropomorphic language throughout the Old Testament and Jews, Christians, Muslims, almost everybody understands that there's anthropomorphic language that's used to give us an idea of what God is like. Doesn't mean that God literally has jealousy, right? He doesn't learn new facts because he's omniscient. But we have words that are used to help us understand this deity. And we actually believe in the theology of negation as well. We think that God's essence is unknowable. We negate what God's essence is. But God's positive cataphatic attributes are the energies that come down to us, as St. Basil says. So we believe in a. Both and, and again, for him.
- [37:31]
Andrew Wilson
You gotta wrap it very quickly, Jay.
- [37:33]
Jay Dyer
The world as it exists has no actual purpose and no actual basis to understand moral good and evil.
- [37:39]
Andrew Wilson
Thank you for that rebuttal. Appreciate it very much. Neil, your rebuttal. You have 10 minutes on the clock.
- [37:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's funny how you just admitted that you also have the same doctrine of negation to know God when for the last 10 minutes before that, you're sitting there asking me how can I know things like God when it's all how did. He just had a nonsensical way of just, just speculating, basically. And it's not speculation, it's a metaphysical argument, just like you're putting out there. The only difference is my metaphysical argument doesn't have contradictions like in The Trinity, for example, the law of non contradiction. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both one and many in the same respect at the same time. The Trinity claims that God is 1 and 3. 1 and 3 are numerically contradictory, predicated on the same thing in the same respect. Therefore, the Trinity violates the law of non contradiction, also the law of identity. If A equals C and B equals C, then A equals B. Transivity and identity. The Father equals God. Premise two, Premise three The Son equals God. Conclusion. Therefore the Son. The Father is the Son.
- [38:52]
Andrew Wilson
Not.
- [38:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's it. This. That, that doesn't, that doesn't make any sense. That's a, that's a fallacy. I know, I know you have your answers for that. I love to get into that, have a back and forth about the Trinity. But you also mentioned in your first, first go around the Wisdom of Solomon and it's funny because even orthodox scholars admit that the Wisdom of Solomon is dates to like 150bc. It's a Hellenistic text drawn heavily from Platonist and Pythagorean metaphysics. It's written in Greek, first of all, it's not even written in Hebrew. So I don't know why you think that's some old text that goes back to Solomon. It doesn't. So you need to show me how you even got there when all, even your own scholars will say that it's, yeah, it's definitely Hellenistic. You, you don't even have your churches even have a position on things like the age of the earth because it can't have a position. It can't say we think we agree with the empirical data because then your, your Bible is in contradiction with the empirical data. You can do the math yourself and go do the genealogies and figure out that you can go from Jesus back down to Adam using any of the genealogies and you'll end up in a world that's about 6,000 to 7,000 years old. That is nonsense. And we can do this through predict that. We can, we could test, we could test this out and through empirical data, predictive success. Every time. When we, when we dig rock layers, we always find the extinct fossils on the bottom of the layers. The farther down you go, you never find Homo sapiens at the bottom, you never find dinosaurs at the top. It's always the same layers for the same time periods. Every single time. 99.9. Every single time. We know how old the Earth is. You can't have a global flood that wipes everything out. If you don't even have enough water to cover the Earth. And not only that, how did the animals swim across the Atlantic Ocean around after 2000 BC 2700 BC whenever Noah was. So you have problems that you have to deal with that. I don't have those problems. You also talked about John 1, the Triad or you said that I don't believe that the Trinity exist or the triad didn't exist after the third or fourth century. I never said that. I don't know why I even brought that up. I actually argue the triad is in John 1. I actually agree with you. John 1 is a retelling of Genesis. Logos represents Adam, the new Adam, and in him and which is that life. There's a triad there. Logos, God, Zoe triad. However, it's not the later triad. It's not the Trinitarian Nicene Creed. Triad is what I argue. So NRK enjolgos Kaiho Logos and pros tone the own. And then it says kaitheos and hologos. That, that, that phrase Kai. Kai kaitheos and hologos is the predicate nominative in Greek. It's a well attested grammatically phenomenon that, that's all over the place. And if you, if you, if you switch theos with Logos, it's, it makes it an adjective. So actually theos is not equal to Logos in this, in this verse. I know your church will disagree, but I'm just going off what the basic Greek tells me, that the Logos is divine. It's a, it's a divine being, but it's separate from the Logos. And that's why it says Logos was with God, not was God and the Logos was divine. That word theos and the predicate nominative means it's. It use it being used as an adjective. Just basic Greek. No, it's not basic Greek. It's pretty advanced actually. But that's what the best Greek scholars.
- [42:31]
Jay Dyer
Would agree with me.
- [42:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Logos, you say, like it doesn't have meaning, that it bounces around from person to person. But, but that's because the word Logos is, has multi faceted, multi purposes. The word logos can mean reason, it can mean logic, it can mean word, it could mean letters, it could mean a lot of different things. So people use the word Logos in different ways. But ultimately the, the Logos that we're talking about is the, is the function of the creative reason in the cosmos. It's the noose. It's the, it's the brightest emanation from the one. And you. I, I would argue that Christian theology is borrowing from our worldview with the Logos to. To construct John's Logos with the Logos. And so also you said Neoplatonism died in the Middle Ages. Well, Werner, Werner Heisenberg was in Platonist. Iris Murdoch was a Platonist. Thomas Taylor was a Platonist. That's just. That's modern. That's all the way to the 20th century. 21st century almost. Well, 21st century, they live. There's Platonists today. Actually, I just met someone. I was in Athens, Platonic Academy. So I don't know. I don't know how you just thought that Gemistus Plethon was a. Was debating Orthodox Palamites in. In Constantinople in the 1450s. He was a Platonist. What do you mean they died out in the Middle Ages? That's just. That's just wrong. But actually, actually, I would argue there's a straight line from today to Plato. And the reason you might say, where.
- [43:56]
Jay Dyer
Do they all go?
- [43:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How come they all just like, first of all, they got kicked out by Justinian. But second of all, we don't want massive people. We want elites. We want people who can think with reason.
- [44:05]
Jay Dyer
That's.
- [44:06]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's true. We're not trying to go out and convert people to Platonism. That's what you do. Because. Because it's. That's. That's what. That's what it is. It's a corporation. It's a religion. And so what else was I gonna say? Okay, so how much time I left.
- [44:24]
Andrew Wilson
Right now? It looks like you still have almost two minutes. Okay, so just over two minutes.
- [44:30]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay. You said I don't. I don't account for the. I don't account for things like the one of the many, because the one is just. It's. Everything's just, you know, descending from the one. But I already explained the emanations Solve this. And it's a metaphysical argument that I'm making. The solution to the one and the many preserves real unity and plurality without collapsing. In my monism, the many emanates from the One without being separate from it. So emanation preserves ontological unity while allowing real structured plurality. Therefore, my. The monism that I'm arguing preserves both unity and plurality. Now, the Trinity does. The Trinity. You're just saying it does because you have three heads in one God. But that's still one thing. You're still talking about one thing which has properties. So how can one thing that has properties and needs sacrifices and, and, and, and give Scripture that has contradictions, like, when was Jesus born? I don't know, Luke says 7 AD, Matthew says 4 BC when Herod died. Luke's census happened in 7 AD when Corinneus was governor. So what does you're. This is what we're dealing with all just contradictions and contradictions. But the Trinity does not even account for this. It's one. One being one can't equal three. I'd like to hear you argue how one can be three at the same time when my, my emanations actually solves this.
- [45:59]
Andrew Wilson
All right, we've got about pretty close to 8, 000 live viewers this fine, fine evening. Appreciate that from everybody. We're gonna move into the debaters closings and the hour one section and then we're going to move into open debate. Jay Dyer, you have 10 minutes on the clock for your closing. Go ahead when you're ready.
- [46:20]
Jay Dyer
Right, so again, I think this is kind of funny because half of what I said he didn't even understand first of all, negation in my view. And using negation doesn't mean that I have the same view of you. Right, or as you. So the fact. Yeah, you did. You said that. Well, I have negation too. Yeah, but you don't have the idea of positive energetic presence in this world of the One. You have the emanations that are not the One, but you're supposed. But they supposedly reflect or are in some way perhaps participatory in the 1. How do we know that? And why should we think that? If the One is perfect, then why would we think that something that is not the One and is imperfect somehow reflects or participates in the One? I don't think you even thought about the very classic refutations of Platonism and Neoplatonism that have been around for centuries and millennia. People have been critiquing these positions. What I said was that 99% of today's academics and scientists laugh at Neoplatonism. I cited Bernard Heisenberg about Neoplatonic ideas in my book 10 years ago. I'm well aware of what he said about fundamental reality bearing and showing geometric structure. And I think that's interesting. And I cite Paul Davies book Mind of God all the time, where you have people like Roger Penrose, who's a modern mathematician, those are mathematicians and physicists who speculate and believe in something that makes sense with a Christian paradigm that fundamental reality is ordered and structured, but this reality is way less perfect than the higher reality that you talk about. In fact, again, why ought we think that there's any similarity between the perfect monadic unity Reality and the imperfect multiplicity becoming flux, reality that we live in. It's almost like you're not even aware of the basic critique of Platonism. How does the realm of the forms and the perfect idea up there relate to the imperfect, tainted, destructive chaos realm down here? Because they have oppositional characteristics. Now you can say and assert that they have a similarity and they share in each other, but you don't have an argument for that other than to keep asserting that it is so. You seem to think that laying out the position of Neoplatonism is an argument. You said. Well, it reconciles the one and the many. It does not reconcile the one in the many, because as I just pointed out to you, the one does not have the characteristics of the many because it's perfection at a higher level. If many is imperfect, then it's not like the one. And if you're going to say, well, but it's also kind of like the one, how do we know that's the thing in question? These are classic critiques of Platonism. You say that three and one cannot. There's not a thing that can be three and one at the same time. Really? You ever seen this? This is a basic number. Is this one or is it three? Oh, it's both at the same time. Is it more a single number or more three? It's both. So even objects in this world, as we've argued countless times against the Muslims, can be both one and many at the same time. Furthermore, the way you even laid it out, something cannot be one and many at the same time and in the same way. Well, guess what? The Trinity is not one and many at the same time and in the same way, because the persons are not the same thing as the essence. So it's not the same thing in the same way, even according to our doctrine. So again, I don't think you understand what these arguments actually are about. The logical problem of the Trinity is something that we've also dealt with many times when it comes to Muslims. And the whole argument trades on the word God only having one reference. But Neil seems to be really adept at word concept fallacies by thinking that a word always has a single same referent. In fact, when I brought up the many different uses of Logos throughout the ancient Greek philosophers, my point, and you backed that up, was to say, yes, correct, they all say these different things. And you said, but my position is the right one. How do we know that? What is the justification for choosing the Neoplatonic idea?
- [50:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Or if we're even Even if we're.
- [50:25]
Jay Dyer
Gonna be a Neoplatonist, for example, you have Iamblichus who's a ritual magic Neoplatonist. And then you have Plotinus who's a sit around and speculate and think your way back to the one Neoplatonist. Which one is the real Neoplatonism? Which one is the Neo Platonism? It's the one that you've made up. And that's the thing is that there's no justification for Neil's Platonism, which is a. Oh, his own made up Neoplatonism. Now counting by identity versus counting by division is what the early Church fathers and even many in the ancient world used to distinguish different ways of counting different types of things. So the divine essence, for example, is counted by dividing. That's why the Nicene Creed says one and undivided. That's counting by division. And many ancient Greek philosophers also counted this way. Counting by identity is a different way of counting. And certain types of things that you can't think of as having any partitions, you count by identity. For example, logical sets or laws of logic, right? So for example, the law of non contradiction, there's no half of a law of non contradiction, right? So it's an abstract object that you would c. You have to count by identity. Thus you can't count by division. And throughout the history of the world, people have counted different things in different ways. Even in the Middle Ages they began to recognize in medieval grammar text and mathematical texts how to count different things in different ways. So they had, they had this distinction by first order imposition and second order imposition, even in the Middle Ages when it came to counting. So there's nothing new. But what you're saying with the logical problem of the Trinity is again something that we've elucidated in all the Muslim debates when it comes up many, many times over, is just conflating two different ways of counting. And the funny thing about that is that in the case of Muslims, they also counted in various ways. In the ancient world they counted by division. For example, in Al Ghazali, many ancient Greek philosophers who I'm sure you actually would like, also counted by division and counted other things in other ways by identity. So the, if, if you understand that, that really sort of dissolves the whole issue with counting and the logical problem, the Trinity and also the fact that the word God doesn't have a single referent in divine revelation. God can refer to God himself in terms of divine persons. It conferred to the divine nature it can refer to divine operations or attributes, refer to human, and it can refer to angels and demons. Throughout the text of Scripture. When I said the wisdom of Solomon, I didn't just mean the deuterocanonical text, which again, apparently you're not aware of this, but there's a bunch of other texts called proverbs that are dated to the time loosely, you could say, even if you take the liberal dating of Solomon. So guess what? Proverbs 7, 8, 9, those talk about the wisdom text. So you didn't even know that Hebrew wisdom text is not summed up in the wisdom of Sirak. If you date that to the second century bc. I'm talking about the totality of wisdom texts. Whether it's Siric, whether it's the wisdom of Solomon, or whether it's proverbs. They consistently refer to wisdom as a personified character. As a personified person. For example, Proverbs 7 and 8, at the beginning of the creation, participating in the creation of the world. That's why John1 is using that same terminology. Now, you claim that you. That basic Greek shows you that. That John 1 should be interpreted in your way. Do you actually know Greek? And then you said, the best Greek scholars say this. Okay, I'd be interested to hear some of your Greek scholars and.
- [53:54]
Andrew Wilson
Sure.
- [53:55]
Jay Dyer
What Greek scholars are the best Greek scholars that say this because you gave the impression first, like, you know the Greek. I'm skeptical. Maybe you do. Maybe you are a Greek scholar, but I'm skeptical that you are. Perhaps you are. Then you go, you went on to say that the logos that you're talking about is the logos, that is the noose, and so forth and so on. That's the one. That's the right one. Out of all these ancient texts and they're used, there are many uses, variations of the use of logos. That's the one. Okay, how do we know, Neil? What is the epistemic justification? You said there's all these arguments, but you said the one in the many. Okay, but the one of the many is a problem in your position, because why are there many at all? Why would we think that imperfect things reflect the perfection of the opera and the beyond?
- [54:47]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, that's it.
- [54:50]
Andrew Wilson
Jay, are you yielding your time? You still got a couple minutes left. If you want to. Yeah, if you want to take it, you still have. Looks like almost three minutes.
- [54:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay.
- [54:58]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, I'll keep going.
- [54:59]
Andrew Wilson
Go ahead.
- [54:59]
Jay Dyer
So again, let's go back to what we wanted to stress when it was an issue with the original. I think this were things I didn't get to the original rebuttal. So again, what I think Neil's not understanding is that modern science, modern academia for the most part I said 99.9% are not neoplatonists. It doesn't mean there aren't some outliers, but the majority of academia who are empiricists for the most part. Meaning that we can't really go beyond sense data. You've got two different conflicting situations in your worldview, Neil. On the one hand you want this mystical theology that's gradations of reality from the one, and then you've got this other desire to fit into modern academia and be scientific. Well, modern scientific empiricism or positivism or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do and would totally reject all of your first presentation. Now maybe you've got some way you think you can reconcile it, but I'm just curious, like how are you going to get from empirical sense data? Because you said that's what you want to be, you know, rooted in and grounded in and, and do science. How does science tell you about the monad that's beyond experience? How does science tell you about the noose and psyche underneath that? Where does science or the scientific method tell you that there's gradations of reality from the one and that the one is more perfect? So these are all assertions, metaphysical assertions. And I think you meant Plethon. You mispronounced it. But Pleathon was an atheist Platonist in Byzantium. Yeah, one guy in the Middle Ages. So what? That's again against the point that the majority of people today are not that. And it actually proves my argument by, by you saying that there was this guy in, in byzantium. Plethon. Yeah, one guy in Plaithon. So it died out or one, one guy, Ms. Andrew. So it died out. Now if you read Senecio Glue's book on Pleathon, which came out a couple years ago, I've got it right over here. He argues that the tradition of atheistic Platonism went on into Spinoza and into the Jacobins and other philosophers of the Renaissance. So I want to know again, Neil, we've got to understand. I gotta, gotta hear some kind of reason as to why we ought to believe this mystical Neoplatonism. All I heard was, well, it does this, this, this, and here's problems in the Bible. Okay, fine. What is the good argument to know from empirical data and sense data, which you rely on, that all of These metaphysical things are true.
- [57:37]
Andrew Wilson
All right, we gotta, gotta leave it there. Tried not to, to interrupt the last portion there. Neil, you have 10 minutes on the clock for your closing statement before we open up the floor for an open debate. Go ahead. When you're ready.
- [57:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I didn't actually pronounce his name wrong. It's plaython in Greek. It's plethon and maybe some English anglicized version. I'm just. You did the same thing to me when I talked to you a while ago. When I said D, you said dyad. Duat is a word that people use. It's a Greek word. We even anglicize it as do in philosophy. So I'm surprised someone with a master's in philosophy didn't know that.
- [58:10]
Jay Dyer
You speak Greek.
- [58:12]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I, I, yeah, I do. I don't speak Greek.
- [58:14]
Andrew Wilson
Jay, you can't, you can't interrupt his, his closing. Go ahead, Neil.
- [58:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm a student of Greek, so no more than you do anyways, so. Yeah, well, not to go back to when you pulled, you put up a book with the number three on it and said, is this one and three at the same time? It's one book with the letter with the number three on it. Doesn't mean anything. You didn't, you didn't, you didn't show me anything. You didn't demonstrate that one something could be one and three at the same time. You just pull, you just picked up a book with the number three on it. And that all that is to me is that's a book. That's one book with a number three on it. That was like mind blowing when I saw that. That was hilarious. But yeah, you want to know why? Why should I believe your worldview? Why should I care? Well, first of all, I never said that. I'm trying to get modern science to be grounded in all these. I want everyone to be a Platonist and all believe in my stuff. These are metaphysical arguments. These are metaphysical arguments that account for things just as you're doing. The difference is my worldview allows for things like empiricist empirical data to, to. And we have the predictive success on our side. Where you have are bogged down by dog buzz. That gets you to have to, have to. You have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution is false and you just flat out just deny in your face physical evidence of transitional fossils where I don't have to do that. So I don't care if 99.9% of empiricists are atheists.
- [59:45]
Jay Dyer
Great.
- [59:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't care if they're atheists. It means nothing to me. Doesn't bother me one bit. What we're doing in philosophy and Platonism is totally different thing. We're accounting, we're doing metaphysical arguments and trying to account for the world and ethics and benefit and stuff like that. But we can just negate your worldview off the rip just because of how flawed it is. And we can just go through and say, and I pointed some things out to you, the major contradictions in your biblical corpus, and I didn't, I wasn't talking about anthropomorphic stuff. Like, yeah, okay, maybe you can get away with saying God being jealous is anthropomorphic and he wasn't really jealous, but that's just how it's reflected in the story. But I. But you still have an answer. Why does God need sacrifices? Why does God need to send him his self to, to save the world from himself? That's not an omniscient God. That's not an all powerful guy that needs to do all these things. So a perfect and omniscient being doesn't regret prior actions. Yahweh regrets, regrets making the earth. In Genesis 6 he says, I, Yahweh regretted that I have made the earth. So Yahweh can't be a perfect omniscient being. So I'm already more coherent with you. This debate's over. At that point I'm already. Even if you don't think that my metaphysical arguments or can be proven with, with whatever. I mean, why should I believe in, in your, in your monad. Well, I don't have to believe in yours because you have. You're giving me things that I can just cancel out just because of the fallacies. An all perfect being does not need anything. Can't be jealous, can't not know things, can't lose battles. In, in. In the Book of Judges, I have my notes here. Yahweh goes up against the, the Midianites. And it says that Yahweh was the spirit of Yahweh was with the Judah Heights. But the Judah Heights couldn't defeat the Midianites because they had iron chariots. The Spirit of God was with the Judah Heights. This is what it says. How else do you exegete that? Do I have to be a orthodox priest to exegete that? No, I can use, I can use my own reasoning and say that is not a perfect God. That is a God that is flawed. This is a God that dashes little Children's little children against rocks and is boasting about it in the Psalms. And let's talk about. You meant you brought up, you brought up the ain't the dating of the text. And I, because I was talking about wisdom of Solomon in particular, which is clearly Hellenistic. It's written in Greek. First of all, game over. We don't even have a Hebrew version. It's game. It's a dream. It's a Greek text. And you said I'm talking about the whole corpus of Solomon. Well, let's talk about the whole corpus of Solomon then. None of it. There's no evidence for any of it going back before like 400 at the latest. And I'll. And I could tell you how I know this. When, when, when. When Israel was conquered by the Assyrians in 586 BCE a bunch of thousands of Jews fled down to Elephantine on while all the rest of them went to Babylon in captivity. But they set up a colony called Elephantine and they set up a temple of Yahweh there and they call themselves Judais in Greek, Yehudim in Hebrew, and they wrote Aramaic texts and we have hundreds of them. So we have a perfect time capsule from 586 to 400 is when they left and went back to Jerusalem. That's 186 years. So this is after the First Temple period. Well, guess what you find there? You don't find anything about the Torah. There's not a single mention of Abraham, not a single mention of Moses, not a single mention of Jacob, not a single mention of the 12 tribes, not a single mention of Moses, no Noah, no Adam and Eve. Nothing. No Torah, nothing. They get a letter in the year 410, I think it is from Jerusalem. They get a letter sent to them. We had the letter, we found it, we dug it up and it's telling them for the first time how to do a Passover. It shows we, we were starting this new thing called Passover. This is in 410 BCE this new thing called Passover. And we celebrated on Nissan 14. Well it's every year it's on Nissan 14. That's like me telling you to celebrate Christmas on December 25th. It's all you would, you should already know that. So these are the, the Old Testament that you think goes back to Moses and Solomon. That's nonsense. Prove it. There's not a single piece of evidence for the Exodus anywhere. There's no mention of Moses and any Egyptian sources. Joseph in the Old Testament was the vizier of the entire Egyptian kingdom. The second highest, most powerful person in the entire Egyptian kingdom. Well guess what we have from Egypt even to this day. We have all the records of all the pharaohs and their viziers. None of them mention any Joseph. We don't know. Joseph doesn't exist. He's made up. In fact the name Yosef probably, probably is some sort of derivative from Osiris. Some people, some scholars point out some sort of you. Hammerization of Osiris, how he descends into the underworld, into the dungeon and it rises up and becomes the second most high next to Amen. So there's a lot of things we could see what's going on in the Old Testament text. Like the, like the story of the flood with Noah where he lets off a raven and a dove and the raven and the dove come back seven days later to tell him he's on land. Sure enough we got Sumerian and Akkadian tablets that predate the Bible by a thousand two hundred, two thousand years about the epic of Gilgamesh. And, and there's another, there's another source. I'm thinking of the mind slipping, right the name of it slipping my mind right now. But it has this exact same story where. What's his name? I can't remember his name. He, he's on the, he's on the ark and he lets, he's got all the animals, two of each animal, same story. And he lets off a, a dove and a raven that come back seven days later. But it's not Noah that sucks. It's not Jewish. It's. This is Acadian. This is just borrowing other stories and then personalizing it. And how do we know that I'm just assert that they do this right here. You see those yellow and black text that I'm pointing to? Those are called pseudo Pigrapha. Should read them. They're false writings.
- [66:07]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, I have them. Right?
- [66:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, they're false writings. They're fake text writing in the names of other people. And this is like this. Christians pick up on this pseudo Dionysius, 5th century A.D. he's not a 1st century writer, he's a 5th century writer adopting Neoplatonism. So when I see these things, pseudo text, no evidence, I go. My reasoning tells me this is not the true religion. This is not the true worldview. So I have a more simple worldview that accounts for things and that's why I go with Neoplatonism.
- [66:40]
Andrew Wilson
Gentlemen, gentlemen. We just got a major raid in which I really appreciate. We're at almost 10,000 live between all platforms. Nice. Just about 8,000 live on YouTube at the moment. Appreciate very much for the rage. Yeah, I do pretty well anyway. I appreciate it very much. I don't know who rated me. Maybe Ahmad can let me know so that we can think of water real quick. Yeah, you can grab a water. I'm gonna take a brief intermission for two minutes, guys before we get to the open debate. If you want to grab anything else, you're welcome to bathroom break, whatever it is that you guys want to do. Appreciate the raid. Oh, was it Tim cast. Thank you, Tim cast. Appreciate it. Real quick call to action. Make sure you like, subscribe, share all that good stuff and also send in your super chats. You don't want all that evil money in your wallet anyway. It's uncomfortable. You can send it into me instead. I always think that that's a much better gig. All your super chat's gonna get read. Moving into the third hour of the debate. We're moving into the second now. We're also going to be taking on callers. So mods will be this hour putting in the link so that you can come into the discord to get vetted so that you can call in in the third hour to ask your questions directly to the debaters. With that, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to open the floor up for this debate between Jay Agnostic informant. Gentlemen, I expect you both to adhere to my moderation. There's too much over talking things like this. I'm going to break the debate up a little bit and get it back on track. That's my job as the mod. It's your guys's job to do the debating with that. The floor is open.
- [68:21]
Jay Dyer
Are we going to go like back and forth with any time or just.
- [68:24]
Andrew Wilson
No time on this one? Just open, open floor.
- [68:28]
Jay Dyer
So I'll just start with Neil. I'm not talking about the book. I'm talking about the numeral three. Is the numeral one thing or is it three?
- [68:37]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, it's one number. So it's the number three.
- [68:40]
Jay Dyer
So it's one and three. It's.
- [68:42]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's the number three, but it's one thing.
- [68:44]
Jay Dyer
Yeah. So that's. Is that three things and one thing?
- [68:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's not three things. It's one thing.
- [68:48]
Jay Dyer
The number three is not three.
- [68:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The number three can count. You can count three things using the number three.
- [68:53]
Jay Dyer
This is three and one.
- [68:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's just the number three on a piece of paper. That means nothing.
- [68:58]
Jay Dyer
So it's one and three.
- [68:59]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, it's not. It's one thing.
- [69:01]
Jay Dyer
It's not three.
- [69:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one thing with the number three on it.
- [69:04]
Jay Dyer
We use.
- [69:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
We use three. We use three to count things. We don't just put three on something and it becomes three.
- [69:10]
Jay Dyer
Oh, really?
- [69:11]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [69:11]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so all numbers are only one thing.
- [69:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
This has a bunch of numbers on it. Does that make it the numbers?
- [69:19]
Jay Dyer
Well, again, whether you think it has ontological existence or not is different from the fact that the number three is not just one, it's also three, but.
- [69:27]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It'S one thing that has the number three on it.
- [69:30]
Jay Dyer
That's literally real number three. Signify. Neil.
- [69:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Three.
- [69:33]
Jay Dyer
Thank you.
- [69:34]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But that doesn't make the number. That doesn't make that three things. That's just what the number six.
- [69:39]
Jay Dyer
This is also a signifier, right?
- [69:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but you. I would. If I. If you gave me that 1 and.
- [69:43]
Jay Dyer
3 are signifiers, right?
- [69:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
If you gave me that to signify three, I would say three. What?
- [69:48]
Jay Dyer
Three books matter?
- [69:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes, it does matter. We're trying to be coherent here, right? Coherent.
- [69:53]
Jay Dyer
If it's a signifier, then it also. Then one is also a signifier.
- [69:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So you're just saying one is three.
- [69:58]
Jay Dyer
Great.
- [69:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Gets me nowhere.
- [69:59]
Jay Dyer
No, I'm saying three and one, Neil. Are you fundamentally unable to understand that?
- [70:03]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, I understand what you're trying to say. It doesn't make sense, though.
- [70:05]
Jay Dyer
Okay, then is the number three. This is fundamentally stupid. Is the number one a signifier?
- [70:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes.
- [70:15]
Jay Dyer
Okay, how many is that?
- [70:17]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's one.
- [70:18]
Jay Dyer
Okay, how many is that'? One.
- [70:22]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's a one and a two.
- [70:24]
Jay Dyer
No, this two. Okay, so is this one object itself. The symbol itself.
- [70:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The symbol is two. Thank you. But. But you can't say that this book is now two things. Now, one is also.
- [70:37]
Jay Dyer
One is also a symbol.
- [70:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I know, but the book is still one thing.
- [70:41]
Jay Dyer
Admitted. It's a both and.
- [70:42]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Neil. No, you asked me what the symbol means. That was. You slipped that in there at the end of Fire.
- [70:47]
Jay Dyer
They're both.
- [70:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It didn't work.
- [70:50]
Jay Dyer
One object, that's a signifier of two things.
- [70:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Right, but you're still holding one thing in your hand.
- [70:56]
Jay Dyer
I'm talking about the numbers, Neil.
- [70:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I know the number means two. I get that. But in your hand is still one thing.
- [71:02]
Jay Dyer
This is fundamentally stupid. The number is fundamentally numeral. You're right.
- [71:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It is so fundamentally stupid.
- [71:07]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so this. What is this?
- [71:11]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's the Roman numeral, too.
- [71:13]
Jay Dyer
And what is this? Two. Right. So they both refer to what those.
- [71:18]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Numbers, those symbols mean two.
- [71:20]
Jay Dyer
Right. This one thing as a whole, the number is Two. The number one thing on the page.
- [71:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Right here it is one thing on the page. Yes.
- [71:31]
Jay Dyer
Thank you. So it's one in many.
- [71:34]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You just submitted it, but it's still one thing.
- [71:37]
Jay Dyer
Are you fundamentally stupid? You just.
- [71:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm asking you. You can say one thing is. You can put a number two on my head and say I'm one and many.
- [71:44]
Jay Dyer
Is the point of this that something can be singular and also many at the same time? For example, take an object like a book. Neil, is a book. Does it have many parts?
- [71:54]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes.
- [71:55]
Jay Dyer
Okay. Is it also one book?
- [71:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one book.
- [71:58]
Jay Dyer
Thank you. So it's one and many. So objects can be one of me at the same time. Answering your question, yes, but that.
- [72:03]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But that. Now you have a problem now. But you have one entity with three parts. How do you make it three distinct things?
- [72:10]
Jay Dyer
You argue that something can't be one and many at the same time.
- [72:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I can have different parts. I didn't say that. I said one can have different parts. I didn't say one could be many at the same time. That's why the emanations is a better account for.
- [72:22]
Jay Dyer
For. You say exactly what you said. Something cannot be one and many at the same time.
- [72:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It can have many parts is what I said.
- [72:31]
Jay Dyer
No, you said quote, something cannot be one and many at the same time in the same way. I wrote down the quote.
- [72:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I agree with that. Okay. Never stop. Never stop saying this book.
- [72:40]
Jay Dyer
One thing and many things.
- [72:41]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one thing with many parts. That's different.
- [72:44]
Jay Dyer
One of many.
- [72:45]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one thing with many parts. It's different.
- [72:47]
Jay Dyer
So is it one and many at the same time?
- [72:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one book with many parts. That's how you describe it's one. It's one in many. Yeah, it's one in many parts. Thank you.
- [72:55]
Jay Dyer
That's so you.
- [72:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That was. Anyone watching this with a normal IQ understands what just happened.
- [73:03]
Jay Dyer
Now you're going into ad hominem because.
- [73:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
All right, maybe I'll lay off the ad homs then. Okay. Is there any more questions you got?
- [73:11]
Andrew Wilson
Sure.
- [73:11]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I want to know what the Trinity. I want to know how the Trinity. I mean. I mean, you're saying the training can be one and three at the same time. Fine, we can move past that. I think it's nonsense.
- [73:21]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, but you already admitted the contradiction. So you can think it's nonsense, but you can't.
- [73:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Never admitted the contradiction. I'm talking about parting about parts versus you.
- [73:29]
Jay Dyer
Just contradict yourself like 10 times.
- [73:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh, you think I did? You said the part People to think I did.
- [73:34]
Jay Dyer
Is it one?
- [73:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's one thing with many parts. So it's one of many. So it's one thing with many.
- [73:41]
Jay Dyer
Thank you. So again, you're refusing yourself over and over.
- [73:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You're getting. You're making. You want me to say that, then?
- [73:45]
Jay Dyer
Sure.
- [73:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You want me to. You want me to be incoherent? Because I'm not going to do it.
- [73:51]
Jay Dyer
Do I want you to be incoherent?
- [73:52]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah.
- [73:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
1. Is it one of many? No, it's not one of many. It's one with many parts. Am I. Am I have many things at once? Yeah, yeah. I have many parts. Exactly. I have a hand, I have an eyeball, but I'm. It's all. Neil. I have different cells, so it's one in many.
- [74:07]
Jay Dyer
Thank you.
- [74:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You're just making many parts. Why can't you add parts?
- [74:12]
Jay Dyer
Doesn't matter, Neil. Because it's one.
- [74:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It does.
- [74:14]
Jay Dyer
No, it doesn't.
- [74:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes, it does. Parts that.
- [74:17]
Jay Dyer
It's many. It doesn't matter. Obviously, many would be parts that's contained in the idea of many.
- [74:22]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But that's all I'm agreeing to is that it's one thing still with different.
- [74:26]
Jay Dyer
Ones regardless of part parches contained in the idea of many.
- [74:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but many is the parts. It's not many different things. It's not different things all together.
- [74:34]
Jay Dyer
The parts aren't different things.
- [74:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The parts are different parts.
- [74:38]
Jay Dyer
You said they're not different things.
- [74:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The parts are different parts.
- [74:42]
Jay Dyer
You said they're not different things.
- [74:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, they're not. That's. My hand is still Neil's hand. It's part of me.
- [74:49]
Jay Dyer
Okay, but it's not a different thing from your.
- [74:51]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Not your hand. It's not. It's not Andrew's hand.
- [74:53]
Jay Dyer
Not different things.
- [74:54]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Can it be Neil's? Can it. Can my hand be your different thing from your leg?
- [74:59]
Jay Dyer
Yes. So it is different things, which, again, you're contradicting every different part.
- [75:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I keep saying it's a different part.
- [75:05]
Jay Dyer
So they're not different things.
- [75:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I said it's a different part. You said it 20, 000 times.
- [75:11]
Jay Dyer
Already said that.
- [75:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I said one thing has many parts within it. Everything has many parts.
- [75:17]
Jay Dyer
And then you said they're not different things.
- [75:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, let's do something more basic.
- [75:23]
Jay Dyer
Are they different things or not?
- [75:25]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Is this one thing or many things?
- [75:27]
Jay Dyer
It's both, really.
- [75:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Where is it? What else? What is it? What's so different about it? What else is there?
- [75:34]
Jay Dyer
What? I mean, it has. It has a surface and it has a cap. Oh, okay.
- [75:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So it has different parts. Exactly.
- [75:42]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, but, Neil, you said different parts are not different things.
- [75:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, if you want to describe parts as things, then. Okay, I would have to. I would have to ask you what you mean by things. And you would say it's parts, and I would say yes, it's just regular English right here.
- [75:57]
Jay Dyer
Okay. No.
- [75:58]
Andrew Wilson
All right.
- [75:59]
Jay Dyer
Do you want to ask the next question or do you want me?
- [76:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, I mean, I threw at you a lot of biblical contradictions, and, you know, like the, like, you seem to be very adamant that the world is only 6, 000 years old because the Bible says so. I don't even just. I don't even blame you. You're trying to stay consistent in your worldview. But even the church, your church doesn't have a stance on this or, like, things like evolution.
- [76:18]
Jay Dyer
Why does the church have to have a stance on the age of the earth?
- [76:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I mean, these are. These are fundamental things about our reality where you and I are debating on these things.
- [76:26]
Jay Dyer
Hold on. How do you. So you know the edge of the earth?
- [76:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [76:30]
Jay Dyer
You said it's fundamental, right?
- [76:32]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [76:32]
Jay Dyer
Well, if it's fundamental, it's a dogma. Is it a dogma or dogma?
- [76:37]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But I'm saying, like, if the Bible says The earth is 6,000 years old and we have empirical data that contradicts that, that's a problem for you.
- [76:45]
Jay Dyer
How do you.
- [76:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You just deny empirical data? Is that how this. Is that how this works?
- [76:49]
Jay Dyer
No, I already said at the beginning that we don't deny empirical data.
- [76:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So what do you do when people. What do you do when paleontologists and archaeologists dig deep under the ground and they predict exactly what's going to be down there based on other digs for the last hundred years?
- [77:03]
Jay Dyer
Do you understand that when you look at an object, an object doesn't give you age, it's an interpretation of the object?
- [77:09]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but I mean, I just asked you a specific question on how paleontologists can dig to certain levels on the ground and predictively and Predict to a T 99.9 of the time what's going to be down there based on the other digs around the world.
- [77:23]
Jay Dyer
But there's also times when there's fossils between those layers which contradicts that theory, right?
- [77:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, show me an example.
- [77:30]
Jay Dyer
There have been trees in Iceland. Excuse me, in Antarctica, that extend between the ice layers.
- [77:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh, you have to show me that. I've never heard of that.
- [77:41]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, well, it's a famous case, but.
- [77:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, like I said, 99.9 of the time. I'm sure there's outliers, but that 99.9.
- [77:49]
Jay Dyer
But wait a minute. Why would, wouldn't one outlier mean that perhaps that.
- [77:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, it means there's some. Something happened.
- [77:54]
Jay Dyer
So then. So they're not reliable?
- [77:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, it is. It's 99.9 not reliable.
- [78:01]
Jay Dyer
No.
- [78:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So you're gonna, you're gonna throw out 99 predictive success for the Bible?
- [78:08]
Jay Dyer
I'm not a paleontologist. And sure. The fact that, do you understand that just because there's predictive success doesn't mean that your model is correct? You can have multiple models that have predictive success. This is called the under determination of data.
- [78:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I agree with that. I actually agree with that.
- [78:20]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so then what you're arguing doesn't tell us which, which paradigm is correct. So beyond that, like I can say that I have a different authority in terms of what I consider the ancient world to have existed and been like, you have another authority. And I don't reject, quote science, but again, I'm making a different point about when you see the rock layers or when you see the strata, there's nothing about that that immediately tells you a time frame or an age. So how do you know?
- [78:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Fair. But let me ask you this. When you find contradictory data, for example, when we go to places like Elephantine and they're doing the opposite, they're making graven images, they're polytheist. They are not.
- [79:02]
Jay Dyer
Now you're gonna, you're going to something different.
- [79:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I know. I'm saying, I'm saying for. Let's, let's not, let's not talk about just looking at rocks. I'm talking about evidence that goes against the biblical narrative. For example, when we go in places that say that, that where there's Jews living after the first temple period and we look at all their. Not. We look at all their writings and it has nothing to do with what the Bible said. They were like, they're completely different. They're doing the opposite. Pork. They're, they're doing stuff on Sabbath. They are worshiping multiple gods.
- [79:32]
Jay Dyer
That's like saying the Essenes disproves Judaism because the Essenes did something totally different than the Jews.
- [79:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What are the esteems doing that goes against the biblical narrative? I'm not talking about.
- [79:43]
Jay Dyer
Well, they were like, they were. Listen to me. They had a Jewish gnostic perspective. They believed that they were the sons of light and they had certain aesthetic, they had certain ascetic practices that the, the Torah doesn't teach. So my argument is.
- [79:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But the Scenes have the tour. The scenes had the Torah. Okay, go ahead.
- [80:02]
Jay Dyer
It doesn't matter. I'm making it. That's not the point. The point is that the fact that there's a sect somewhere that's doing things different in no way leads you to the conclusion that the Jews with the Torah or the Jews in Israel are doing that they don't exist or that they're not there. It's an argument from silence.
- [80:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's not an argument from silence. It's actually the evidence is the opposite of the historical claims from the Bible.
- [80:24]
Jay Dyer
The ev.
- [80:25]
Neil Gnostic Informant
There's. There's evidence that are.
- [80:26]
Jay Dyer
That how do you know that the Jews didn't exist prior to this sect? Wouldn't it.
- [80:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I didn't say they didn't exist.
- [80:34]
Jay Dyer
Okay.
- [80:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I said there's no evidence that they were Torah observant. There's no evidence that they even knew what the Torah was. In fact, the things that they're doing in their text and in the archaeology shows the exact opposite, that they worked.
- [80:47]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so and, and this is what century you're saying we're talking.
- [80:51]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Are you talking about Elephantine? 586 to 400 BC okay, 6th century to 5th century.
- [80:56]
Jay Dyer
And what main scholars have this opinion? Because I'm going to show you scholars who said the opposite of that. Where are you getting this?
- [81:03]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, okay, I can go, I can go to Gad Barnea. I can go to Yan Adler, Russell Merkin, Thomas L. Thomas, Philip R. Davies. I could go to, let's see, I could go to Bruce Louden. I can, I can keep going on and on and on about this.
- [81:18]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so everybody note these scholars because we have no idea who.
- [81:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, write those down, please. Everyone write those down. Bruce Loudon, Thomas L. Thomas. So Philip Davies, Russell Merkin.
- [81:27]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, hang on. Let J respond just so people know. Let him respond, let him respond.
- [81:32]
Jay Dyer
So now when we go to for example, the. Again just using this as an example text which refutes also this claim and the other claim, release it. It shows contrary scholarly evidence. So again, Oxford, okay. Opinion to the Bible. The book of Proverbs deals with the prophetic tradition. The writings, excuse me, different from the prophetic tradition, the writings of this wisdom literature consists in parts of sayings, short pithy forms, etc. The Hebrew word is translated to mean comparisons. And then it goes on to say that many of these texts date to the 5th century BCE but also many of them are actually even earlier to the pre monarchic position. So you said earlier that there's no evidence for this period for the Book of Proverbs. Yeah. Mainline, Mainline, non conservative, necessarily. This is just auction.
- [82:22]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's a linguistic claim. First of all.
- [82:26]
Jay Dyer
Where do you have. There's no evidence degree.
- [82:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I would ask that scholar.
- [82:29]
Jay Dyer
Are you a textual. Hold on. Are you a textual scholar?
- [82:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
First, I'm not a textual scholar. What did I say I was?
- [82:33]
Jay Dyer
How do you know about linguistic claims?
- [82:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because I talk to textual scholars.
- [82:37]
Jay Dyer
Okay, but that doesn't make.
- [82:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What's wrong with that? No, I didn't say I was a textual scholar. You just made this.
- [82:42]
Jay Dyer
Well, you're acting like the fact that you cited the scholars necessarily means that. By the way, where was it me? It didn't argue that the argument is on the basis of the words.
- [82:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, then show me the evidence. It said, where is it?
- [82:54]
Jay Dyer
Proverbs is where is it? And then the Proverbs themselves are pre monarchic.
- [83:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Where are they? Who's talking? Who's citing it? Where's the text? You don't think we have texts that go back that far?
- [83:05]
Jay Dyer
We do.
- [83:06]
Neil Gnostic Informant
None of them cite Proverbs. None of the texts from that period cite Proverbs. No one mentions problems. The first person from silence.
- [83:12]
Jay Dyer
That scholars are saying that the book.
- [83:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Scholars are making linguistic arguments on this.
- [83:18]
Jay Dyer
They're not just making linguistic arguments. They're making. They're also making archaeological arguments.
- [83:22]
Neil Gnostic Informant
There's no archaeological data to show that Solomon was right. There's no Solomon text in archaeology. I'm making. I'm telling you that there's nothing there.
- [83:28]
Jay Dyer
Well, you're calling from silence. You're saying these things. But what I'm showing you is that. So there's competing scholarly claims. How do we know what's true? Doing these.
- [83:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I would say you're. What you're reading is probably outdated scholarship. When is that data? What is that? What year is that book from?
- [83:43]
Jay Dyer
How do you know what year? What counts as that?
- [83:45]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because the modern, the up, the most up to date, most rigorous academics are all agreeing that we don't have any evidence of the Bible. Now, there might have been some layers of Solomon that do go back.
- [83:54]
Jay Dyer
What counts as. As outdated.
- [83:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't know. 20 years ago, whatever book I cite.
- [84:00]
Jay Dyer
Right.
- [84:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, twice. 20 years probably.
- [84:03]
Jay Dyer
How do you still say arbitrary this.
- [84:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, it could still be correct. But I'm telling you there's no evidence.
- [84:08]
Jay Dyer
Well, I, I know you're telling me that, but you're not actually proving that. You're saying that when I give you scholars with. Hold on.
- [84:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So when I got a scholar said.
- [84:15]
Jay Dyer
Something, I give you. When I give you counter scholars. We're in a dilemma then, where we have to figure out, well, how do we know which scholars are right or wrong? And I'm asking you what tells you. And you said, well, it's got to be up to date. And I said, that's arbitrary. How do you know what the up to date is? You said, oh, it's gonna be 20 years. This is all arbitrary.
- [84:32]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You just asked me what I think is outdated, and I just gave you a number.
- [84:35]
Jay Dyer
You're in a debate. That means you have to make good arguments.
- [84:37]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But, Jay, what I'm telling you is you can. Scholars can guess. Solomon is dated to the 5th century or whatever. Fine. Based on linguistics.
- [84:45]
Jay Dyer
Now you're saying they're guessing. How do you know they're guessing?
- [84:47]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because they don't. We don't have any text from that period. They all are guessing. None of these texts go back to that far. Do you not know that?
- [84:55]
Jay Dyer
You're just starting the position, Neil. How do you know that?
- [84:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Do you know.
- [84:58]
Jay Dyer
How do you know?
- [84:59]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Zero biblical manuscripts that are older.
- [85:02]
Jay Dyer
How do you know that?
- [85:03]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because we don't have a single manuscript of the Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- [85:07]
Jay Dyer
You just keep asserting this. How do you know that assertion is true?
- [85:09]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because we don't have him. Is there one in the museum?
- [85:13]
Jay Dyer
I'm giving you counter textual evidence, and.
- [85:16]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm saying that it doesn't exist.
- [85:18]
Jay Dyer
Neil, I know you're saying that.
- [85:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm giving you a physical copy of it.
- [85:21]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, hang on, hang on. Let's. Let's see if we can untangle this. Okay. Just a little bit here. All right, we'll start with Neil. Neil, I believe. Are you saying your argument is there's no physical evidence for this?
- [85:34]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes.
- [85:34]
Andrew Wilson
Okay. And then Jay will operate off that counter, Neil, saying there's no physical evidence, and we'll move from there. Go ahead, guys.
- [85:43]
Jay Dyer
Again, the claim about the dating. And that would be include. That would include dating. Actual physical tax and not later copies would itself be subject to debate. And thus when he said that we didn't have examples of proverbs prior to a certain century, and I gave scholarly claims that there are proverbs that go back to the pre monarchic period. Neil then said, we don't have physical text. So he moved the goalpost away from scholarly claims to. You have to have the physical copies. That's a fallacy to move the goalposts. And so what? That's what the point of the scholarly claims is to say, Neil, it. If I give you counter scholarly claims and there's conservative scholars who date the text before what you would date them. What is the mechanism to know whose scholarly claims are correct? And your answer was to just reassert your position?
- [86:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, we take a holistic approach to this. So how do we have. No. Not only. Hold on. Not only respond. Not only do we have no physical evidence, on top of that, we don't have we. So, for example, another thing that scholars do to test this out is we. I'm. Let me finish my. You just. I just let you talk. I just let you talk. Let me talk. I'm not repeating my argument.
- [86:55]
Jay Dyer
I'm gonna give you some more ignored my.
- [86:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
One of the things we know about how. How we know if texts survive or go back far enough is things like naming. People name their children after heroes. After 400 BC you start seeing names in the sources of Moses, Abraham, Noah, all the heroes from the Old Testament. Before that. There's zero. There's zero. They don't have anyone with those names at all.
- [87:19]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, let me. Let me untangle this too. I'm sorry to step in here, guys, but I just got to make sure so you. I got your claim correct. You're talking about physical evidence. But Jay did give an argument to that, and I would like to hear what you have to say in regards to that argument as he was addressing your argument of.
- [87:35]
Jay Dyer
No, couldn't even say the argument. Perhaps.
- [87:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You'Re saying you can bring it. Come up with scholars who say that the more conservative scholars who dated past the pre. Market, pre monarchy period. Yeah, I say where? I'd say where are they one right there. No, I would say where. Who's where? How do you know this? Why are you just. Because the linguist that I talk to, the linguist that I talk to say this is all circular, that they date a text. They go, Moses lived in 1200 B.C. right? So they find a text in Hebrew that looks like it has the same. Hold on. They think they f. They. They say they. They use axiom. Moses is 1200 B.C. then they find. And they. Then they use that Hebrew that. From that text and say that's 1200 BC Hebrew addressing. They find another text that looks like that Hebrew and go 1200 BCE full storytelling, circular reasoning.
- [88:25]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, I mean, I do have to step in here. You are talking specifically to methodology here. And he's. He's giving a specific argument that he wants contended with. And I do think it's fair as.
- [88:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, yeah, we're at a lock here. You have your scholars, I have mine. Fair you want to end it there? Is that what you're saying?
- [88:43]
Jay Dyer
The question is, you said that. Well, if we have a competing claims of scholars thing going on, then it would just be going to the holistic approach. How do we know that the holistic approach is the right approach?
- [88:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because your, your scholars are just saying this text dates scholars. I'm talking to.
- [89:01]
Jay Dyer
Hold on.
- [89:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm not. No, I'm not saying you have the same problem. I'm saying your scholars have. Your scholars date the text of this period. I'm saying how do they know that where the scholars I'm citing are going off archaeology. They're going. They're going up archaeology namings, they're using the holistic. They're seeing that Jews in that period.
- [89:18]
Jay Dyer
You're just.
- [89:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Again, hold on a second.
- [89:20]
Jay Dyer
You're talking about methodology.
- [89:21]
Andrew Wilson
Give them, give them a chance. Give them a chance.
- [89:23]
Neil Gnostic Informant
If The Jews before 400 BC are making graven images and doing things on Sabbath and eating pork, they're not Torah observant. Right.
- [89:32]
Jay Dyer
Can you state what my argument is about the holistic approach and what, what you think I'm arguing?
- [89:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You can. Go ahead.
- [89:40]
Jay Dyer
You, so you can't. You've not understood the argument yet?
- [89:42]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, I don't. I, I. You think that what I'm doing is not. And you're saying it's your, it's your argument versus mine. But I'm saying all you're going on, Neil.
- [89:50]
Jay Dyer
No, that's not the argument.
- [89:51]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What's the argument?
- [89:52]
Jay Dyer
The argument is that when we have a contention about which scholars and we're going to resolve it, I ask you what would resolve this? How would we know whether it's conservative or liberal scholars or whatever, your scholars, myself. How would we resolve it? And you said we would go by the holistic approach. Okay, why would we. How do we know that that's the criteria to go to. That's the question. What's the proof? What's the good reason to believe that your arbitrary statement that it's the holistic thing.
- [90:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Do you know what the horse. Do you not know what the historical method is?
- [90:22]
Jay Dyer
Again, how do we know that the holistic approach is the right way to go?
- [90:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because it follows the historical method and we go off the data and we.
- [90:29]
Jay Dyer
Have the best possible.
- [90:30]
Neil Gnostic Informant
We say this is the most likely scenario. Based on the evidence, this is the most likely scenario.
- [90:35]
Jay Dyer
A holistic approach surveying scholars is not the same thing as the historical method. Those are two different questions.
- [90:42]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, they're not. These scholars who are applying the historical.
- [90:45]
Jay Dyer
Method, one is Consensus of scholars. Telling.
- [90:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm not talking about consensus scholars. Huh? I'm not talking about the consensus of scholars.
- [90:53]
Jay Dyer
You said it. We would go with the holistic approach.
- [90:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm talking about. Here's one scholar who's a linguist. Here's what he's saying, here's what his reasons are. Here's another archaeologist, here's another scholar who's a textual scholar, holistic. And they're all applying the historical method. You don't do. No, you just say the Bible is true.
- [91:11]
Jay Dyer
Again, if they're using. All the scholars are using some form of a historical method, that's not. That's a deflection away from. How do you know that the holistic approach is right? And you're saying. No, no, I didn't actually mean a consensus. What did you mean by holistic?
- [91:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I said you go to each of these studies, each of these.
- [91:32]
Jay Dyer
So a consensus.
- [91:34]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but it's not a consensus. In all. These are different fields that you put together. And then you say, wait a minute. That's because not even. Not only is there. No, hold on. We look at the data and we conclude not only is there no evidence.
- [91:47]
Andrew Wilson
Let him respond. Go ahead.
- [91:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Not only is there no evidence, it's the opposite.
- [91:51]
Jay Dyer
Again, what?
- [91:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So you have nothing and I have a whole bunch of data.
- [91:56]
Jay Dyer
Holism is the criteria that we go with.
- [91:59]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I just explained that.
- [92:01]
Jay Dyer
No, how do we all know this? Well, you don't.
- [92:03]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You don't have to know it, I guess because you're just going off what one scholar says. I just told. I just gave you the answer.
- [92:12]
Jay Dyer
How does everyone in the audience following your argument, how do you know?
- [92:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You got to bring in the best.
- [92:16]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, hang on, Neil. Let him respond here. Go ahead, Jay.
- [92:19]
Jay Dyer
Again, you keep circling back to listing various methodologies amongst different disciplines. That doesn't tell me that a holistic approach of scholars amongst a bunch of different disciplines is the way to go. Fine, it's a non sequitur.
- [92:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Then ignore it all. Be. Go like this and close your eyes to all the data around you. Do it. I don't know.
- [92:39]
Jay Dyer
That's not what I'm arguing.
- [92:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm gonna move on.
- [92:42]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, guys, guys. Neil, we can't. We're not going to operate, and I don't care. Right.
- [92:48]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm just saying I would like.
- [92:49]
Andrew Wilson
I would like a response. Just as you gave an argument to Jay, he's responding to your arguments, making an argument back. I would actually like the response to the argument. I'll hold his feet to the same Fire if I see he's not responding to an argument. So I would like you to actually respond to his argument, please.
- [93:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay. You said that I have a scholar right here from this book that says that this, the books of Solomon go back to the pre monarch appear, which would be a thousand BC plus. Wow, that's a great. That's a crazy claim. From my experience with scholarship, that's. That's pretty fringe, I would say, how do you know that? So I'd have to ask him how he knows that, what his evidence is, why he's making that conclusion. And then I would go to other scholars in archaeology. I'll go to scholars in textual criticism, scholars who do linguistics, scholars who study Egypt, scholars who study. And I would go and find all the data and say, wait a minute, where is the evidence for the, for the Torah if it's not there fundamentally.
- [93:41]
Jay Dyer
You'Re not understanding that it's an epistemic question. I'm not asking you. Can you list a bunch of scholars that are liberal scholars. Neil, stop interrupting me. Because it's a really clear, simple argument. I don't dispute that. People go and look at other scholars and other disciplines. Your resolution to the challenge of complete competing scholarly claims was quote, go to the holistic approach. Maybe that is true. And all I'm saying is how do we know that that's the way to resolve it? Because you know sometimes.
- [94:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How do you know?
- [94:14]
Jay Dyer
Neil, Neil, that's a two quoque.
- [94:16]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't care. I'm doing. I'm committing too quickly. I want to know how.
- [94:18]
Jay Dyer
Thank you. He's admitting that he's doing.
- [94:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm admitting it. How do you know, Jay?
- [94:22]
Jay Dyer
Well, I don't have the problem of.
- [94:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh, you don't have the problem.
- [94:26]
Jay Dyer
I don't accept.
- [94:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So you don't even have to know. You just accept that it's true.
- [94:29]
Jay Dyer
I don't accept that. Holistic ad hoc is an argument. Why would I have.
- [94:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You don't accept. You don't accept the arg. You don't accept the data. You don't accept scholars. You don't accept.
- [94:40]
Jay Dyer
If I present contrary scholars, and you.
- [94:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Have scholars, and scholars say all types.
- [94:46]
Jay Dyer
Of things, Neil, your answer was holism. And then I asked you to flesh that out and you say I don't care.
- [94:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
And I asked you how do you know? And you said, I don't have to know.
- [94:54]
Jay Dyer
Well, it's not my argument. It was your argument.
- [94:57]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, we're going, we're going here in circles. As to Neil's question, I think It's a fair question. He is asking what sort of methodology would you appeal to Jay for this? And I do think that that's fair for you to answer that.
- [95:09]
Jay Dyer
Right? No, I don't disagree with scholars or the approach of scholarly, you know, academia etc. I was spent time in academia. I have, one of my good friends is an orthodox archaeologist. So there's, there are people who do this, but also have a conservative perspective.
- [95:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Sure.
- [95:27]
Jay Dyer
And a lot of archaeology backs up the Bible. This, this kind of stuff comes out all the time. My buddy James is an archaeologist. He blogs about this regularly. He has a PhD in archaeology. So I have scholars and friends too. My point was just simply that it's not resolved by throwing the claims of scholars back and forth because there's no way to know if there's conflicting claims if you get to this issue of it being an epistemic question. So again, the way that we interpret the, the textual data, the scholarly data, the academic data is going to be governed by our paradigm. So you notice that Neil's not going to accept the scholars that I present or mention, but I'm not going to be accepting his. So that proves that we have kind of a fundamental issue. That's why I raised the question of how would we resolve it? If there's a scholarly disagreement and we're throwing scholars back and forth, it can't be resolved by just Neil saying.
- [96:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
And I don't just reject. I don't just. I'm sorry I cut you off. Are you done?
- [96:22]
Jay Dyer
No, it's not resolved by an arbitrary ad hoc principle of. It's just holistic. Okay, maybe that's true, Neil. Maybe we do go to a holistic thing. But what does that actually mean? And why ought we think that that's true? Maybe it is true, but I need a good reason to believe it's true. Your answer to that was just to give a bunch of methodologies that are used. That doesn't tell me that holism is the right approach. Maybe it is.
- [96:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay. And I would even respond to that and say I don't just deny conservative scholars because I don't like what they're saying. I accept if I'm convinced by Christians all the time. Well, he didn't get. You didn't give me a reason why he says that. He just wrote it down.
- [96:59]
Andrew Wilson
So what?
- [97:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How did he make that? How did he come to that conclusion.
- [97:02]
Jay Dyer
That your liberal scholars just wrote it down?
- [97:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, let me give you this.
- [97:05]
Jay Dyer
Reject conservative scholars. You just did, Schmidt.
- [97:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Dr. Schmidt, who just came out with a Published a book about Josephus saying it's authentic. I was convinced by some of his arguments. He made good arguments off the Greek. He demonstrated why he made. Why he made his arguments. I'm just showing you it's not. I'm not just denying scholars because they're conservative Christians. Okay, but in this case, they bring arguments that I don't even know. They bring arguments that supports the. Supportive of the data. I'll be convinced. It's never. It just doesn't happen to the point.
- [97:35]
Jay Dyer
Where systemic questions are prior to scientific questions.
- [97:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I know that. Huh? I know that.
- [97:40]
Jay Dyer
You do?
- [97:41]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You're saying, why didn't you answer the question about holism?
- [97:44]
Jay Dyer
And how do we know that that's the right way?
- [97:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because my worldview accounts for things like being. Being objective is okay, and maybe it.
- [97:52]
Jay Dyer
Does, but why ought we to think that holism is the right approach here? You just admitted that some scholars can be in the minority and be correct.
- [98:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because if we, because the, that we want to follow the data to its final conclusion to the most.
- [98:11]
Jay Dyer
No, but again, hold on, you're missing the point. How does that, what you're saying there tell me that holism is the right approach? Maybe it is, but what is the, what is the basis for that?
- [98:25]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because that's how we, that's how we discover things in the world.
- [98:28]
Jay Dyer
So that's just restating the purist.
- [98:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, you just asked me a question. That's the answer to it.
- [98:33]
Jay Dyer
So the answer is just a circle.
- [98:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How is that a circle?
- [98:37]
Jay Dyer
Because the thing in question is an epistemic issue and you're saying that, well, we'll just be an empiricist. How does that resolve that holism follow.
- [98:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The most, the most rigorous methodologies. That's how we discover things in the world. Is that not true or. No?
- [98:50]
Jay Dyer
So the rigorous one is the one. That's your position.
- [98:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, the rigorous methodology again.
- [98:55]
Jay Dyer
So it's just that you just follow. So you're just saying follow me.
- [98:59]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So I'm not saying me. I'm not saying. Have you ever had a family member that had cancer? Whatever. You know anyone that ever had cancer? Do they pray?
- [99:11]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, hang on. This is becoming, this is becoming a series of.
- [99:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, this is actually, I'm actually making a point here.
- [99:18]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on, hang on, Neil. I'll allow, allow the point. But if it's becoming a non sequitur and we're not getting sure to the answer to this question, then I'm going to step in. So go ahead.
- [99:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay. When someone has cancer, they don't they don't just go to their own devices or ask of, you know, pray about it or go to the witch doctor down the street. They go to the best experts, whether it's the hospital PhDs or Roswell Institute, something where there's literal experts who know what they're doing. They want the best experts that are out there who have the best credentials, period. And you can use that. You can, you can see the same thing for all these other fields of study then, not just medicine, but even history, even things like the humanities, the same thing applies.
- [100:03]
Jay Dyer
Okay. Is it possible that sometimes the scholarship that's conservative is in the minority and could be correct, like you said with the guy about Josephus? Yeah. Okay, so that makes my point that scholarly consensus and holism isn't going to be a reliable way to go about it.
- [100:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, when it comes to the Bible, the consensus usually leans in the direction of the most of the. Most of the scholars that are in the field.
- [100:32]
Jay Dyer
I'm asking you why we should follow holism and consensus.
- [100:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm not talking about consensus. I'm talking about. You just said in particular fields.
- [100:39]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on. But this is the question. This is the question at hand that Jay. Jay has. He has asked this argument now twice, and I think it's fair to answer to it. Yeah, yeah. He's asking the ought claim. And I, I'd like you to respond to the all claim.
- [100:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's why I brought up the cancer thing. You go to the experts in the particular field who are the most. Well, most well established who know what they're doing.
- [101:02]
Jay Dyer
Neil, the question is how do we know that we ought to go to the holistic approach or a consensus?
- [101:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because if you want to be right, you do it. If you want to be right, you do it. You want to be right or wrong.
- [101:12]
Jay Dyer
The question is, how do we know that that's the right approach that we ought to take?
- [101:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, no, that's a fair. It's a fair point, but I wouldn't like to hear the counter evidence before.
- [101:19]
Jay Dyer
You just, you don't have an argument.
- [101:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's not. No, it's not a two.
- [101:23]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on. To be fair.
- [101:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
To be totally fair.
- [101:25]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, well, Neil, to be totally fair here, that is not actually answering the argument. That's, that's asking him to, to now state a position. I, I do think it's fair for you to answer to, to the argument that he's making. I would, I would make him answer to yours as well, like I have.
- [101:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I just did, though.
- [101:46]
Andrew Wilson
Okay.
- [101:47]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I mean that if you you wanna.
- [101:48]
Jay Dyer
Do you want to move on to another topic maybe?
- [101:50]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [101:50]
Jay Dyer
This is just kind of going around.
- [101:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You don't have to follow the expert. You can follow the conservative scholars. Fine.
- [101:56]
Jay Dyer
Okay, again, I'm just. I'm not even. It's an epistemic question about how do.
- [102:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
We ask about the right approach.
- [102:02]
Jay Dyer
I gave you a counter to. Neil, I gave you a counter to why sometimes consensus is wrong, and you admitted that that can happen. And so I'm asking you, how do we know then that we should follow the consensus?
- [102:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I just told you.
- [102:17]
Jay Dyer
Okay, do you want to move on to. I'd like to ask you about. Because you made a big deal about, you know, the evil God of the Old Testament and his. His actions. Isn't it just the case that.
- [102:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
If.
- [102:32]
Jay Dyer
Infants are dashed against stones, wouldn't in your worldview that just be the One manifesting?
- [102:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, because in. In this material realm, we are farthest away from the One. And because of the flux of our reality, things can, like this do happen. So the One has a will, but we farthest away from the One, which is where the flux is. There are opposing forces that do things that we. Even if we have a piece of the One within us, and that which is our full potentiality, our telos, if you will. Aristotle's phrase that you also use in your worldview. Sometimes people don't follow that and they do evil things because we're in the flux. We don't all have direct. We don't all have direct access to the good. That's what. That's the problem of evil solved by my worldview. Your worldview just says, God, let Satan do it.
- [103:26]
Jay Dyer
So what things in this lower dimension are good or evil?
- [103:32]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Whatever is in. In a plot, in whatever's in appliance with virtue. Virtue.
- [103:39]
Jay Dyer
How do we know what are the virtues?
- [103:41]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So we. Those have been debated over time through the dialectic, through the Socratic method, and we have. We have texts that, you know, talk about the virtues, like the golden. The golden sentences, The.
- [103:51]
Jay Dyer
The. We don't know.
- [103:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, we do.
- [103:53]
Jay Dyer
Okay, what is.
- [103:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
They're debated, but.
- [103:54]
Jay Dyer
Oh, like, we go with the consensus again.
- [103:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Honesty.
- [103:57]
Jay Dyer
Platonic what? Honesty.
- [104:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah. Okay.
- [104:02]
Jay Dyer
How do we know that? I thought you said earlier it was the. It was just virtue, Right?
- [104:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, because we can. We can. We can. We can come up with things that lead to virtue. That's the highest of the pinnacle of good and virtual. Okay, then there are other. There are other principles that are good that lead to virtue. Like being honest.
- [104:20]
Jay Dyer
Right? Like.
- [104:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Like.
- [104:21]
Jay Dyer
And what What. What's the epistemic justification for knowing that.
- [104:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
My worldview accounts for it?
- [104:28]
Jay Dyer
No, no. How do we know that within your worldview honesty is the, the key one?
- [104:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because it leads the virgin.
- [104:35]
Jay Dyer
But honesty was supposed to be the virtue. Isn't it one of the virtues?
- [104:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's, it's.
- [104:40]
Jay Dyer
Honesty leads to.
- [104:41]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It leads to virtue. It's one of. Virtue is the highest virtue is the highest good you can attain.
- [104:46]
Jay Dyer
Honesty is a virtue. You don't know that.
- [104:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yes.
- [104:50]
Jay Dyer
So honesty leads to honesty.
- [104:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, it's one of the lesser virtues that leads to capital.
- [104:56]
Jay Dyer
How do you know the gradation? How do you know which ones are. Are lower and higher?
- [105:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, there's different ways to debate this negation. We can use. We can debate it.
- [105:04]
Jay Dyer
We can tell you that honesty is a lower virtue than another.
- [105:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
We can tell. I just said we debate and we negate. We figure out what's going to tell you that knowing what not is good. What is not good?
- [105:15]
Jay Dyer
What is the figure out?
- [105:16]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What is principle? I just told you.
- [105:19]
Jay Dyer
No, you didn't. You said debating. That's a thing that people.
- [105:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's. That's the same thing you do.
- [105:23]
Jay Dyer
Not an epistemic principle. It's an action.
- [105:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but that's how we figure these things out over time.
- [105:28]
Jay Dyer
So that's a method, it's not a principle.
- [105:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, the principle is having the. Having the dogma of, of attaining virtue. That's.
- [105:39]
Jay Dyer
Wait a minute. I thought you were about reason and now you're saying it's dogma.
- [105:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, the only, the only dogma, the only Platonist that virtue. That, that the only dogma that Platonist hold is attaining virtue. Yeah, but virtue is the highest good. That's it. Because if you had more than one dog, you have more than one dogma. You end up conflicting at some point.
- [106:00]
Jay Dyer
Neil, this is all just gibberish.
- [106:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Softness, honesty is one of the virtues Neoplatonist wrote. This is what the Neoplatonist wrote.
- [106:05]
Jay Dyer
That's an appeal to authority.
- [106:06]
Andrew Wilson
Who cares?
- [106:07]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm just saying. You're saying it's all nonsense. This has been written about.
- [106:11]
Jay Dyer
So what? There's a lot of ancient writers that wrote nonsense, right?
- [106:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm just giving you the answers.
- [106:15]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so what we need is good reasons to know that honesty is the one that leads us to the higher virtues.
- [106:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How do we know my worldview doesn't isn't in contradiction like yours is? We're debating. No, that is debating.
- [106:28]
Jay Dyer
Just explain to me.
- [106:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I want my, my world than yours. So that's why people should listen to me over you.
- [106:34]
Jay Dyer
Fine. Let's say Christianity is contradictory. What is the reason that we ought to believe that honesty is the virtue that leads to the highest virtues?
- [106:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because you haven't demonstrated any other worldview to be better?
- [106:47]
Jay Dyer
Because I haven't done something. But yes, no, no, I'm asking from your worldview, why are we, what's the epistemic principle here?
- [106:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because of the predictive success and the, for example, how does honesty get predictive success? Well, no, hold on a second. When we look back in history, we could see wherever these Platonists were, there was Renaissances. So when they were kicked out of Constantinople. Hold on a second there, I'm making point here. They're kicked out of Constantinople after, after the world, after having the greatest empire ever, the Roman Empire, inheriting things from the Greeks, the greatest, the, the Pax Romana all the way up to the late antiquity, they become Christian, they kick the Platonists out, they go to the east, they go to Babylon, and then you, you, they even lead to a quote unquote Islamic, Islamic golden age. Because they're reading the text. Did you imagine that when they come back to Macedonia, when they come back to business, there's a Macedonian mini Renaissance and then there's another measure.
- [107:42]
Jay Dyer
Did you measure that scientifically?
- [107:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
When we can look at, we can look at history.
- [107:46]
Jay Dyer
No, that's arbitrary.
- [107:47]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, let me ask you.
- [107:48]
Jay Dyer
I don't know your criteria.
- [107:49]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Aristotle and Aristotle know your criteria of.
- [107:53]
Jay Dyer
A successful society is correct because we're asking the basis for what the successful society is. That's so it's a circle.
- [108:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Sure. Okay, so let me ask you this. Aristotle and Galen, huh? Aristotle and Galen, you know who they are, huh? So Galen Galen was the textbook for medical text. He was written in the 2nd century AD. Aristotle's 4th century BC.
- [108:15]
Jay Dyer
Aristotle's not a Neoplatonist.
- [108:17]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, actually, middle Platonist and Neoplatonist and later Platonists take Aristotle, merge it with someone, we can use it. We use Aristotle. So I'm not talking we use Aristotle. You're wrong. So what I'm saying is.
- [108:30]
Jay Dyer
How am I wrong? I, I, he's not a Neoplatonist.
- [108:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I didn't say he was. I said we use Aristotle.
- [108:35]
Jay Dyer
Either way, how is all going to prove Neoplatonism?
- [108:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm, I'm showing you Aristotle's works and Galen's works were not even, were the central textbooks for medical science and, and, and science all the way up until the 16th century.
- [108:50]
Jay Dyer
But how does that prove Neoplatonism?
- [108:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Because Christianity couldn't do anything to improve on that. We had to wait till the place we had to wait till my worldview was back. Christianity till my world he was bad for things to get. No, it's not.
- [109:04]
Jay Dyer
It's a fallacy.
- [109:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh yeah.
- [109:08]
Jay Dyer
To say well, Christianity couldn't do this is not answering the question of how do we know that? Because Aristotle you're asking about worldviews. How do we know that that proves the question was about proving Neoplatonism. And you said well, Aristotle did some good things and then Galen wrote some medical stuff and Christianity couldn't do it. That doesn't prove Neoplatonism.
- [109:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Improve on these basic science texts and.
- [109:29]
Jay Dyer
Then that prove Neoplatonism from Aristotle and Galen.
- [109:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
This is ridiculous because my we're doing.
- [109:35]
Jay Dyer
A worldview versus world Neoplatonists.
- [109:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
We're doing a worldview versus worldview, right? They weren't neoplanes more coherent have to do with proving because my world is more coherent than yours.
- [109:44]
Jay Dyer
They're not Neoplatonists.
- [109:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I didn't say they were.
- [109:47]
Jay Dyer
Why are you being bad faith then?
- [109:50]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's irrelevant. Neoplatonists draw from Galen and Aristotle.
- [109:54]
Jay Dyer
They're part of after them and it's irrelevant.
- [109:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I know that. I'm after them too.
- [109:59]
Jay Dyer
You know that this makes no sense.
- [110:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm after Aristotle. I can borrow from Aristotle. Why not? I can't read Aristotle and learn from Aristotle.
- [110:11]
Jay Dyer
How does this prove I have some.
- [110:12]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Sort of metaphysical thing that stopped reading Aristotle? Because I said my worldview is more coherent than yours.
- [110:19]
Jay Dyer
Because you said it. Wow.
- [110:20]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, okay, hang on, hang on.
- [110:23]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I proved it in this debate.
- [110:24]
Andrew Wilson
Gentlemen, Neil Jay's done a lot of the cross exam here. You haven't really had too much chance to cross exam back. I'm going to give you the last 10 minutes to do that. Go ahead, when you're ready.
- [110:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't want to get into the dating attacks the stupid we already get on the so I, I, you know, we talk about the Trinity. What about the. I haven't heard much of you defending things like God being jealous or God not being omniscient or not even being omnipotent. For example, when the iron chariots came and in judges the tribe of Judah got wiped out. Why doesn't that show God's not all powerful? What's, what's the response?
- [111:05]
Jay Dyer
No, there's often statements that explain why they lost and in every case God explains that you lose when you're wicked. But by the way, you said that it's okay. You could you Said it's okay if jealousy is used. Well, why cannot.
- [111:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What's the word? You made a point there. I'm doing the cross examination here. Hold on a second.
- [111:24]
Jay Dyer
You're not letting me answer judges, but.
- [111:27]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You want to move on to.
- [111:28]
Jay Dyer
No, I'm not. I'm explaining.
- [111:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, finish your point.
- [111:30]
Andrew Wilson
Go ahead.
- [111:31]
Jay Dyer
Okay, so again, the anthropomorphic language. Again, if. If God says something like he's jealous, you said, okay, fine, you could say, maybe that's anthropomorphic earlier. But if jealousy can be anthropomorphic, as you admitted, then regret can as well. So I think that clears up the jealousy and regret issue. But when God says that you will lose your battles, this is include. This is explained in Deuteronomy that you will be trodden upon when you're wicked. So it's not because of a lack in Deuteronomy when there's covenant sanctions, God warns them and he says, if. Let me finish. So if you are wicked, you will lose your battles and be trodden upon. So what I'm saying is that when there's an explanation like that, it doesn't mean anything close to denying divine omniscience. It just means that the reason that they were defeated was because of this, but ultimately because of God punishing them.
- [112:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, I'm talking about judges, not talking about Deuteronomy. It specifically says Judges 1:19, Yahweh or the Lord. Hold, it's my turn, dude.
- [112:33]
Jay Dyer
It doesn't matter if it's judges, because that's.
- [112:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Hold on. Yahweh was with Judah or. Or Theos in Greek, Theos was with Judah and he drove the inhabitants of the mountain, but he could not drive out the inhabitants. Still talking about Yahweh because they had chariots of iron. Nothing to do with.
- [112:53]
Jay Dyer
There's a similar statement where you have, for example, Jesus says he goes into a town and it says, and he could not do any miracles there because of their unbelief.
- [113:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So this is a principle. Why are you talking about.
- [113:04]
Jay Dyer
I'm giving other examples of this principle in scripture that just because that text doesn't say that they're wicked, it doesn't follow from that that there's not another text that comments on that and explains that where. When, Neil, when you're wicked, this is why you are defeated. And sometimes the text explained that God allowed them to be defeated via the. The.
- [113:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
This one doesn't do that, though. This one just says that Yahweh couldn't win the battle. They had iron chariots Everybody interprets texts.
- [113:34]
Jay Dyer
Holistically, including Platonists and Neoplatonists. If I took one phrase of Plato out of. Out of context, and I said, this phrase disproves all Platonism, you would say, you got to look at the whole body of a Platonic corpus. You can't just take one. One passage. And so that's a. Yeah, but if.
- [113:48]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You had a contradiction, if you had one text that was in contradiction to something else, I would. We would look at it. We don't have to take the whole thing. And in this particular one here, it's clear what's. What's happening here. Yahweh could not drive them out.
- [114:00]
Jay Dyer
You're just saying it's clear. But I.
- [114:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You say anything about them being wicked.
- [114:04]
Jay Dyer
You just admitted what's called canonical interpretation, which is that, yes, you can look at the rest of the text to see if it's reconciled or if it synthesizes. And then you turn around and said, but here, this one is clear. It's a contradiction. Well, again, it's not. If you believe in a holistic interpretation, which, again, if I brought the Platonic corpus here and I found one phrase, wouldn't you call me out and say you don't have the right to say one phrase out of context from the rest of the corpus. Right.
- [114:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, actually, the Platonists don't really care. If you think there's a. We would debate. We would have a debate about the. Maybe you do have a contra. Maybe we did find a contradiction here. Let's talk about it.
- [114:37]
Jay Dyer
So you wouldn't care if.
- [114:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No.
- [114:40]
Jay Dyer
If Platonic texts were being interpreted improperly.
- [114:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay, that's not. If you mean that way, then yeah, we would. But what I'm. Okay, so you're saying because of this doctrine that when something bad happens to the Judah Heights, they were wicked. So no matter what it says there, if they fell, they were.
- [114:57]
Jay Dyer
No, specifically not anything bad, but specifically, if you do not obey me, you will lose your battles and be trodden upon. That's one of the penal sanctions in Deuteronomy.
- [115:08]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Right. But you gotta. You at least be. At least admit. This particular text here in. In Judges one is very unclear about there being some sort of divine punishment.
- [115:19]
Jay Dyer
Again, it's when we read holistically the way the covenant functions, all of the battles and all the situations where they lose. The implication is that when Israel is unfaithful, they will lose the battles. In the same way, when Jesus walks into that town and it says, and he was unable to do Miracles there because of their lack of faith. It's not because of his omniscience that he. That he or that his omnipotence was failing that day. It's because he chose to not reward them and to reciprocate. It's a reciprocal relationship where he chose to not do the miracles because they did not have faith. Likewise, Yahweh chose to not give Israel the battle because they're under.
- [115:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Your text in the New Testament says that they didn't have faith. Judges 1 does not say that. Judges 1 said, even says it earlier, that Yahweh said, judah go up and.
- [116:08]
Jay Dyer
I have delivered the land holistically. That's what I said earlier.
- [116:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But these texts weren't written. It doesn't happen at different times, have.
- [116:16]
Jay Dyer
To say within the text every implication.
- [116:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I mean what I'm saying. I understand that now that you have a church that does exegesis and apologetics, then now you can interpret things holistically.
- [116:26]
Jay Dyer
Everyone does exegesis. You just admitted that with Plato.
- [116:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Right, But I'm saying these texts were written for different people in different times. They weren't necessarily written for a canonical church to be taking it as a holistic thing.
- [116:38]
Jay Dyer
Well, I mean, that's your assumption as an unbeliever, but I have a different paradigm, a different assumption, so. But again, that's why I asked you if wouldn't you agree that you can interpret Platonic text holistically, for example, even within one Platonic dialogue? Right. You wouldn't take one line and say, well, this appears to be contrary to all the other things in this dialogue. Right. It would. Wouldn't it be fair to interpret it holistically?
- [117:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's fair. Okay, I'm being good faith interpretation between.
- [117:05]
Jay Dyer
Canonical versus taking one verse.
- [117:07]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Let me try to understand you better. You're saying that whatever this guy wrote is not. Is kind of doesn't really matter because. No, it's not at all. Interpret it anyway, Is that what you're saying?
- [117:18]
Jay Dyer
No, this doesn't even necessitate bringing the church in. I'm just saying that canonically or holistically, even in Jewish literature, for example, you wouldn't take one verse out of the context of Judges and read it against all the rest of the Book of Judges, right? Now you could do that like you can do it, but it's not really fair to any text to operate that way. And all I'm saying is that from our perspective, that birth would be read, for example, in the context of the Book of Judges and the rest of The Old Testament, where we have other explanations as to. Well, why is it that the Israelites sometimes lose these battles? Well, in the Covenant sanctions, it says when you're unfaithful, you will be trodden upon and you won't win the battles.
- [117:57]
Andrew Wilson
You got one question left, Neil. And then we got to wrap it for.
- [117:59]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [118:00]
Jay Dyer
Okay.
- [118:00]
Neil Gnostic Informant
My last question is you. So another. There's minor contradictions, too, that I'm not gonna make a big deal out of. Like 1st Chronicles 21, it tells the same story that's in 2 Samuel 24. And it starts off, Satan rose up against Israel and inside. Yes. Incited David to take a census.
- [118:19]
Jay Dyer
And then God did it in the.
- [118:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Other one and the guy did another one, and then you have another one where you have. In the New Testament. And I want to get your question. I'm not just going to put this aside. In the New Testament, it talks about Corinius doing a census.
- [118:32]
Jay Dyer
Right.
- [118:32]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Which we. Which we can actually locate through reading Josephus and other sources and triangulate that he would have been governor around 7 to 6 B.C. or A.D. i'm sorry, which is when the census would have happened.
- [118:42]
Jay Dyer
Where?
- [118:42]
Neil Gnostic Informant
In Matthew it says Jesus was born in 4 B.C. how do we know that? Because Herod died in a certain year of Augustus's reign. I can't remember exactly, but it leads to 4 BCE. Now, someone like myself, when I'm reading this stuff, I'm seeing these contradictions. I know these are minor. These aren't big theological major. I'm not saying this like shatters your religion or anything, but I'm reading these things as just a person with doing regular reasoning. Inductive. Inductive reasoning. Just reading these texts and going, wow, these are some contradictions. Why ought I believe in the text like this? Or why ought I follow some sort of religion like this?
- [119:15]
Jay Dyer
This. So the question of the. The situation of God allowing the evil to occur, and then it. Or, excuse me, David took a census and then it says Satan. God moved David to take a census, and it says Satan moved David to take a census. The answer is that in many cases, if you look at the Exodus narrative as well, you have the explanation that when Pharaoh, quote, hardened his heart, there's one passage where it says Pharaoh hardened his heart against Moses and against God. And there's another passage where it said God hardened Pharaoh's heart. So one passage of Satan did it. One pastor said God did it. The answer to that is that God allowed Satan to have dominion and to do it. So it's A really simple resolution that in. And there's other cases where, for example, there's other cases where, for example, you have people being deceived. One of the prophets has a lying spirit and it says that God allowed a lying spirit to be in the mouth of the prophet. So God allows evil. And, and you can speak of things as direct and indirect causation. So one passage is talking about the ultimate indirect causation. The other passage is talking about the direct immediate causation that Satan's moving them to do it. So, and then when it comes to the, the claims about dating and that kind of stuff with the census or whatever, again, from my paradigm, if I believe that divine revelation is true, I'm going to have that as my judge of the secular, unbelieving scholars.
- [120:39]
Andrew Wilson
Scholars.
- [120:40]
Jay Dyer
And again, the reason I was saying that about with holism earlier was that just to illustrate that you have a paradigm and you have scholars that you're going to accept on the basis of your presuppositions and your pre commitments. I have the same situation. I have my presuppositions, my pre commitments. And that's why really the reconciliation has to always go back to worldviews.
- [121:00]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, gentlemen, I'm going to give a real clip. Quick wrap up, two minutes each, because we're way over time. I know that that's not a lot of time, but I want to make sure that we keep this confined to something close to three hours here. So Neil, Jay opened first, so I'm going to give him the last close. So go ahead with your opening or closing statement. Got two minutes.
- [121:22]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, just want to admit Jay's a good debater. I, I knew this wasn't going to be easy. And he can, he can get out of, get out of some good pickles there. But I ultimately do think that my worldview is simpler accounts for things just as well as his does it. And you even have modern empiricist scholars, blatantists like I mentioned, Werner Heisenberg, who attests to these things. And I, I can see that the things out in the real world work in, in sync with what my worldview is. So, you know, things like evolution and atoms and the age of the universe, stuff like that, where I don't have to fight that for any particular textbook or Jay does. I think that's where these, I think we both agree on sort of like the metaphysical reality of there being a perfect God in the beginning, who, whether you call it a trinity or a triad and emanates these things or you don't believe the emanations, but the essence and energies distinction thing that orthodoxy has. I mean, you could read stuff like Saint Dionysius, the Arabicite, put him, put them side by side with someone like Proclus, and you see a lot of this stuff does line up. Now. I agree with Jay. There are fundamental big differences that are going to be drastic, which ends up with pretty debates like this where it can get pretty nasty. But, you know, I. I think. I think my world view. I think I did a good job. I think my world view is, Is more, More coherent than Jay's.
- [122:49]
Andrew Wilson
Okay. Jay, got two minutes?
- [122:51]
Jay Dyer
Yeah. I want to thank Neil for doing the debate. It was an enjoyable debate and I didn't think it was nasty. I thought we actually had a really, a good, a great conversation. It got heated, but it wasn't over. Yeah. So I would say, I think from Neil, we didn't really hear a convincing coherent argumentation about why his position is correct. We heard a lot of claims, a lot of assertions about Neoplatonism, and we saw some appeals to authority. And, well, this physicist today had this view. And my view is simpler. Well, you know, it's funny because when I debated Daniel Hikachu, he said, look, Islam is true because it's simpler. Well, Islam has a monad. Neil has a monad. There's other positions that have this sort of monad. How would we know what amongst the monad positions is true? Because they all appeal to principles like simple, or because it's scientific or because it follows the data or it. Again, these are a lot of appeals that don't actually put any rubber to the road. They don't actually give us any meat to know. Well, wait a minute. Why is it Neoplatonism and not Iamblichus or Plotinus or Proclus or any of the other middle Platonists and later Platonists? There's no real way to know or to see that any of those positions are anything other than something totally antithetical to modern scientism, which, again, Neil wants to have his foot in both camps. He wants to be an ancient Neoplatonic mystic, but he also wants to have this scientific perspective. And he said, well, I wasn't trying to appeal to scientists. I just think that empiricism is true. Well, again, empiricism is not the same thing as Neoplatonism at all. In fact, they're typically.
- [124:31]
Andrew Wilson
Pretty Quickly, Jay, quickly.
- [124:34]
Jay Dyer
So I think that Neil did not give a coherent view. I think that the orthodox perspective is coherent. And maybe we could have a part two or something going more into orthodoxy or something.
- [124:44]
Andrew Wilson
Happy to have you guys back on again. I understand that I am known for being a tough moderator on both sides and so you felt like I was being unfair at certain points. Then I did my job properly. Diving into super chats here. Caller is going to stack up on the back end at this point. So Drunk Batman gives five Crucible memberships. Appreciated. Appreciate the membership. Appreciate the membership. Appreciate the membership. Congrats on the win, Jay. Now, just so you know, this happened at the beginning of the debate, so I guess this person had some sort of clairvoyance. Unfortunately, I have to be up for work in five hours. Well, that sucks because you missed a great debate. Thanks for the 5 gifted Crucible membership to the Grifter host. Take my money, damn it. I will. I appreciate it. This Gnostic guy sure is a word salad generator as get great we was fingers says Austin. Appreciate that. Jay is pulling from Plato and Aristotle. GI is pulling from hey Sod and.
- [125:45]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Ovid is that those are more poets. Those are the poets.
- [125:49]
Andrew Wilson
Easy W J. Well, Emmanuel, who sends in 50 Mexican pesos, don't be fooled. That's like $3.99 says not all assertions are justified justifications. Not all super chats count for this one sure doesn't. I totally agree. You should be deported for that super chat. Except you live in Mexico straight out of Arkham for it says Mr. Funds Wrecker for $5, Beef Sleazy for 10. Says what I'm hearing is bro developed a worldview that allows for evolution to not contradict it. What an idiot. Evolution is his real God. Lmao. Anything you want to say to that, Neil?
- [126:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, it's just a. It's. It's. What it is is according to Heisenberg, is it's the. The becoming of the. What does he say? He says something like the turning into the noose. Like we're moving into the. We're moving to our final form. Okay.
- [126:46]
Andrew Wilson
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing, Socrates.
- [126:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's good.
- [126:52]
Jay Dyer
Good stuff.
- [126:53]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah. Smokey says Neil's worldview comes from the game Cruelty Squad. God bless Dyer and God bless the eastern orthodox Christians. $10 says 4.7k viewers and less than 1000 likes. Do better. We did a lot better. The San Joe Savage for 20 says, how does monism solve for the Gettier Challenge? It seems to fail right at the start with epistemology. Given the impersonal nature of the one making truth inaccessible. I think that's for you, Neil.
- [127:24]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's the one are they talking about. Is that another, another name for the one in the many problem?
- [127:29]
Andrew Wilson
I, I'm not going to comment on as to what it is that he's referencing. Just how does monism solve for the gettier challenge?
- [127:36]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't know. I'm not sure what the gettier challenge is, to be honest.
- [127:38]
Jay Dyer
So it has to do with another layer of justification and the classical JTB not being sufficient. So you also have to have a justification to not accidentally have knowledge. That's correct. In other words, you have to demonstrate that you actually could know that what was correct wasn't just accidental.
- [127:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, I have to look into that and check and, and come up with something better.
- [128:00]
Andrew Wilson
Why would God exist in such a way to make his presence blatantly known to such beings who identify as Gnostic?
- [128:07]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'm not actually agnostic. I use the term because I did have a phase where I, I was really into Gnosticism after I was even Christianity and I started my channel as talking about Gnosticism. So it was like, it was like scholarship on Gnosticism. That's kind of what it was.
- [128:22]
Andrew Wilson
And if anybody today is upset he spaghetti with your fine moderator. Just remember I was requested for this debate by both debaters. So take it up with them. This one comes in from Suko, says my father equals a person, me equals a person. We're the same person. I guess this is the one in the mini problem. I think he's going back to or trying to.
- [128:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Will this be towards Jay then?
- [128:46]
Andrew Wilson
I think it's towards you. My father equals a person, me equals a person.
- [128:51]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, this is the quantifier shift fallacy. It's probably for Neil.
- [128:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, we're not the same person. It's a word. That's a word concept fallacy. Wouldn't that be a person fallacy?
- [129:03]
Jay Dyer
Yeah.
- [129:04]
Andrew Wilson
So abstract says I'm willing to hear this guy out, but come on, don't straw me on the Trinity. This one comes in from Austin says did bro google Muslim arguments against the Trinity before this?
- [129:19]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't think Muslims believe emanations in the noose, do they? Do they?
- [129:23]
Jay Dyer
No arguments against the Trinity.
- [129:26]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh, I guess. Yeah. I guess they would use similar. Yeah. You know someone I didn't, I didn't use the Muslim arguments.
- [129:32]
Andrew Wilson
Drew Briesis for 10 says 30 to 37 trillion cells equals one human.
- [129:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, these are the parts.
- [129:41]
Andrew Wilson
This one comes in from. Well, Emanuel, he's not going to be able to eat for a week. Sending all that Mexican currency to us, he says, if punishment and sacrifice are tools, so to speak, for our salvation, that is they help us repent. How does that mean God requires something for his perfection? Any takers on that?
- [130:00]
Jay Dyer
Well, one thing I would just briefly say is that I did not get to the Neil's objection about God needing in terms of sacrifice. But even within the Old Testament, from the orthodox perspective, we don't think that God had those sacrifices because he needed the. The anything from the created order. They were typological for the coming work of Christ. And that's why David says in Psalm 51 that sacrifice and offering you do not desire. So in one sense, God laid that down as a pedagogical tool within the ancient world where there's a lot of idolatry, but it's also not necessary from God's perspective. And that's why Paul says in Hebrews that blood and animals and blood offerings do not appease God.
- [130:46]
Andrew Wilson
How do you logically apply laws and concepts of this reality to something incomprehensible that exists outside of this reality?
- [130:55]
Jay Dyer
What do you mean?
- [130:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Like it's. For me?
- [130:57]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah.
- [130:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Oh, well, I already said I account. I account for this with the. The noose, which is the intellect inform, logos and reason. So things like. Things like these concepts of. Is that what they mean? Like logically applied concepts of this reality, Something incomprehensible that exists? Yeah, I mean, that's. That's kind of what I said. My. So I'm making metaphysical arguments to account for these things.
- [131:20]
Andrew Wilson
This one comes in from Darth Jeff who says, holy filibuster, bro. I think a lot of people thought that there was a filibuster because they weren't familiar with a particular format of the debate. The first hour of the debate, for those of you who came in later, was designed to be a 10 10, 10 with rebuttals and then closings before we got to the open end of the debate. I know it's a bit of a different format, but it helps both debaters set the stage for what it is that they're actually going to be arguing. Patriot Musk for 10 says Gregor Mendel was a priest and a geneticist. There were religious figures who were geologists and hypothesized the earth was old. To say the church can't hold a scientific position is ludicrous.
- [131:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, but I was just saying that they don't have a particular position on the old. The age being old or young, which is fair. I mean, I don't. It's Better than dogmatically asserting it's 6,000 in my. In my world of you. Maybe Jay doesn't agree, but whatever.
- [132:13]
Andrew Wilson
Neil, you should have just barfed on the floor because that would have been more coherent than your rebuttal.
- [132:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Nice.
- [132:21]
Andrew Wilson
This one comes in from the San Jose Savage for 20 says GI. Your objections to Trinity is premised on grammatical errors and a word concept fallacy. St. Basil addresses the misreading of John 1 multiple times on the Holy Spirit and letters against enemies. Or I'm sorry, is that.
- [132:40]
Jay Dyer
You know me.
- [132:41]
Andrew Wilson
Pronounce that. Yeah, know me. Okay, gotcha.
- [132:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I'd like to know what the grammatical errors were. That's kind of a even what it's grammatical. I mean, I'm saying it is because I'm saying it wrong. Is that what they're saying?
- [132:52]
Andrew Wilson
Take my emanation of cash. I will.
- [132:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Nice.
- [132:56]
Andrew Wilson
Nostards. List of top 100 debunked misconceptions of Christianity.
- [133:02]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Read Irenaeus. That's true.
- [133:06]
Andrew Wilson
Says question for Jay. Can you give us an undetermination of scientific theory that Gnostic has used stone to determine the age of the world.
- [133:15]
Jay Dyer
That Gnostic has used?
- [133:17]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah. Can you give us an under determination of scientific theory that Gnostic has used?
- [133:22]
Jay Dyer
I mean, I think the point there is just that like you could have a lot of data that two different theories or two different systems might conceivably make sense of. And so the point of under determination of data is just that more and more data isn't going to tell you which things theory to go with. So the point is that you've got. You got to have some other kind of argument beyond just more data or more science papers to deal with the problem of the under determination of data. Hence the phrase itself under determination of data, meaning that there's not enough data to tell you which paradigm or model is true. So I don't know how to explain that from his view.
- [134:02]
Andrew Wilson
Project Bid for 10 says the problem is that either the one contains differentiation so it isn't simple, or it contains none, so it can't explain multiplicity. The structureless source cannot yield a structured world.
- [134:13]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yep, that's where. That's where the. I think it's Plotinus who comes up with the idea of the emanations to solve that the emanations means you can have a spark of the One and also be different from the One. So it's not just strict monism where we're all this we're all one man. It's not that question.
- [134:34]
Andrew Wilson
I'm sorry did that. I wonder if this one came in twice.
- [134:38]
Jay Dyer
It looks like it.
- [134:39]
Andrew Wilson
No, no, I'm sorry, I backed. I must have backed up slightly. This one comes in from Jeremiah. It says GI's problem with God's commands for sacrifices as well as atonement by Christ stems from his complete lack of research and understanding of the orthodox view of atonement. Okay, this one comes in from Cooler. Who says Nastar keeps reading info someone else is writing for him on a screen?
- [135:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Like I cheated or something. Yeah, right. The only thing I looked up was orthodox scholars who say the earth is. Or who say Solomon is a 150 BC text.
- [135:14]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, listen, I think it's perfectly acceptable when you're using sources in a debate to pull up the sources in the debate and sometimes that may require a Google or something like this. If you don't have the source on hand, I think that that's totally fair. No, Neil, you never go full Billy Carson. Neil.
- [135:33]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Nice.
- [135:34]
Andrew Wilson
That's a good. That's a good reference. Neil smoked mad ganja before this.
- [135:39]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I wish.
- [135:39]
Andrew Wilson
Were you. Were you token? A little bit of the devil's lettuce, Neil.
- [135:43]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No.
- [135:43]
Andrew Wilson
No. Okay, $20. This one comes in. Sam Shimon would eat GI alive. Not that Jay Dyer hasn't been dog walking already, but man, he wouldn't get away with any perverting of.
- [135:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I would do it.
- [135:56]
Jay Dyer
Sure. Well, Sam Shimoon's crazy. He might actually literally eat him alive. So.
- [136:00]
Andrew Wilson
Glory to the triune God. I want to show the entire audience something. I can do that Sam Shimon can't. I just. There you go. I can do that Sam Shimon can't. So this one comes in from Caleb who says in Gnostic, non formant. Very clever. Very clever. Caleb, you're a very clever guy. You. You really got us with that one. Josie says GI is drifting the debate into reliability of scriptures off topic from metaphysical debate to this just mumbling and spatting. He shouldn't be doing this. Major red herring. Be better. Gi, I do think that the debate went off the rails a little bit here and there, but we managed to get a lot of it back on track. So jay, the worst three in one's too complex for Neil, but 12 logos in the Nomads. Perfectly acceptable.
- [136:53]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Nice.
- [136:53]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, Jeremiah says Gnostics frequent retreat back to it's one book when he knows dang well what Jay is saying. Just one example of as many sophistries. By the way, right now we have a full. We. I mean we're totally full in the call queue. There's tons of people still trying to join the studio. I'm sorry, guys. As we start filtering through callers, you'll be able to get in.
- [137:15]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Are you getting my super chats to read or are they just going on my end? I think it's.
- [137:19]
Andrew Wilson
That's just you, bro.
- [137:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Okay. Yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I'm just wondering.
- [137:22]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah. This one comes into Legion's map, certifiably debunking the Yehudish origins from Moses to. Now Joseph. It's all stolen mythology. The Wire Dyer is a dweeb. He says. Jay, he called you a dweeb.
- [137:37]
Jay Dyer
Oh, I guess it's time to pack it up.
- [137:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I don't.
- [137:41]
Andrew Wilson
I don't think. I don't even think he has a mustache, though, that guy. This one comes in from Davis Wood, who says. Question for Neil. It's a block of iron. One thing. If it can be divided into individual atoms, Atoms themselves are fundamentally separate things, not just parts.
- [137:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Question for me. Sorry, I was. Yeah, I was typing in my.
- [138:00]
Andrew Wilson
Pay attention, Neil.
- [138:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Block of iron is if it divided into atoms. Atoms themselves are fundamentally separate, not just parts. I mean, the.
- [138:09]
Andrew Wilson
The.
- [138:09]
Neil Gnostic Informant
As I said, the. The modern Platonist view on atoms is that we. We actually accept that atoms are. Are like a. Describing the fundamentals of reality, but they actually. They actually attest to Plato, not Democritus, because when you smash atoms together, they don't break up and fall into smaller atoms. They actually show a mathematical symmetry. So that's. That's the modern perspective on that math degree here.
- [138:34]
Andrew Wilson
One is not many. Worst debate ever. Okay, Zach Mercer. I didn't. I noticed that you didn't have a beard, Bill.
- [138:43]
Jay Dyer
I didn't actually argue, by the way, one as many. I said that the numeral three is both one and many. Obviously, the number one is not many, although it is divisible into many. Many. You know, you can go into fractions.
- [138:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So.
- [138:57]
Andrew Wilson
I have to add this. The Pando aspen grove in Utah is roughly 47, 000 aspen trees. But one thing that is amazing about them, they have a single root system, a singular living origin or organism. Imagine that. One root, thousands of trees. Peanut says evidence of Moses and the Exodus do exist in Egypt. When the hieroglyphics are deciphered correctly using Welsh language and syntax, as shown by Wilson and Blacker in their book Moses and the Hieroglyphs.
- [139:28]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Talk about Exodus.
- [139:29]
Andrew Wilson
Yes.
- [139:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Welsh language and syntax. What? I don't know what they're talking about.
- [139:36]
Andrew Wilson
I. I have no idea. That's above my Pay grade, Jay. The worst. I predict Neil did the magic fungi and misunderstood the trip. You can make fun of these guys because they sound beardless. Neil, That's. That's perfectly acceptable. Bird Brain for 10 says, the Trinity is not complicated. God is the sun, the sun is the light of the sun, and the spirit is the warmth you feel from the sun. At least that's how I understand it. Thanks for the content.
- [140:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's the Son of righteousness idea. We believe. We believe that too, about the noose being the represent being represented by the sun being the all pervading form, all pervading source of logic and reason, perfection.
- [140:16]
Andrew Wilson
I don't think he's actually making a literal reference to the sun, but rather saying that, yeah, this one thing has three different things you can do. Right? Is that okay?
- [140:25]
Jay Dyer
Yeah.
- [140:27]
Andrew Wilson
So Tikoff T. Cavallo says for five bucks, thanks for curing me of my Thorazine addiction. This was a burden to watch. Whale Jennings says, I wasn't religious when I was 8 years old. I got real sick. My whole family in school came to visit me. When the disease moved my head, it was game over. But that night, an angel appeared before me and saved me. Yeah, Neil, what do you think about that?
- [140:50]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Neil, look, if that happened to me, I'd. I don't blame you for. That's like that happened to you. You got to follow it. I'm like, whatever.
- [140:57]
Andrew Wilson
I haven't seen any angels either, but, you know, whatever. Slavic polytheist for five Canadian says, Jay said one can be many things. I agree. He just used the Trinity to prove pagan monism. The one can emanate many gods and other forms and beings.
- [141:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Interesting.
- [141:15]
Jay Dyer
Yeah. So I mean, I would just say, okay, how do we know? How do we know that's true? Versus Neil's conception of the same. Monad monadology.
- [141:25]
Andrew Wilson
James says for Gnostic, do you have a soul? Are you your soul, your body, both? Are you one? Are you many? Are you one and many? The essence of God is enough.
- [141:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah. With. In this world, my world view, I believe there's a soul and a body.
- [141:40]
Andrew Wilson
So gi. The evidence shows Jews actually worship multiple gods and did not obey the Torah. A single tear runs down the prophet Jeremiah's face as he says, I know.
- [141:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's actually the strongest argument against. What I'm saying is you go to the prophets and say, talk about how bad the Jews were and how polytheistic and idolatry they were. That's the best argument I've heard against my. My stuff that I put out There.
- [142:08]
Andrew Wilson
The unplugged beta says for 10. I'm not ready.
- [142:10]
Neil Gnostic Informant
You understand what I'm saying though, Jay, about that? Because when I'm. What my arguments are like, when we look at the evidence of the Jews before this period, they're all worshiping many gods. They're worshiping Asherah, Yahweh, they're doing all this other stuff. They're making graven images. And the person actually made a fair critique and says that's what Jeremiah is telling us. He's literally saying that's what's happening in his time. Then.
- [142:29]
Jay Dyer
Well then that would mean that the texts do relate historical accuracies which would refute your argument that they are late.
- [142:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's a good argument, but it also. You still. We still don't have evidence for the contrary either. Well, so it's not so you like in Jerusalem or like in the temples of Yahweh?
- [142:49]
Jay Dyer
Prophets talk about the. The high priest in Jerusalem engaging these activities like in Ezekiel.
- [142:55]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, that's. It looks like to me that later scribes were accounting for the history of Jerusalem being.
- [143:01]
Jay Dyer
But you just said that the prophets are describing polytheism early on.
- [143:06]
Neil Gnostic Informant
That's what the texts say. I think the text is written later. That's what I'm saying because.
- [143:11]
Andrew Wilson
Guys, guys, let's actually reliable there. Let's finish barreling through the super chats, boys. All right. I'm not ready, but I'd like to debate at some point. Well, good for you I guess. Get ready, Pedia.
- [143:21]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, right.
- [143:21]
Andrew Wilson
GI is your source Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary or both? He's making a crucible reference to guy who's debating once who told me that the definition of hypocrisy from the Urban Dictionary was pretty funny. Bruce Loden is an independent researcher and there is no scholar called Thomas L. Davies. Gnostic informant.
- [143:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Philip R. Davies. Philip R. Davies. Thomas L. Thomas. I said you missed you. You heard me wrong. Philip R. Davies, Thomas L. Thomas. And Bruce Loudon is a PhD, not just some random independent scholar. He was a professor.
- [143:53]
Andrew Wilson
Do you trust anybody with a redundant name?
- [143:56]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Thomas L. Thomas.
- [143:57]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, that's what I mean.
- [143:58]
Neil Gnostic Informant
He's trusting. He's still. He's still trust.
- [144:00]
Andrew Wilson
He trusts anybody with a.
- [144:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
He's an Irish. He's an Irish scholar.
- [144:03]
Andrew Wilson
Then you can't trust him double.
- [144:07]
Neil Gnostic Informant
I thought you were gonna like him because he's Irish.
- [144:09]
Andrew Wilson
Are you kidding me? I'm a self loathing Irishman. I'm English and Irish and my friend Posh says that that means I wear the traditional headwear of The Irish, which is the English boot technician says notice.
- [144:20]
Neil Gnostic Informant
How not Thomas L. Thompson. I said his name wrong.
- [144:23]
Andrew Wilson
Oh, okay. Notice how gnostic lover Profiles don't have PfP. Typical bot behavior. At least say something with substance, dipshits. This one is from the unplugged. Beta says this is for the grift. I appreciate it. As the grifter extraordinaire, I appreciate all the super chats. Roger Rabbit says for 100 bucks, a perfect God would know all that is required to have on Earth. At 7,000 years old, he would have created everything to make it. So you both rely too much on teachings and less on any type of faith.
- [144:55]
Jay Dyer
I don't. I don't even know what that means.
- [144:57]
Neil Gnostic Informant
It's a lot of money, though.
- [144:58]
Jay Dyer
Yeah, it's a nice super chat.
- [145:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Respect that.
- [145:02]
Andrew Wilson
The lost Neil fallacy says Josie gaming. Eric says a B and a B are three different things. The paper, the writing represents the number and the number itself. You're the dumb one, but that's a whole different formula. Okay, this one comes in from Pepper Profit. Good work, Jay. This one says from the San Jose Savage GI Simply using something does not provide justification for that something, I. E. Using consensus of scientists is not justification for the consensus. Northern mythology or. I'm sorry, methodology.
- [145:38]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Interesting.
- [145:39]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, guys, we gotta wrap the super chats there. I'm sorry, they're. They, they. They're coming in. I wish I'd get to all of them, but we gotta jump over to the callers. I'm just going to take them in the order that I saw you guys pop in. Scrumpage, tutor, you're up first. How are you this fine evening? I'm going to try to time this so point make your questions very pointed towards the debater so that they can answer them. Go ahead.
- [146:04]
Jay Dyer
Yes, sir.
- [146:05]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So before you guys moved on in the middle of the debate, there was a mention of a holistic approach to acknowledging scholarly reference insofar as whether or not you're actually going to give credence to a certain set of arguments from a scholar. Neil, could you go ahead and reconcile this for me? Jane necessarily mentioned that later or after you had said that, that a minority of scholars could necessarily be right. Are you arguing that the same in your, you know, in. In your refutation, are you arguing the same thing that Jay is necessarily saying when you say that a minority of scholars could necessarily be right, I. E. The idea of Neoplatonism not being existent in your reference? Yeah, of course.
- [147:00]
Andrew Wilson
Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Have a good One caller, please drop out on the back end so other people can come in. I'd appreciate that very much and you have a wonderful evening. Terak, can you hear me okay? Yep, perfect. First of all, amazing show guys to everybody.
- [147:16]
Jay Dyer
I just have a real quick question for Neil.
- [147:18]
Andrew Wilson
Neil, you've done a like a multiple different podcasts with Jason Georgiani and he basically makes the case that Christianity is.
- [147:26]
Jay Dyer
Just like uh, the, the brainchild of Plato.
- [147:29]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [147:30]
Andrew Wilson
So if that is the case, why would you not just support orthodox Christianity rather than Neoplatonism?
- [147:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Well, it's, it's not, it's not identical to it, so it's different from it. So you can't just be like, oh, it's because it's adopting platonous tenant Platonist tenants that it. And obviously I, I believe in my worldview that it bastardizes things like the noose and the, the logos and stuff like that. And so yeah, that's, that's the reason why.
- [147:54]
Andrew Wilson
But like if you look at it from. If it was like Aristotle and the likes that continued on Plato's vision, why do you not trust that vision? Vision rather than something new?
- [148:04]
Neil Gnostic Informant
The Platonists continued on. They didn't be all become Christians. They. There was Platonists all the way to late antiquity, all the way through the Dark Ages, all the way till plethon. Plethon if you want to call them that, all the way till today. So it's not like they all just became Christians. Even though it is true that some Platonists did convert. I think origin was one of them. I think.
- [148:21]
Andrew Wilson
Justin, very quick last question. Terry, I've got a lot of callers. Yeah, no, I can go there. I appreciate you having me on and shout out to everybody, Jay, Neil and Andrew, thanks for putting on the show. Of course. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening. Corinth, very quickly.
- [148:35]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah.
- [148:36]
Jay Dyer
Just a question for Jay. In the analogy used for the Trinity.
- [148:39]
Andrew Wilson
Using the written out, the number three.
- [148:42]
Jay Dyer
You were trying to use this to.
- [148:43]
Andrew Wilson
Show that the Trinity can be one.
- [148:45]
Jay Dyer
And many in this sense.
- [148:47]
Andrew Wilson
This was relative to the critique of Gnostic informant.
- [148:50]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So we're saying it like three is.
- [148:53]
Andrew Wilson
In the numerical sense, it's three. And in the amount of figures being.
- [148:57]
Jay Dyer
Put forward there, 1.
- [148:58]
Andrew Wilson
Do you think that this is analogous.
- [149:00]
Jay Dyer
To the Trinity insofar as you think in some senses Christ is God, but in other senses Christ isn't God. No, it's not about Christ. It's a question of just that even objects in the world, even mundane created objects have both multiplicity and unity that are trained different senses.
- [149:17]
Andrew Wilson
Right.
- [149:18]
Jay Dyer
So the relationship of one and many in the triad is obviously not the same. But it's just an analogy that if it exists in the created order, there's no reason why it couldn't exist in God in the Creator, where we see it exists in different senses.
- [149:31]
Neil Gnostic Informant
So if we look at something in.
- [149:32]
Jay Dyer
One sense, another sense, it's different senses. We're not doing that.
- [149:37]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Right.
- [149:38]
Jay Dyer
We're not. That's why it's an analogy.
- [149:40]
Neil Gnostic Informant
But it's not an analogy because you're. The thing that we're looking at there is dis.
- [149:43]
Jay Dyer
Analogous.
- [149:44]
Neil Gnostic Informant
They are identical. Christ and God, the 1 and the.
- [149:47]
Jay Dyer
3 are identical, not just different invocations. No, they're not. The nature. Nature and person in the Trinity are distinct. They're not identical. So you don't think Christ is identical to God? He possesses the divine nature. But all Trinity, all trinitarian theology, hinges on the nature person distinction. So Christ is not God or Christ is God? Christ has a divine nature, but he's God the Son. So Christ is God or Christ is not God? Christ has the divine nature which is shared amongst three persons. So Christ is God or Christ is not God. And you're equivocating on the word God, which I already explained. Gnostic informant. I'm not.
- [150:24]
Andrew Wilson
Hang on. Last question. Make it good. Okay, I know this is going to be a new question, but Christ is God or Christ is not God?
- [150:32]
Jay Dyer
No, Christ is God the Son.
- [150:34]
Andrew Wilson
Get out of here. Corinth, thank you for the question. I appreciate it. Please drop out on the back end. I appreciate that very much. So that other callers can get in. Bishop, how are you? Can you hear me?
- [150:46]
Neil Gnostic Informant
What's up?
- [150:46]
Andrew Wilson
Bishop?
- [150:48]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Good to see you.
- [150:48]
Jay Dyer
Bishop, what's up? What's up, Neil?
- [150:53]
Andrew Wilson
You're kind of a little. You're a little bit choppy, so please dive right into your question. We can hear you.
- [151:01]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Yeah, I can hear you. Good to see you, man.
- [151:03]
Jay Dyer
Right on, man.
- [151:04]
Andrew Wilson
Neil, you did a great job.
- [151:06]
Jay Dyer
I just had had to say you did a great job. And I. I was. Had a question for Jay. Why.
- [151:15]
Andrew Wilson
Why would you want to believe or.
- [151:18]
Jay Dyer
Worship a God who dashes babies against rocks and orders the slaughter of many people? Why would you consider him a good God? Well, God has the power of life and death. And in the ancient world, he gave that command to the Israelites to get rid of any of the opponents who would conceivably be future problems for the Israelites. So God knows all things. And if he decides that certain people should be gotten rid of because they're opposing the people that would produce the Messiah, then it's, it's within God's rights to get rid of people because as scripture says, he has right. He has the power of life and death. He can make that decision because he's God. But even if, let's say Neoplatonism is true, I mean, that's infants being dashed against rocks is just another manifestation of the one. Well, also, why would God send himself to kill himself and then beg himself not to kill himself? Yeah, well, that's not what happened. The atonement is a deifying of the human nature. It's not a paying off. That that did not happen. I'm explaining the orthodox view of atonement, which is.
- [152:32]
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, caller, you got to let him answer. You gotta let Jay answer the question you asked. Go ahead.
- [152:36]
Jay Dyer
It's not the Protestant view that God is punishing himself. It's that God the Son willingly took on death to destroy the power of death, which is a demonic power. It's the power of Satan. And so he's deifying our nature. He's not paying the father off with some sort of created thing because God doesn't need anything, so he's not being paid off.
- [152:55]
Andrew Wilson
Last follow up, caller.
- [152:57]
Jay Dyer
But you guys did mention that God incited David to create a census, but also Satan incited David to create a census. Wouldn't that be the same character you said that that was Satan?
- [153:14]
Neil Gnostic Informant
No, you got a Marcionite in the house.
- [153:17]
Jay Dyer
It's just, it's primary and secondary causation. Right. So if I know that a bank is about going to be robbed and I overhear them that they're going to rob a bank, and then they go and rob the bank. Like, the fact that I know a thing's happening or I let a thing happen doesn't make me the immediate cause of it. It makes me a proximate cause or a secondary cause.
- [153:36]
Andrew Wilson
I'm sorry, I gotta leave it there. Caller, thank you so much for calling in. I hope you have a wonderful evening. If you don't mind, drop out back in the back. We still got a ton of callers coming in. I'm sorry that these are very brief, but I want to try to get to as many people as we can. Not your dude, go ahead.
- [153:52]
Neil Gnostic Informant
Hey, guys, thanks for having me on.
- [153:54]
Jay Dyer
I enjoyed the civility of the debate and I'll chalk that up to Father.
- [153:57]
Andrew Wilson
Turbo keeping Jay honest.