Reviewing the Debate between Fearless Truth Jake Brancatella Ft. JayDyer

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Jay'sAnalysis - Reviewing the Debate between Fearless Truth, Jake Brancatella, Ft. Jay Dyer (March 24, 2026)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a detailed review and analysis of the recent online debate about the logical coherence of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The discussion is led by Nick from Fearless Truth, the Host/Moderator, and later joined by Jay Dyer, a well-known Orthodox apologist. The review focuses on Nick’s debate with Jake Brancatella ("Muslim Metaphysician"), exploring their arguments, discussing the role of "relative identity" logic, and addressing common objections from Islamic and unitarian critics. The episode’s tone is casual, lively, and at times, humorous, while maintaining rigorous engagement with philosophical, theological, and logical topics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Structure of the Debate & Main Focus

• Topic: Is the Trinity illogical?
• Debate Format: Opening statements, cross-examination, Q&A, and review.
• Key Issue: Whether the doctrine of the Trinity can be modeled in a logically consistent way within classical or first-order logic systems.

2. Logical Consistency vs. Metaphysics

• Nick’s Position:

  • Logic and metaphysics must be distinguished. The debate is about logical consistency, not metaphysical truth or biblical support.
  • If a logically consistent model of the Trinity can be given, the charge of it being "illogical" fails, regardless of whether opponents find the model metaphysically satisfying.

• Definition Clarified:

  • "Illogical"/logical inconsistency means: "there is no model under which every member is true without contradiction" ([09:00]).
  • Metaphysical properties (what makes persons of the Trinity distinct, etc.) are not relevant to logical consistency.

• Notable Quote:

  “If I can create a consistent model using first-order logic and he agrees it is consistent, he has conceded the debate…” — Nick [09:00]

3. The Formal Model & Relative Identity

• Relative Identity:

  • A logical tool allowing entities to be "the same in one sense/sortal" but "different in another."
  • Used to claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God (under 'God'-ness) but not the same person.

• Common Example:

  • Two people wearing identical shirts can say “we have the same shirt” — the 'sameness' is relative to the shirt's type, not literal numerical identity ([23:17]).
  • This form of reasoning is common in natural language, not an ad hoc invention.

• Pushback Handled:

  • Even if relative identity is “ad hoc,” logical models do not require more than internal consistency ([25:18]).

4. Jake’s Rebuttal and Objections

• Jake’s Critique:

  • Alleged that, by usual patterns of counting (using authority quotes from Gregory of Nyssa, William Lane Craig, Bo Branson), having three persons should entail three gods.
  • Argued Orthodox distinction of essence and energy multiplies "uncreated realities" infinitely, allegedly making the logical problem worse.
  • Claimed that using relative identity departs from "classical logic" or Leibniz’s Law.

• Hosts’/Jay’s Response:

  • There’s no universal philosophical consensus against relative identity; it’s a legitimate logical approach within first-order logic ([103:40], [105:47]).
  • Orthodox theology addresses the nature/person/energy distinctions with nuance; metaphysics differs from logic ([48:41] Jay Dyer, [81:33]).

5. Super Chats and Community Questions

• Frequently, the chat raises clarifications about logic, relative identity, metaphysics, and Orthodox theology—these are addressed informally but with consistent reference to authoritative sources or academic formulations.

• Metaphysical vs. Logical Truth:

  • The debate wasn’t about which theology is true—only about whether a logical contradiction can be shown ([94:58] Jay Dyer).

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

On the Core Debate

“He conceded, in this formal system, the Trinity is logical. Like, what more is there to talk about?”
— Nick [93:11]

“If he concedes that in that system it's consistent and not illogical, then all of that that he just said is irrelevant. So I mean that—that was the premise of the debate right there.”
— Jay Dyer [99:17]

On Category Mistakes

“He doesn't understand the difference between arguing the metaphysical truth of a thing versus arguing if it's logical… It's bad.”
— Nick [131:28]

“It's a category mistake… that's not the case. In fact, Boolean logic is intentionally developed to not have any ontological commitments.”
— Jay Dyer [135:10]

On Orthodox Approach to Error and Heresy

“In the Orthodox Church, heresy is when you're obstinately, knowingly going against the orthodox… So I think maybe in the Islamic conception, if you've got something wrong, it's sort of like de facto shirk or something like that. … We don’t think that just because somebody disagrees or they got a theological position wrong or something like that. I'm not trying to go at Nick at all. … It doesn't work that way.”
— Jay Dyer [71:49]

Humor & Community Banter

• Running jokes about Ryan Seacrest's ads, Jay anathematizing Nick, and uncreated birds.
• "Jay dire fallacy"—a running gag whenever a quote from Jay is used in debate, as if it’s an automatic checkmate.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Opening, Nick Explains Trinity Logic Model: [09:00—14:07], [16:22—21:23]
• Relative Identity Explained: [20:10—24:45]
• Jake’s Opening and Orthodox/Famous Quotes: [28:12—39:54]
• Essence-Energy Distinction Discussed: [48:41—51:22], [81:33—86:23], [138:32—143:32]
• Jay Dyer Joins and Responds to Anathema Claims: [70:45—84:00]
• Formalization and Cross Examination ('Did Jake Understand the Formal Model?'): [87:45—101:28]
• Metaphysics vs. Logical Consistency: [94:58—105:31]
• Jake’s Energies/Birds/Createdness Objections: [145:05—155:19], [159:00—163:02]
• Final Thoughts and Summary of Weaknesses in Jake’s Objection: [169:33—170:03]
• Jay’s Carnivore/Omnivore Analogy for Trinity: [166:53—174:23]
• Community Q&A and Super Chat Highlights: [170:49—184:05]

---

Flow of the Episode

1. Intro and Debate Setup: Light banter, setting expectations, Nick waits for Jay, then delves into the technical discussion.
2. Opening Statements and Breakdown: Walkthrough of each side’s main argument, with emphasis on logical modeling.
3. Relative Identity and Orthodox Position: Deep dive into what relative identity is, how it applies to the Trinity, and how it’s not “ad hoc.”
4. Critique of Jake’s Objections: Dissection of the philosophical and theological missteps/misunderstandings, especially around logical frameworks and Orthodox metaphysics.
5. Jay Dyer’s Entry and Orthodox Responses: Jay clarifies Orthodox teaching on error, heresy, metaphysics, and explains the theophanies and essence/energy distinctions.
6. Cross Examination and Model Formalization: Nick walks through his model; Jake struggles to interact formally, reveals misunderstandings of logic/model theory.
7. Objections on Essence, Energy, and Uncreatedness: Jake attempts to expand the logical problem, but Jay and Nick clarify key distinctions and parallel issues in Islamic theology.
8. Rhetoric, Community Humor, and Final Thoughts: Lively Q&A, running jokes, community engagement, and wrap-up affirming the rigor and friendliness of Orthodox debate practice.

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• The episode demonstrates that the Trinity can be modeled logically under accepted (even if not universally familiar) frameworks within first-order/classical logic.
• Relative identity, while sometimes contested, is a powerful and common-sense approach to reconciling apparent contradictions in theological counting.
• Jay Dyer’s presence brings deep Orthodox insight, historical framing, and clarification about Orthodox practice regarding disagreement and error.
• The reviewed debate showcases the importance of distinguishing metaphysical truth claims from logical consistency—a subtlety often lost in interfaith or apologetics debates.
• The mood remains irenic, with frequent humor and camaraderie, even amidst sharp intellectual exchange.

---

For a truly comprehensive understanding of the topics discussed, listeners are encouraged—like Jay recommends—to directly read relevant works from Gregory Palamas, Bo Branson, or the referenced model theory literature, as well as to review the debate itself if they want to see the flow and mood in action.

Transcript

[Nick]

With VRBoCare, help is always ready before, during and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's Stock up Savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor to Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Post, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pickup or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Nick]

Foreign.

[Host/Moderator]

Are you searching for a deeper understanding of your faith?

[Nick]

Inspiring Philosophy is your go to resource for exploring the rich tapestry of Christian thought.

[Host/Moderator]

From biblical archaeology to philosophy of mind, we dive into the topics that matter.

[Nick]

Our content bridges faith and understanding, offering insights into God's existence and the reliability of the New Testament.

[Host/Moderator]

Join a community where faith meets reason and discover the answers you've been seeking.

[Nick]

Inspiring Philosophy where faith meets understanding I'm sorry master but I must go all

[Jake]

out just this once.

[Nick]

I don't like you Muhammad Dawah boys you've left me no choice Bible's been corrupted that you go to line but

[Jay Dyer]

you claim the same book prophesies your

[Nick]

sign twisting every scripture, faking all the quotes, hiding all the facts trying to

[Jay Dyer]

keep your boat afloat without lies

[Nick]

Islam dies. Perfect preservation yeah that myth got wrecked worldly Quran don't even match the text used to flex science now you back in the way cause camel ember your facts don't hit the same today. Got the Islamic dilemma you can't solve that every answer you give makes the problem snap back say the Bible's corrupt but your own book cries Bible's the lost words they can't be revised if a lost words can't change then you claim a fraud you just argued yourself

[Jake]

against the word of your God in jail secret book that's your mystery prize but the coin say Christians should judge

[Nick]

by it lies then your cool pull muted like it's just a game ruined the life and trash the man's name all that D will talk but when truth to pierce you vanish from the chat like it hurt your ears without lies Islam dies. Can't hide truth, can't spin those lies down lies this slim dies Dawah cries when the facts arise down lies Islam dies Can't hide truth, can't spin those lies dies, Islam dies, Dawa cries when

[Jay Dyer]

the facts arrive we follow Jesus better

[Nick]

sure in your dream while cutting out his claims like you're cropping the meme

[Jay Dyer]

crown off his head toss his crossing

[Nick]

the bench the smile for the camera

[Jake]

like he's still his kin Jesus was a Muslim, cute little twist free to

[Nick]

find the word so the facts don't exist if labels could change what the

[Jake]

records prove the pharaoh was a Yahweh

[Nick]

fan and Judah stayed true Muhammad in the song of Solomon boy you made

[Jay Dyer]

your prophet of fruit Snuggled up with

[Nick]

Solomon and came the man of. Those lies without lies, Islam dies Dawah cries when the facts are right?

[Jake]

You preach perfect text but the proof

[Nick]

ain't there half's wash, even your readers

[Jake]

don't care call the Bible corrupt but

[Nick]

still quote it loud it loud? Trying to find Muhammad just to please the crowd Song of Solomon, yeah, that's a flesh effect. You just wrote your prophet in the Solomon's bed Then the man of val soup came riding through all night long

[Jake]

you say that's true Jesus was a Muslim the word plays dead by that logic Pharaoh bowed his head you twist, you spin but you can't disguise that

[Nick]

every Dawah claim was built on lies, Lies, lies without lies, lies, lies.

[Host/Moderator]

Yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo.

[Nick]

What up? What up, you two?

[Host/Moderator]

Jay, sorry we're late. I don't know where Jay is, and Mike is in the sky right now on a aerodynamic device called the plane. So maybe Mike will show up, maybe Jay will show up. Who really knows? But we got Nick from Fearless Truth here.

[Nick]

Static all over my face on the camera. I don't know why that's weird. I see, like, static.

[Host/Moderator]

I just assumed you have electricity powers or some. Something like that.

[Nick]

I got the magic touch. Some might say. All right, well, I don't know, man. Jay's ducking us. Jay's ducking? Calling me a hair, running from the po. Listen, Jay's supposed to come here in anathema. According to Jake, Jay is.

[Host/Moderator]

Maybe that's why he's not showing up, Nick. Because you're a dirty heretic.

[Nick]

He doesn't want to anathematize me. He doesn't want to. He doesn't want to do it. It's crazy, man.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, we're here to do a debate review.

[Nick]

Come eventually.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. So hopefully we can just make do with what we got for now. Do you have timestamps that you want to go over? The plan's a little different now since Jay's not here.

[Nick]

I'll just tell you when. When I want you to pause it.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, cool. Well, we already got one super chat, so I'm just going to go over that really, really quickly. Actually, I'm gonna. You know what? I'm gonna save that because this. The person that super chatted this wants me to just probably wants Jay Dyer to hear the bark. Bark thing.

[Nick]

What the.

[Host/Moderator]

You already know the story, Nick, right?

[Nick]

I don't think so.

[Host/Moderator]

Really? Mike one time said in a stream, like his intro, he's like, he said something and he goes, you know, we need a better intro. And then the first thing that came to my mind was I yelled, bark with me if you're my puppies. And it stuck.

[Nick]

Ever since, people have just been like, oh, heck no.

[Host/Moderator]

So that's what's happening there. I'm gonna pull up the debate here.

[Nick]

And yeah, if y' all didn't watch the debate yet, man, y' all are in for a. And for a good tree. Ian, if you already watched the debate, like, you. You can't get enough of it.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, well, we're. Let's go to. You want to go to your, like. Oh, your opening statement. Jake's. Do you want to go straight to the cross exam? Where do you want to go first?

[Nick]

I mean, we can start out with the opening. So hopefully by the time the cross is here. Jay's here.

[Host/Moderator]

You. You want to start, you say one more time. Sorry, I got distracted.

[Nick]

We can start off with the opening. So then hopefully by the time the cross exam starts, Jay will be here by then.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, cool. Here we go.

[Jake]

Let me see.

[Nick]

Let me make sure I can. Yeah, make it a little bit bigger. Yeah, it's not coming bigger. Is there a. What are you sharing on specifically here? I'll try to just see if I can share over here. There we go. Yeah. All right, so 10 minute opening statement from Nick May. We'll start the timer on your first word, and then I'll give you that one minute queue. So whenever you're ready. Cool, Cool. All right. Topic the debate, guys, is. Is the Trinity illogical? I won't make this opening super long as I'm simply defending my position, showing what it is. Etc. Oops. Let me go ahead on that. All right. So what does it mean for something to be illogical in the first place? Well, as standardly defined in classical logic, for something to be illogical or logically inconsistent, it means there is no model under which every member is true without it being a contradiction in the set. And that's just classically defined everywhere. You can read that at the SEP or really any site that has the definitions of classical logic on it. Now, given that definition, what my opponent is going to have to show is that the model that I give regarding the Trinity is logically inconsistent and that it actually has an error within it that cannot be solved. A couple of things my opponent cannot do is if my opponent tries to argue about the actual properties of the person, such as what makes the person distinct or asking how do we discern them, that would fall into error. As logical consistency has to do with the model, it is not concerned with the metaphysics of what actually makes them distinct. If I can create a consistent model using first order logic and he agrees it is consistent, he has conceded the debate that it is logical if it is metaphysically consistent is another topic. So all this means, guys, is there's a difference between the metaphysics of something and the logic of something. Now the specific set of statements that are regarding in this is which we're trying to model is going to be there exists an FS and HS that there are three of these and that they are one G yet not each other. So this model is saying that the F is obviously going to stand for father s son, HS, Holy Spirit, etc. And these are one G. So they're one God, yet they're not the same person. This model is not concerned with the properties of predicates themselves. So what are the properties of f S&HS is irrelevant to the actual model, but are instead concerned with if the statement can lead to a consistent model itself.

[Host/Moderator]

Do, do you want. Before you, before you get into the relative identity stuff for your opening statement, do you want to break that down a little bit for the audience for anybody that is seeing that last slide there and they're like what the heck am I looking at?

[Nick]

Yeah. So basically what a model. Oh, by the way, Jay text me back. He said he thought he was at 5pm PST for some reason. So what time is.

[Host/Moderator]

Dude, I am.

[Nick]

So that would be an hour from. From when we originally started. But so.

[Host/Moderator]

So Jay will show up in 35 minutes?

[Nick]

Yes, I. I guess. As long as he makes it there in time. Yes. Yeah, I don't know.

[Host/Moderator]

We can, we can.

[Nick]

We.

[Host/Moderator]

We can kill.

[Nick]

He said IP said aesthetic.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points look for in store tags to earn on eligible Items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade host, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Host/Moderator]

Say what? Hold on, I'm gonna look through.

[Nick]

See, I knew IP and J. Messing

[Host/Moderator]

everything up there is a mistake.

[Nick]

While you look at that, though, I'll explain this.

[Host/Moderator]

We don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Well, Jay, we'll see you in 35 minutes. We'll kill time with Sensei Nick telling us about the conciliar statements and then all that jazz.

[Nick]

Okay, so basically when we're talking about models. So it's funny because when we. I asked him what a model was and he didn't really know, it seemed like he thought a model was like a syllogism. But when we look at what a model is, a model is just going to be like a specific formula or a specific order and statements in terms of like first order logic. And so what I gave him later in the debate was a specific set of statements using first order logic given a model. And I used a certain sort of predicates and it was logically consistent and it was using relative identity and it was using the Trinity statements. So the point is, is when we're doing that, he has to show an inconsistency, but he couldn't even read it. So that was like the. Y' all will see that.

[Host/Moderator]

Oh, you're talking about when you actually showed the syntax.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, we actually showed the syntax. And yeah, it was. It was bad. But yeah, I. I don't know. I mean, I. I pretty much knew from this opening statement. So I predicted everything he would do. One of the things I said, like on the previous slide was, you know, hey, I. What he can't do is this. He can't start talking about the metaphysics of the thing, which means start talking about the properties of. Oh, what makes the person. Because it has nothing to do with first order logic. Well, first order logic, right. We know it's Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We can know what they are, what it's denoting. It doesn't talk about the properties of the thing. So, yeah, it was very funny how we kind of called everything that he did.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, that is interesting. We'll play this next part where you're talking about relative identity and introducing it. This is the part that I think confuses so many people. Not just like Christians, but I also think it just confuses Muslims and Unitarians in general, just based off of the objections they give to relative identity models. And that's coming from somebody that doesn't use relative identity.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

So. Not that I don't agree with it. I just. Like I've told you, Nick, I hate discussions about sortals and everything like that. So if I think you can bypass it, I'm going to.

[Nick]

Yeah, it's funny. Also, I don't know if you pin in the chat, but you might as well pin in the chat. So anyone comes in here knows like Jay will be here around 8 EST. Anyone who comes in here.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, let me see if I can.

[Nick]

But he should be able to be here by the cross exam, so that'll be good.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, let me see if I can actually do that really quick.

[Nick]

You guys are going to still be able to witness Jay anathematized me today. Don't worry, guys. Don't worry. He's still gonna. Not even though me and Jay already spoke after the debate, he was like, bro, you won. This dude don't know what he's talking about. He's gonna advertise it. Don't worry.

[Host/Moderator]

There is it pinned? I don't know. I can't tell.

[Nick]

I don't know. The chat will tell us.

[Host/Moderator]

Chat let us know.

[Nick]

But. Okay, we can keep going though. Cool, cool Selves. So what are the properties of f S&HS is irrelevant to the actual model, but are instead concerned with if the statement can lead to a consistent model itself. So how do we formulate this? Well, we formulate these statements using relative identity operator, meaning that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same G, but they're not the same. Now what's funny, I want to pause it here too. What's funny here is I was gonna. I was telling them this. I was gonna actually include the formulation in this slide That I included later. But I was like, you know, I want to see, like, this guy talks all the time about. He's. He's the metaphysician man, he knows philosophy. I was like, so you know what? I'm gonna wait to give the formalization until the cross exam. I want to see if he, like, he could even read it. He even knows, like, what it's saying. And lo and behold, he. Bro, he saw it. He took a sip of his coffee. He was like, was that, Was this in your. Was this in your original statement? It was so funny.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, it. And here's the thing. I do want to be fair to Jake in this sense. Like, there's two. There's a few things happening here. One is he. He did admit that he doesn't know how to read it and he didn't know what, like, he was looking at. So that, that, that part did seem pretty bad. That being said, I also just want to point out that, like, it's not unreasonable for somebody that. That does know syntax, that does know first order logic to be like, we're in the middle of a debate. I'm not going to take the 10 to 15 minutes that I need to actually, you know, translate what I'm looking at and all that stuff. Yeah, but you.

[Nick]

I mean, yeah, even that one. I try to put it as simple as possible. Like when that Q A or when the. Yeah, when the Q A at the end asked me to read it like, bro, it took like 15 seconds. Like, bro. It's like, it's. So I tried to put it as simple as possible for him. I didn't even try to make it conf. There was literally. I had a longer one I could have put, but I decided not to

[Host/Moderator]

and just condensed it.

[Nick]

Yeah, I literally condensed it. So I was like, I don't want to make you saying. Yeah, I try to make it easy for me.

[Host/Moderator]

So this is the part, I think, that trips people up. Do you want me to keep going? And then we can explain relative identity some more after your explanation here and in your opening or.

[Nick]

Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah. Going to be one in one way, but yet distinct in another way. One possible objection that my opponent might give is he might say this way of counting as ad hoc, although I don't believe it is. Even if we grant that this counting method is ad hoc, it would not prove the formulation to be logically inconsistent, as models do not care about ad hoc ness. Rather, they care if the formulation actually works itself. Another possible Objection is he might say that if we count another way, it would lead to a contradiction. This would again fail. Because even if that is true, as long as this model is consistent, we have met the criteria to be considered logical to show a counter example in this. If a Christian were to tell a Muslim God is merciful, so that means that G equals M or God equals mercy, that would be ill formed given that a Muslim commitment about what is means. And so we can show. There's multiple different models in which we can use to show that just saying that something is something or something that it equals another doesn't necessarily prove what type of identity you're using there. And so we can formulate it such as this. And that's the end of the slide. Okay, so we can pause it here too. So, all right, so when we're talking about this, right, we want to. You can put the slide back up so I can like explain it, what it's saying. Okay, so I gave a counter example here because one of the, one of the things is that a lot of these people assume that like the equal symbol normally is necessarily like absolute identity, meaning if two things are equal, they're absolutely identical. And so I'm showing him that's not the case here. Like, for example, if a Muslim says God is merciful or God equals mercy, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's absolutely identical to his mercy and that he's gonna, you know, come out and, you know, have different. I mean, well, I guess Jake would say he has different ontologies. So, I mean, I guess he might, but. But, yeah, but most Muslims who actually know what they're talking about wouldn't say he has, you know, different ontologies for all his different names. And so that's kind of the entire point of trying to show exactly what this means. And he couldn't. He, you know, he couldn't go around this point.

[Host/Moderator]

So help the audience understand maybe what relative identity is and how it's not ad hoc or how it's not like counterintuitive to the way we normally count or deal with things.

[Nick]

Yeah, so relative identity is basically going over the fact that everything doesn't have specified truth conditions. So the specific instance that philosophers use is, say, for example, you are like on the beach and you have two sand castles, right? And you say, we have these two sand castles. Cool, cool. We have to say, he's on LA 101, bruh. But say, say you have two sand castles or two mounds of sand, right? And they say, oh yeah, they're you know, the same, the same size. We have the same. We made the same size sandcastle, but one sandcastle might have a different amount of, you know, grains of sand than the other. So, you know, when we're talking about this, that's everyday language. They don't have to have. We don't have to know the exact amount of grains of sand to know that they're, you know, different sizes of the same size. Same thing for mountains. If we say these two mountains are the same size, we don't have to know exactly the volume of the mountain, the size. That's how we talk in everyday language. And so that's what relative identity is do is doing there. And so to reject that is basically rejecting, like, everyday language.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, what's going to be like I, because I like over the phone, I gave you one of my textbook examples. It's not textbook because it's an example that I give to help people understand that it's actually pretty common. But do you have a common example that just a normal person would be? Because, like, what normal person's like, yeah, like, I got a, I got some sand here and I got, you know what I'm saying? What is like, what is a thing that a normal person would, would like, use relative identity for?

[Nick]

Bro, this man Jay's like making me laugh, dude. He's like docsing himself on every accident now turning right on red. Hey, tell us your speed, Jay. How fast are you going right now? But not I'll tell us what car you're into. Okay, but now, actually, I like the example you gave to me earlier. When we're on the phone, a good one is like if you hey, it's

[Ryan Seacrest]

Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway is stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu.edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Nick]

If you have, like, the same shirt as someone. If I was wearing that same shirt, I could say, yo, I got the same shirt. We're wearing the same shirt now. It doesn't mean that we have like an. Absolutely. There's only one shirt, and me and you both share that shirt. That's not what that means. That's not what that means. It just means that, you know, hey, we're. There's something, some sort of similarity in which it looks the same, but it doesn't mean it's the same in every way.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. And at least for me, the key, the key point would be like, say you did have this shirt and I looked at you and I said, oh, Nick, I got the same one. Like that. When I'm saying it's the same one, that's the, that's one of the key points too.

[Nick]

Right.

[Host/Moderator]

Like, we actually are counting one shirt. Yeah, but there's two relative to the sortal.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

Of the shirt.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

So it's not, it's not a crazy thing. That's like out of nowhere. That's ad hoc. Which, it'll be cool if we can get into this because I explained to you some things over the phone today too, but it's not ad hoc. We use it pretty normally. It's pretty weird to me that a lot of people, as I'm watching these debates, and maybe you have more to say to it since you actually use relative identity when you're defending the trinity. A lot of these people, a lot of people tend to object to it by just calling it ad hoc, not like grounded in reality or, or anything like that. What are your thoughts on that?

[Nick]

Well, the first thing is, even I don't think it's ad hoc at all because we can show multiple instances in which this is always being used. But secondly, even if it was ad hoc, and this is what I talked about as well in my opening is even if it is ad hoc, it doesn't. Logical models don't care about ad hoc ness. Right. Something can be completely ad hoc, and all that means is that you might not have a specific reason why you count by this and count by another. It has nothing to do, though, with whether or not it's logical, like ad hoc. This Just has to do with how much we use a thing.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

Ad hoc ness. Ad hoc ness, at worst, is going to just drastically lower the probability of your model.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah. At that worst. And it just depends even if you take that view. But, I mean, it definitely has nothing to a lot that. The point is it has nothing to do with the logical problem of the Trinity. And that's. That's kind of the funny part is, like, you'll see, like, bro, in our cross exam, I think we talked about the LPT for, like, maybe like, two minutes, and then that was it.

[Host/Moderator]

And then, bro, I'll be the first to admit, with some of the rest of the places, I was like. I was gaslighting myself, to be honest with you, because I was like, what the heck, man? Like, what is this. What is this debate turning into, bro?

[Nick]

Yeah, appeal to Jay. Appeal to both. Like it, bro, we're about to see this in the opening. But it's so funny because I tell everybody this. This dude cannot. He literally cannot have a conversation about the Trinity or debate without mentioning Bo Branson or Jay's name. He can't do it. He did it five seconds into his opening. Anathema to Nick. Exactly. Anathema to J as well, brother. You. You're right. You Muslims are gonna get tons of clips. We're anathematizing each other today, right? You know, God forbid, right? God forbid. Yeah. Yeah. If you guys don't know in the comments, by the way, he's. He's not being serious. Me and Jay are our friends. It's completely.

[Jake]

I am.

[Host/Moderator]

I am. I am willing to bet that the Unitarians in Muslims use of Branson is wrong. I've read Branson before. I. I have a. I have an intuition that Branson would want to correct Jake on how he. How he used Branson.

[Nick]

You know what's funny, too, is I. I asked him in my cross exam for his. If he could give the formulation of his argument, and he quoted bo But Bo actually does give a formulation of relative identity and some other things. Some other models. But he quoted the wrong thing. What he gave wasn't even a formulation. It was so bad, man.

[Host/Moderator]

You want me to keep going?

[Nick]

Yeah, we'll. Yeah, we'll go to his opening because his opening was funny, too.

[Host/Moderator]

You want me to skip forward to his opening?

[Nick]

Oh, that's where we're at right now.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, that's what's coming up.

[Nick]

Yeah. All right. Is that the end of your opening statement, then? Yes, sir. All right. Really quick and easy, right to the point. All right, so whenever. Do you have a slide you want to share, Jake?

[Jake]

Yes, I do. Let me see if this is gonna work. Okay, I put it there. You see that?

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, perfect.

[Nick]

Yes.

[Jake]

See that?

[Nick]

Okay, so. All right, I got 10 minutes.

[Jake]

Whenever.

[Nick]

your first words. Whenever you're ready, go ahead.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay.

[Jake]

All right. Let's begin with what I call the Muslim, or what is best known as the logical problem of the Trinity.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the wife with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Jake]

Eastern Orthodox scholar Bo Branson states, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to mainstream Christianity. But insofar as it posits three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are one God, it appears as inconsistent as the claim that one plus one plus one equals one. So the problem is exactly what Muslims and many others have said about the Trinity all along. The Trinity clearly seems like polytheism. Now, Branson himself believes that he has solved the apparent problem, but at least he correctly identifies what the problem is. The Great Trinitarian Church, Father Gregory of Nyssa, states in a letter responding to another bishop about this problem, and I quote, in truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow it if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say that there are three gods which is unlawful, or not to Acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd. In other words, either the Trinity is true and there are three gods, or the Trinity is false. Notice that Gregory explicitly states that this question is important and requires significant treatment. Gregory further elucidates the problem, saying, and I quote, the argument which you state is something like this. Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men. And there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature if they are more than one by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If then in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the faith, though confessing the three persons and acknowledging no

[Nick]

difference of nature, his argument he gives about the three. First of all, it's funny because he's. He's just quoting Gregor and Nyssa, but he's not actually, like, giving any sort of formulation as to why he believes this thing to be the case. And so I think the entire point, right, is that when we have, like, three people, like James, John and Joe, for instance, right? You have three humans. Well, why do we believe those are three humans and not one? Well, it's because we have, first of all, prior metaphysical commitments about what we believe a human to be our. And secondly, also, we believe humans have potential and they have passive potential, specifically. And so we believe that humans have the ability to be changed. They have the ability to be instantiated, specifically. We don't believe God has the potential to be instantiated. Me and Dan, we might have the same human nature, but we're not the same instance of that human nature. We're not absolutely identical in our human nature. Right. We have different. Different properties of that.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Nick]

One of our properties of the human nature is like our hair color, for instance. That's a property of the human nature, but we might have different hair color. And so with God, God doesn't have any properties that differ within the nature from one to another. And so he has no potential within that nature to be changed in any way. It'll be different. And so him using this is. Again, it has nothing to do with why we believe the Trinity to be one God.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. Do you want to address the whole. Well, actually, does he bring it up in his rebuttal or in the opening where he does the whole like, well, you know, there's only one human nature, but we don't have, you know, one human because of that. Do you want to wait on that?

[Nick]

I don't remember if he, where he brings that up at besides this point.

[Host/Moderator]

We'll wait on it then. We'll just wait till it comes up because it's either now or in, in here or in the rebuttals it might have been. I just have a really simple counter question that I've only had one Muslim actually answer. But we'll get to that when he brings it up.

[Nick]

Yeah, like Jay said, God has one energy and infant energy. Yeah, exactly. Because the, the fathers are very clear, such as St. John of Damascus, that we have one energy per nature. Right. Which is why we say that God has one energy. This is why in the cross exam Jake asked me the question of how many energies are there? We, we can't, we can't name how many energies there are. We don't, we don't know how many there are. We know there's one per nature, but can you count on your finger how many there actually are in terms of how he acts, how he operates? No, of course you can't. So this man's still in the LA101. It might be a long ass freeway, but yeah. So you can't count on our fingers, right? How, how many. This man's a goof. You can't count our fingers.

[Host/Moderator]

The addy. Give us the addy.

[Nick]

We're all pulling up. Yeah, it's like to say that, to say that what God can do is limited to a certain amount that you can put on your finger. Well, that's just not the case.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah.

[Nick]

And so for him asking me that question is just a misunderstanding of exactly what he thinks the energies to be. And not to mention when we talk about the energies, it put it very clearly that there's things, there's energies that are called around the essence. Right. And can we enumerate the energies around the essence? Well, no, we can name some of them, but we can't enumerate them to the fullest extent. It wouldn't make any sense.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, you, you correct me if I'm wrong as an eo, you're gonna say, and Jay said this in the chat just a second ago, I think actually somewhere the, that his energies are infinite. So asking the question how many,

[Nick]

it

[Host/Moderator]

is just a bad question to ask in the first place because when you're asking that question, you're asking for a limit. But if you're saying that God's energies are infinite, you're in fact Saying that there is no limit to the energies. So you're asking a question that just doesn't make sense of the presupposition or the model itself.

[Nick]

Yeah, and also because we have to explain what we're speaking about too. Because we believe that his energies are both one and they're also a multiplicity. Right. Because they're one in the sense that there's one per nature and that each specific nature has energies proper to themselves. But then when we talk about the fact of things around his essence and his operations and actions. Well, can you put a number on how many operations God can do? No, of course not. Right. They're infinite. So, yeah, you just can't do that. So it's, it's a fallacious question.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, let's keep going between them.

[Jake]

We are in some sense at variance with our confession. When we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one and yet forbid men to say there are three gods. The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with. In other words, Peter, James and John share the same human nature.

[Host/Moderator]

And we still call this slide made me laugh in real time. I was like, what's the gas?

[Nick]

No gaslighting from Gregory, brother.

[Host/Moderator]

What? Sorry, I just, I, I really.

[Nick]

He's equivocating in his slide. He says share the same human nature because three humans share the same divine nature because three gods. No, that's, that's not the point. Because the point is the human nature is multiply instantiated. We don't believe the divine nature is particularly instantiated.

[Host/Moderator]

Maybe this is the point where I need to bring up my counter question. Right. Because there's so many ways to answer that. This whole point about, you know, if God is one being because of one nature, then why is it that, like me, Nick, Jake, Mike J. Dyer, we're not just one human because of one nature. And I normally just don't even validate that with the answer of the metaphysics. Instead, I'm just going to ask the counter question, which you already know is do you think divinity is a multiply instantiable universal? Do you think God is a kind. And if you are going to say no, which I hope the Muslim would say no to that, then, well, there's your answer. We don't have a problem. Right. If you say yes, that means that you think that polytheism is a logical possibility. Yeah, in the strict sense that like you actually think that there can be numerous absolutely identical beings. Because divinity is going to be like Divinity is going to be, at least, if you're going to hold to like, perfect being theism. Right. Divinity is going to be the kind of thing that, like, if you have multiple instances of that, of such a thing, you're going to have tons of logical contradictions. So there's so many issues with this. And this is the reason why I've only had one Muslim actually answer that question.

[Nick]

Yeah. And this is the reason why, like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they all participate in the same actions. Right. The Father doesn't do something of the Son's participation because they have the same energies. But now take humans for example. While we have, quote, unquote, one nature, we, since we have different particular instantiations of that, we can have different actions. And so to say that God having one nature and humans having one nature is synonymous would be to say that every action I do than has to participate in or every human has to participate in because we would have identical energies. But that's not the case because it's a different particular instantiation of that. So you said what he said.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes.

[Host/Moderator]

Jake thinks energy is personal. Does he actually?

[Nick]

I mean, yeah. If he's enumerating making, it means three gods. And he would think that because there's quote, unquote, different energies, there'd be. There'd be three gods. So it wouldn't make any sense.

[Host/Moderator]

Huh.

[Nick]

Oh, we can keep going.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, I'm just. Okay.

[Jake]

Because they are distinct from each other, then why don't we call the three divine persons with the same nature three gods? Notice that Gregory doesn't do any professional Christian apologetical gaslighting. Gregory fully admits that the problem is very difficult to deal with. So anytime Nick or any other Christian apologist claims that this is an easy issue to deal with, we should remind them that they are claiming to be better than their greatest saints.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Host, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference. You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev Gregory responded

[Jake]

to the problem saying, and I quote, so according to the more accurate expression, man would be said to be one, even though those who are exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. Thus, it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature than by our bondage to habit, to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. In other words, to be consistent, we should say that there is only one man, rather than admit that there are three gods in the Trinity. But how absurd is that? Modern trinitarian scholar William Lane Craig comments on this passage from Gregory, saying, Gregory, like Plato thinks of the universe.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, it's, it's really interesting that he, he's going to a bunch of people. I, I just don't understand the movies trying to make here other than just like, appealing to Craig, because people know Craig.

[Nick]

It's, I mean, more or less. I think he just like. Well, I mean, a lot of his stuff is just an appeal to authority file. Well, Bo says this. Well, even in, I'm pretty sure it was the debate review that Jay and Bo did. On Jay's debate with him, Jake did the same thing to Jay where he tried to basically quote mine Bo. And in that, in that debate review, Bo was like, bro, that's not what I'm saying. And so even Bo calls him out like, you're obviously misquoting me. And so he does that to everyone. He, he'll, he'll quote them. They be, oh, and they're saying this. And like, no, no, that's not, that's not what he means. You're just making that up. And then he quotes Bo trying to look like it's a formulation and it's not a formulation. Like, he's just, it's crazy.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, let's keep going.

[Jake]

So as the primary reality, he advises that rather than speak of three gods, we are instead to speak of one man. But this answer solves nothing, given that there are three hupostases or persons in the Godhead distinguished according to Gregory by the inter trinitarian relations, then there should be three gods. According to Craig, Gregory hasn't solved anything with his absurd claim that there is only one man. What about Branson? Branson freely admits, and I quote, Today we count Fs by one logical subjects that are two discernible from, or at least not identical to one another, and are false. That is, if X and Y differ in any way and are both fish, we. We count them as. We count them as two Fs. Close quote. This means that if the Father and Son are both fully God and are distinct from one another, which they are, then today they would count as two Gods according to Branson. Branson says that we must count gods in the Trinity differently. We must count God states, and I quote, to say we count count by division is to say that the number of Fs is given by how Fness is.

[Host/Moderator]

Or the Real quick, I'm gonna skip forward to like when he started again,

[Jake]

turnable from or at least not identical, quote unquote division. Branson states, and I quote, to say we count by division extensively and was accepted by everyone, close quote. In other words, there is only one God in the Trinity because the persons cannot be spatially divided from one another. However, Branson's historical claim that the ancients did not count by editing identity at all is laughable. Branson, Nick, and all Trinitarians count the persons by identity, not division.

[Nick]

I want to pause it here because this was so funny, bro, because I literally, me and my friends were laughing about this, so I decided in this debate to use a different model and that was to use the relative identity operator instead of counting by division. I was like, you know what? I'm just going to use this because I want to show him that there's. There's more than one model you can use. And he's debated plenty of people in counting it by division, like Jay and, and Bo. And it's, you know, he doesn't go anywhere with it, right? He doesn't. He literally just says, oh, it's ad hoc. And he has no argument against I'm using relative identity. And so it's funny. I knew he. His whole slide presentation was going to be about me counting by. He thought that's what I was going to bring. And that's why he was caught off guard is because I didn't. And he only knows how to defend like one view. And so when I brought a different way, he didn't know what to Say

[Host/Moderator]

okay, that makes sense because I was wondering, do you think. So do you think he read this slide and just wait, like, do you think that you said your opening statement and went the relative identity route and then he just read his stuff on counting by division? Because that's just what he had planned.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. 100. Yeah, yeah. He, he, because he was assuming that's what I was going to do, while the whole time I was planning on doing something different. Again, because the entire point is I wanted to show that like there's multiple models that you can formulate to show the Trinity is logical. Counting by division is a perfectly good model that we talked about last time. Jay showed him that, Bo showed him that. Etc, it's a perfectly good model. And then I wanted to show him relative identity is also another good one. So now he has two models he has been shown, at least that has been used, that can easily show that this is a quality formulation for trinitarianism. And so at this point I don't expect him to ever debate the Trinity again. Now because he. We'll see in the cross exam he openly admits that this is a model that is technically logical and consistent.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, Jay. And Jay should be here within the next like five, ten minutes hopefully.

[Nick]

So yes, we'll have him by the cross.

[Host/Moderator]

Perfect timing to acknowledge.

[Jake]

In our previous discussion, he claimed that he counted the persons in the Trinity by division. If that were the case, then there would only be one person in the Trinity because the persons cannot be separated by time or space. So the question becomes what is the consistent non ad hoc principle by which Nick Branson or other Trinitarians determine when they count things by identity versus division. Since my debate with Jay Dyer, I haven't seen any good response to this question yet. The Eastern Orthodox and Nick in particular, believe in the essence energies distinction. In short, they believe that God's attributes are not identical to God's essence or to each other. This alone isn't the problem. But when you combine this with the fact that they claim that each divine energy is fully God, then you have the LPT infinitely extended. If there are infinite divine

[Nick]

earth, does that fall? How does it follow because there's infinite energies, that the LPT is infinitely extended? It's like he assumes that the energies of are ontologically distinct or something. It genuinely seems like he believes the energies are ontologically distinct. Just because he has multiple like he doesn't know what the energies are. He literally doesn't. Oh, because the each divine energy is fully God. That Means if no, all it means is that they have the same ontology as the essence, they have the same ontology as the persons. There's not a distinction there. It's so crazy to me, like he doesn't know what they are.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, why don't you, while we're waiting on Jay? Why do you want to take some time to break that down a little bit? What, what is the eed? The essence energies distinction. What is essence? What is energy?

[Jay Dyer]

What.

[Host/Moderator]

What's happening? What's happening in this slide?

[Nick]

So we say the essence we merely speak about apophatically. And so we basically would make negative claims about the essence. It is not created. You know, things like that. It's negative claims. The energies is what we believe with, as orthodox Christians, that we interact with. We believe when we're interacting with God's grace, it's through his energies that we're interacting with this. We believe that anytime God acts, it would be through the energies. And this is seen in the New Testament. It's the Greek word energia that it's very clearly used in the New Testament to be terming a, a action or an operation. And so again, since God has infinite operations and actions that he can do, he has infinite divine energies. He has these energies also called around the essence, we call them. And it's going to be referring to things about him, right? You know, when we say things like God is, you know, God is love and whatnot. And so we look at this and we. Jake is in here. That's embarrassing. Hey, you know, it's funny, Jake, he, he said that it was a heresy, but we've yet to see him give a canon of any Palamite council that claims you to be anathematized because of this. So I can't wait for Jay to come on here and answer this question. We can save that super chat for him.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, well, he'll be here soon.

[Nick]

Yeah, he should be here in the next like three to five minutes. But yes, he did.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, we'll cover it later. I gotta find it again. I think I remember hit that. He didn't actually show the full Palomos quote either, but I like, I like.

[Nick]

The point is though, he's saying it is heresy to say what I said. And he does not have a canon. He has not provided a canon any count. Matter of fact, we went back and forth on this on X, by the way, he was saying, oh, you're dodging my question. I asked him in on X, I said, hey, can you name me the canon of the Palamite Council, in which anathematizes those who say what I said, and he responded, oh, I'll get into it when I do my debate. No, because you don't have one. You don't have any sort of Palamite canon that states this. He just lies. He hasn't actually read these. He has to go find it. It doesn't exist.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, let's keep going. We'll get the super chats soon.

[Jake]

But distinct from each other. Then you have an infinite amount of gods rather than merely just three gods. It also demonstrates another inconsistency. Nick and the Eastern Orthodox count the persons and attributes in God by identity, but God's by division.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's Stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University Set a Course for Change Certified to Operate by Chev Another problem

[Jake]

characteristic of Eastern Orthodox and Protestants as opposed to Catholics is the claim that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Jay Dyer, Nick and others typically reason that Muslims and Christians do not worship that same God because we they we do not.

[Nick]

I want to pause it right here and I wanted to say about this slide too. It's funny, regarding this slide and the other slides, I didn't even realize this until Inspiring Philosophy said something after. But I was like, you know, the whole reason he brought this up and I kind of realized it when I when he mentioned the 99 ontologies. The whole reason he brought this up is because me making him say his God had 99 ontologies has been living in his head rent free. And so he wanted me so bad to say that the energies were different ontologies so that he could one up me and say, oh, you believe in infinite ontologies, but we don't believe that and it didn't work. So buddy is sick. He's been living. He literally mentioned the 99 ontologies in the video. It was so funny, bro. It's been living in his head rent free. And I mean, he's sad now, bro. He's. He's very sad that he's over two to a layman like me in debates. And it's very unfortunate. Even Unitarians saying I won. I'd be sick to my stomach.

[Host/Moderator]

So do you want me to keep playing this part and then we can. You can explain what's happening here afterwards? Cool.

[Jake]

Catholics usually appeal to the Phragian sense reference distinction where two people can use different descriptions but refer to the same entity. If incorrectly ascribing different properties to the same entity necessitates two distinct gods between Muslims and Christians, then by greater reason, two entities truly possessing different properties should necessitate two distinct gods in the case of the Trinity. In other words, if two entities not possessing identical attributes is sufficient for not being the same God in the Islamic versus Christian conceptions of God, then likewise the Father and Son not possessing identical attributes should be sufficient for not being the same God. This forms a strong dilemma for Nick. Either lacking identical attributes is sufficient for counting as two gods, or it is not. If it is sufficient, then the Father and Son cannot be the same God. If it is not sufficient, then merely citing the distinction between the Muslim and Christian conceptions of God is insufficient for justifying the claim that they are two different gods. Nick and the Ortho bros must appeal to something else besides mere distinction. Last but not least, my final objection also relates to Nick's trinitarian model regarding the essence energies distinction in light of Nick J. Dyer and the Eastern Orthodox claiming that God is fully present in all of his energies. This results in the same absurdity parroted by Sam Shamoon that there are such things as uncreated birds, clouds, fires, flesh and blood. Why? Well, because they claim that only God is worshipped. The theophanies or appearances of God in the Bible are worshiped. Therefore, the appearances of God in the Bible are uncreated and fully divine. No aspect of them is created at all. But God appears as a cloud, red fire bird and wrestler in the Bible. This means that it confirms uncreated two

[Nick]

things on this number one, He Thinks he. He actually thinks this. He thinks that when Jacob wrestled with God, he thinks that they, like, actually had a wrestling match. He's never read the commentaries on this. He doesn't know that people like Augustine literally say this is him wrestling with his own sin. He's wrestling with God because he's wrestling with his sin. But he wants to find God. He wants to follow God. So he doesn't read. He thinks it's like actually wrestling. But. So that's funny. Number one. Number two, we worship clouds and birds. That was. That was funny. First of all, it has nothing to do with the topic of the lpt. Like, like nothing. Second of all, do you think that we believe that when Moses. When. That when God appeared to Moses within the fire, do you think that Moses worshiped the fire or that he worshiped God who was the one manifesting in the fire? Probably God. Right? And so again, this. This has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove anything. The only reason he's bringing this up is because he wants so bad for me to. For me to admit I have 99 ontologies like I made him do. But guess what? I'm not you, brother. I don't fall for that that easy. Like, you.

[Host/Moderator]

Do you want to explain any of the, like, theory of reference stuff that he covered, or do you want to just do some super chats until Jay shows up here?

[Nick]

We can do the super chats we want for now.

[Host/Moderator]

All right.

[Nick]

Because I think Jay should be here soon.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, all right, well, I already explained it, so if people really want Jay to hear the bark bark origin story. All right. Mike is in the sky. Rest in peace. Now you owe an ip. Yes. Mike is not here because he's flying. He might be here a little later, but who knows? If Jay doesn't join, I will say my shahada Jay. Oh, no.

[Nick]

Damn, Jay got a little dilemma on his hands.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, bro, that's bad. All right. I was laughing when Nick said Jade entire fallacy. Can't wait to see Drake. His reaction to Jake's illogical, bro, because

[Nick]

he does this all the time. He's like, well, your. Your buddy Bo says your buddy Jay says this. Listen, if me and Jay disagree and me and Jay don't really disagree on, like, I don't really don't know what me and Jay disagree on. But even if me and Jay disagreed on, does that make the Trinity illogical? No. Like, why. Why are you. Because just like Jay said in the comments earlier, all Jake tries to do is just cause infighting versus Orthodox. But I don't think he realizes we're not like the Muslims. We don't sit there and fight with each other on Tick Tock and dox each other and hate each other. The Christians don't do that. We're not that. We're not that stupid, bro. Like, we don't fall for that mad at each other so easily like y' all do.

[Host/Moderator]

Like if we actually have just like Nick, you and I have disagreements, but we'd like, you know, we talk about those things privately and we don't go at each other's throats over those things.

[Nick]

That's so stupid.

[Host/Moderator]

Like.

[Nick]

Yeah, it's just dumb, bro. I'm not gonna lie.

[Host/Moderator]

I. I don't. I don't even know if I want to say what this is because I

[Nick]

don't even know what that means.

[Host/Moderator]

Trying to say, oh, it's making fun of Jay. I don't know what a bipoc diva queen is, but okay. So Mike said he rejects classical logic. What does that actually mean? Surely the three laws are held by all logic systems. I've ran to people who say no. So do you have an answer?

[Nick]

Mike's. Wait, what do you mean, Mike?

[Host/Moderator]

Mike. I IP Mike, my boss.

[Nick]

He said that. Who rejects classical logic?

[Host/Moderator]

He does.

[Nick]

Oh, that Michael rejects classical logic?

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, he said he holds to. I don't remember what it is off the top of my head because it depends.

[Nick]

I don't know what kind of logic he holds to. Then I don't like he's saying. What does that actually mean? Well, it depends what kind of logic he holds. He can be holding the parents on

[Host/Moderator]

the actual system that he's holding to. I just don't remember what Mike holds to off the top of my head

[Nick]

because I mean, he said surely the three laws are held by all logical systems, not the three laws don't aren't in all logical systems, like for example, paraconsistent logic. The three laws of logic aren't necessarily applicable there. So it just depends. I don't know what logo system might goes to the system.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. I just don't know what Mike holds to. So.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, my brothers, please play Jay Dyer's Tom Cruise track. I don't know what the. Hopefully Joe is. I mean, hopefully Jay is not going to be insulted by the fact that I've never actually watched anything. I don't watch content at all. In general. I don't watch content.

[Nick]

Yeah, I watch her stuff every day, man. Your old stuff. When used to debates. We miss you on the debate scene, he doesn't do them as much.

[Host/Moderator]

Jay is mean.

[Nick]

He's doing the more important stuff now. He's doing geopolitics.

[Host/Moderator]

Fair enough. I've wanted to see people press Muslims and ask, if Allah creates through His Word, what is the nature of His Word? Do they share a nature? Thoughts, Nick?

[Nick]

If Allah creates through His Word, what is the nature of his word? I mean, it depends. I think some Muslims hold a different views on that. But they would say like, his word is going to be like him. It's going to be himself, like his creative power. But it depends on a Muslim though. So, you know, if you're, if you're a Jake, you probably hold that it has a whole different ontology. So, I mean, I don't know because apparently distinctions equal different ontology to him.

[Host/Moderator]

Shouldn't it be metaphysicist and not metaphysician?

[Nick]

Probably could be either.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. I don't really think anybody's gonna have a gripe with that, unfortunately. Grock. I know I, I get the rhetorical goal, but, ooh, I cannot wait for Jay to get here and cook you.

[Nick]

So funny, bro. Jake genuinely thinks that Jay is gonna come up here and be like, Nick, you are wrong. How dare you say you did so bad. He doesn't like. He really thinks that's gonna happen. He's really hoping for. He got his screen recording ready. It's kind of. He's gonna be highly disappointed when Jay comes.

[Host/Moderator]

I assume relative identity is to say that while the Father is God proper, the other two are God relatively in that they have the divine essence but distinct hypostatic properties from the Father.

[Nick]

No, not relative. Relative identity doesn't say the Father is God proper in other to a relative. That's not, that's not what relative identity says.

[Host/Moderator]

What do. Would you. How about. Do you want to correct.

[Nick]

Yeah, relative. All relative identity is saying that they're, they're identical in some way but distinct in another. That's all they're saying. And they're one God because they're under the same sort of. The Father isn't under a different sword or he isn't under it in a different way than the other two persons are. They're under it in the same exact way.

[Host/Moderator]

What is a sortal, Nick?

[Nick]

A sorto is just going to be a criteria for counting, right? It's a criteria in formal logic that's used for counting things and how we count them. And so it's going to be a place predicate for those things. So when we Use, for example, we also have things called dummy sortals as well, which are used in different ways. This is one of the things a. What was a Q A member mentioned? I think they were trying to make. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But if you read Nicholas Griffin's book on relative identity, he calls redness a dummy sort of. Dummy sortal is just basically a. A different way to use a sortal. It's just using a different sort of predicate. So, yeah, that's all it is.

[Host/Moderator]

They would be three God if they were separate. This is true.

[Nick]

Good thing they ain't separate. But I guess he thinks that for some reason.

[Host/Moderator]

Looking forward to part two, Tawheed. Are you guys gonna do a tahit debate?

[Nick]

I don't know. I mean, maybe if he finally learns some basic logic and reasoning. Maybe he gotta study some more, though. Dude, I. Listen, I was disappointed because, like, even after the first debate, I was disappointed because I thought Jake was gonna know more than he did. But, like, he didn't know the difference between, like, real informal distinction. He didn't know what the difference is between like an Eastern distinction and another distinction was like a Western real distinction. Like, he didn't understand, like, basic things in logic. And I was just kind of disappointed on that. And I feel like I probably should take my. Take my debating to someone who maybe knows a little bit more about philosophy. I don't know who that is on the Muslim side, though. They don't really have, like, a lot.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, I mean, this is where, again, like, people are going to accuse me of being like a secret Muslim or something. I want to be fair to Jake again, because there is. There is a lot to cover when you're trying to cover something as complex as the Trinity.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Host/Moderator]

Because, like, there, There. There is so many different kinds of distinctions you're gonna have to understand. So many different types of theology, metaphysical systems, like logical systems, so on and so forth. Yeah, I want to. Like, that's just my attempt. That's my. I think that's my olive branch to Jake there. Like, it is tough. It is tough.

[Nick]

It's okay, Jake. It's okay, Jake. It's hard. We know.

[Host/Moderator]

No, I'm not trying to be like that, bro.

[Nick]

Like, it ain't for all of us, bro.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Debate.

[Host/Moderator]

Debate.

[Nick]

Name for everybody.

[Host/Moderator]

No, I. What? Well, I'm not. I'm. Bro. I'll be the first to admit I'm a trash debater. I'm not a good debater. I'm a. I can write a paper. I can write a paper. Did you Say for real, bro.

[Nick]

Not playing.

[Host/Moderator]

Debate me right now. Debate me right now. Let's go.

[Nick]

You might cook me, man.

[Host/Moderator]

Probability theory. That's what we're going to debate about.

[Nick]

Are you ready? Don't get cooked, man. I don't want that smoke.

[Host/Moderator]

All right. Yeah. People are waiting for Jay still.

[Nick]

Hurry up. You in the BNB yet?

[Host/Moderator]

Right. Nick destroyed Jake so bad. I heard Morocco is thinking about the.

[Nick]

Hey, hey. He Sundays turn off YouTube permissions. He's here.

[Host/Moderator]

Turn off permissions. What does that mean?

[Nick]

I don't know, but he said he's here. He said he gotta turn off YouTube permissions, though.

[Host/Moderator]

I don't know what that means.

[Nick]

Jay is here, guys. He's coming.

[Host/Moderator]

Turn off YouTube permissions.

[Nick]

Maybe send him the link or something.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, send him the link again.

[Nick]

Okay, I got you. Let me. Permissions on Streamyard. He says

[Host/Moderator]

I, I.

[Nick]

He has permission set to log into Streamyard, so you have to turn those permissions off to where? He doesn't. He doesn't have to log into Stream Yard. He says you can turn them off. Oh, okay.

[Host/Moderator]

I don't. This is. Okay. Well, hopefully Mike will respond then.

[Nick]

Can't be that hard.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, I'm not, I'm not logged in as an admin, so. Hold on.

[Nick]

Jay is coming, guys. Don't need. No need to fear.

[Host/Moderator]

I'll see if I can do that just in case. But let's see.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals that earn four times the points, look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to Waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University. Set a course for Change certified to operate by Shevy.

[Nick]

It makes me log into YouTube and I'm on a browser. Not logged in. Yeah, so he's saying.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, let's. I think I fixed it.

[Nick]

Okay. He said he think he fixed it. Jay, see if you can close it out and re. Go back in. Dealing with some uncs over here. Sorry. Chat technology. Ain't they forte?

[Host/Moderator]

Let's see. It should. Should be fixed. I'll read another super chat while we were. Thank you. Yes, Jake, one brain cell tell it.

[Nick]

Hey, by the way, you're kind of lagging a little bit. I am now, yes.

[Host/Moderator]

How?

[Nick]

I don't know.

[Host/Moderator]

It's not my fault. It can't. It's your fault, Simone.

[Nick]

Yeah, that's. That's on me. My bad.

[Host/Moderator]

Ortho Joe. I would like to humbly ask Pope J. Dyer if Pope J. Dyer would grant me an annulment. I wish to leave my Mormon space wife for a funko pop. What am I reading?

[Nick]

Be me, brother.

[Host/Moderator]

All right. Is Jay able to.

[Nick]

But you're. I don't know what. Chat. Chat is Fan lagging for y', all, too.

[Host/Moderator]

It doesn't look like. I'm, like. I got the stream pulled up, and I'm, like, not seeing any lagginess on my.

[Nick]

Unless it could be me. Maybe you're just lagging for me. Could be me.

[Host/Moderator]

Are you in McDonald's right now?

[Nick]

I could be.

[Host/Moderator]

Gotta get off that one.

[Nick]

Yes. And a lot of no's, so it must be me. As long as I'm not lagging.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, it's your fault. Oh, there he is.

[Nick]

Oh, my gosh. Finally.

[Host/Moderator]

There he is. What's going on, bro?

[Jay Dyer]

Hey. How are y'? All?

[Host/Moderator]

All right, well, let's just get this out of the way first. Go ahead, give him. Give Nick the spankings and all that stuff.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, do what this is. Dude, I ain't spanking no dudes as gay as hell.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, well, everybody in the chat said that you are gonna give him spankings and anathematize them, so we're just gonna get that out of the way.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, well, the way it works in orthodoxy is if you ever make a mistake or if you disagree with a person or if you get anything wrong, you're automatically excommunicated. So sorry, Nick. You're done, dude.

[Nick]

I'm over with.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, well, you know how many may as well just do that?

[Nick]

Wow, that's crazy.

[Host/Moderator]

Yo, good job mid sentence, bro.

[Nick]

That's crazy.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, well, do you guys just want to get straight into the cross Exam now, that.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

All right.

[Nick]

And J, if you want to just pause anytime, just like, low key, just like, say it.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, well, a couple things I'd like to say before it goes any further, because I think it's already been pointed out. You know, Jake tends to want to sort of pit people against one another. And I mean, I get the rhetorical strategy there, but it really has nothing to do with the subject matter that's being debated. So I like that in this debate, Nick kept bringing it back to the topic at hand, William Lane Craig's ideas, the energies. You know, what does that have to do with whether or not what Nick argued was a consistent presentation? So I've seen the first section of the debate. I've not seen where it goes. And then I would just a couple areas of disagreement. But I want to say before I mention that, that I don't think this is not what makes a person a heretic. In the Orthodox Church, heresy is when you're obstinately, knowingly going against the orthodox or clerical teaching. And in 2018, as an example, like, I thought that Christ assumed a fallen human nature. So I was ignorant and I was incorrect in that position. And I had some clergy reach out and show me from, you know, many of the Church fathers that that was incorrect. So I had to, you know, basically to say, I got that wrong. It's not a big deal. Right. So I think maybe in the Islamic conception, if you've got something wrong, it's sort of like de facto shirk or something like that. So they sort of default to. To thinking that. But we don't think that just because somebody disagrees or they got a theological position wrong or something like that. I'm not trying to go at Nick at all. I'm just saying that it's. It doesn't work that way. So it's like, oh, because Jake made a video that dire anathematizes Nick. I would say, though, that I don't agree with Augustine's interpretation of Jacob's wrestling with the angel, because prior to Augustine, most of the Church fathers interpreted the theophanies as the person of Christ. And one thing that's important to note there is that the theophanies are a bit of a mystery. So, for example, Saint Irenaeus, if you read Bishop Irenaeus work on Saint Irenaeus, when he talks about the theophanies, he speculates that the deified flesh of Christ in the resurrection, because it becomes eternal, it's outside of time and space, it can also function kind of Back in the garden. I think that could work as a model for some of the theophanies. For example, Perhaps in Ezekiel 1 or Ezekiel 10, when you have one like the Son of Man appearing, who's described as the face of God, the glory of God. But there's other passages where we have references to theophanic presentations or manifestations that doesn't seem to work with. For example, in Leviticus 9, it talks about the glory of the Lord appearing to all of Israel. And it says the fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering. And I think if we look at the way Paul in Hebrews describes God, he says our God is a consuming fire. And I don't think there's any created fire. And in fact, if you read the debate that Palamas has with barium, the idea that there is a created element to the theophanies, he tends to argue against that. Again, you could perhaps have the opinion that. That Bishop irene has from St. Irenaeus, that maybe in some of these theophanies it's the physical resurrected flesh of Christ that's appearing even in the garden or something like that. But there's also situations where it doesn't seem to be the case. There's several theophanies in Numbers. There's a couple places again in Leviticus where it seems like the fire is called God, the cloud is called God. The cloud is referenced in the New Testament, for example, as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And the glory cloud that's over Mary is an energetic manifestation, like the dove and like the tongues of fire at Pentecost. And when, for example, the icon council, when it decided that you could only present the Holy Spirit in his energetic manifestation of dove or fire, it is not saying that the Holy Spirit is created fire. It's not saying the Holy Spirit is a dove or a bird, is saying that it's a manifestation like that. Right? Because we don't equate God to any created thing. These are sort of analogous terms that describe the energy. So even the word fire or the word light, we only know those things from the created light of Genesis 1 compared to the uncreated light of John 1, or the uncreated fire of God, or the energy of God, the light of God, those are all kind of synonymous things. It's just the divine energy and manifestation itself versus how it appears in time and space, which I don't think is created. Now, the problem there is oftentimes people say, well, but wait a minute, how can you have a form in time? And space. Right. And again, you could go with the Bishop Irenaeus example. Excuse me, Bishop Irenaeus, Saint Irenaeus example. Or we could just simply say that this is the way Palmas argues when Barlium brings it up, is that it's a situation where God transcends the logical antinomies, that there's not a limitation on what God can do in time and space, because it's really no different than the kenosis of Philippians 2, where the second person of the Godhead willfully limits himself in time and space. So I think that the toolkit that orthodoxy has, we have these metaphysical distinctions that allow for the difference between nature, person, will, energy, and the created effect, but also the level of mode, right? And the mode in which God appears is different from the thing in itself. So the energies come to us through the mode of the persons that act. But energies are not proper to person. That would be the Monophysite position or the Apollinarian position that William Lane Craig has. Energies are proper to nature, and that's why God's nature is one. And thus there's one energy. As John Damascus says in Chapter one, but also later on in Chapter one, he says that there are many energies of God because there are many works of God. So I think everything that we talked about so far in this discussion I totally agree with. My only qualm would just be with the fact that when Augustine says that Jacob is wrestling with the sin, that is true. That's a spiritual interpretation of the passage, which is perfectly fine in our layered exegesis. But it's also the case that there is a real interacting that's going on. And for example, if we were to spiritualize that passage, we would have very other crucial, crucial passages saying Judges, Judges six, for example, where it says that when the angel of the Lord appeared, it says he stood next to Gideon and he turned his Yahweh turned his face to Gideon. So get so Yahweh has a face, right? In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel 10, the Son of Man, one like the Son of God, one who has who is the glory of God, the appearance of God's glory, etc, all these descriptors are in some way the ability for God to be in time and space. It is a coming and a going. But there's nothing about that that makes God a creature any more than the second person of the Godhead being born in a stable right in Palestine and not in China. Right? He's willfully limiting some of his.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest. For Albertsons and Safeway, it's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on elig items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Host, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the w with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change Certified to operate by Chev.

[Jay Dyer]

Attributes and powers to Condescend to us and if you read Saint Cyril or a lot of the Eastern fathers, they oftentimes speak of the Incarnation as this kenosis that is a powerful mystery. Now, I'm not just appealing to mystery to say it's irrational or something like that. I don't think that the Trinity or the Incarnation or the energies are irrational. They're supra rational. And that's why they are prior to any of the metaphysical systems that we might appeal to. Whether it's Aristotelian metaphysics or whether whether it's, you know, paraconsistent logic or classical logic. All of those things are only going to they're going to be limited in the way that they can describe or picture the mode in which God exists. So that's all I want to say. But there and there is, by the way, one last quote I'll say, just to be really quick here. Sorry for rambling, but Palomas is helpful because he says that the only way that there could have been a an appearing that the Israelites could have seen. And he says even their physical eyes were able to see the divine energies, the uncreated reality of God. And you can think about this in the Old Testament with the Leviticus 9 passage or the transfiguration. It's essentially the same problem in either passage in either chapter, right? Matthew 17 or Leviticus 9. How could you have created beings seeing the uncreated energy of God? Because we all agree that no one is seeing the divine essence, I guess, unless you're a Roman Catholic. And Professor Manzaridis has a great book called Deification of Man, the Theology of Gregory Palmas. It's a very short 100 page book. I recommend it as well as everybody should read the debate between barium between a barley mount orthodox. It's only 100 pages as well because all these topics come up there, including the theophanies, including whether God's works are infinite. And he says Palomas finds no difficulty in giving the appropriate answer. Man is incapable of experiencing uncreated light through his powers of perception. So by our natural power, you cannot see God. You cannot see the uncreated energies. However, man is capable through a deification that occurs so that he can perceive it not just in the news, but even with the physical eyes. And this is, I think, the explanation for some of these Old Testament theophanies. This light, Paloma says, has sometimes also been seen by the eye of the body, not with mere created sensory power, but they see it after having been transformed by the Holy Spirit. For in the age to be, the same body will endure forever gazing upon the divine light, but it will have become spiritual, as St. Paul says. So even in the Old Testament, even when the patriarchs are seeing these manifestations. Maximus has a very similar situation where he says the only way that in the Old Testament Abraham could see the triad or see the sun was because he had a deified perception that allowed him to see it. So it's still by grace. We're not saying that it's by human nature or anything like that. The only way to see God is if God gives you the uncreated eyes and shoot the uncreated grace to see God. So go ahead.

[Nick]

So with that being said, then you should pull up Jake's super chat and then we'll have.

[Host/Moderator]

We'll have Jay, that's the perfect time to do it.

[Nick]

And we'll have. We'll have Jay answer the question on the record. We'll say, wrong one. Dan lover is crazy.

[Host/Moderator]

No, it's my wife. Because people in the chat are like, Jay, for, for your context. I don't tell people what tradition I fall in line with, but because I'm Greek, most people assume I'm Orthodox. I'm not gonna confirm or deny. We can talk off stream if you want to. So my wife was just telling everybody I'm Greek. So it doesn't.

[Nick]

For the record, Are you anathematizing me today? And I'm a heretic?

[Jay Dyer]

So again, no. I mean in the Orthodox Church we don't say that even if we disagree or even if we necessarily got. If you got something wrong or I got something wrong, that's not what makes a person a heretic. That's not what brings about anathema. Anathema is a pronunciation by a council or by a synod or you could reason that. I mean, even if, you know, if a person, for example, persisted in teaching Arianism, eventually they would fall under the anathema. But I think, you know, again, this is something that Jake didn't understand when I was on Inspiring Philosophy's Channel some couple years ago where we talked about Justin Martyr. The Church has a tendency to be pretty forgiving even in theological errors amongst the church fathers and we don't believe they're infallible. So the question then is, well, how do we know when there's an error that's enough to put you outside the Church or an error that's excusable? Well, thankfully we have these guideposts of anathemas and excommunications. So for example, if you contrast somebody like Augustine with Origen, Origen was condemned in his own day by saints that lived contemporary with him. And Origen did not receive correction to reject his positions and was subsequently excommunicated by multiple ecumenical councils. So Origen was persistent and is obviously a heretic. Augustine says in book three of on the Trinity, I can't read Greek. I submit this to the universal Catholic Church, not to the Pope by the way, to be judged, to see if these things are correct and if I've said anything wrong. He says the Catholic Church is free to reject any of my opinions. That's the attitude of a humble saint versus a person who persists in arrogance. So that's something that I think Jake doesn't understand about how Orthodoxy functions with errors amongst the church fathers. He wants it to be kind of an all or nothing Protestant style situation. But I do believe that the fire that appears is an uncreated fire. Is it a material heresy to believe the fire was a created effect? I have to be honest and say that I think it's the fourth Palamite Synod when it rejects the teaching of one of the Thomas who wanted to say that they were created effects by the fourth Palomite Synod. It would be incorrect to say that, but it doesn't make you a heretic unless you willingly and knowingly persist in that.

[Nick]

Amen. So not a heretic that's crazy. I thought I was gonna get spanked on this live, but apparently not. But cool. All right.

[Host/Moderator]

Doesn't want to be gay. That's the only thing saving you right now.

[Nick]

Exactly. He just doesn't. That's the only reason why he don't want to spank me. That's it. Crazy, man.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, you guys ready to get into the cross. The cross exam. All right, I think this is where it starts. Let's see.

[Nick]

The operator in first order logic. Okay.

[Jake]

Uncreated birds. Or tell them. Because this is a.

[Host/Moderator]

Wait, where is.

[Jake]

From the person's in a divine inconsistency within the model and within the claims.

[Nick]

It's gonna be very.

[Jake]

That is.

[Nick]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll go. Yeah. Get to the crowd. Yeah, I guess.

[Host/Moderator]

Is this the cross exam?

[Nick]

Would you rather just go straight to the cross exam?

[Host/Moderator]

Well, where does the rebuttal start? Because you're. You showed the syntax here, but is

[Nick]

this like into a formalization. Formalization here that I used. My first question was what's an identity operator? So keep going back a little bit. Deduces that one thing is equal to another. Are you familiar with that? 30 seconds to cross examine. Jake, 15 minutes. Ready when you are. I will start on your first word. You're muted.

[Host/Moderator]

Hold on. And you guys can just tell me when to stop. Whenever you want.

[Nick]

Hold on. My bad. Can you hear me?

[Host/Moderator]

Okay?

[Nick]

Yep. There you go. Good. Jake, what is an identity operator in first order logic?

[Jake]

What does that have to do with my argument?

[Nick]

Because I'm giving you a formalization and formalization uses an identity operator. So I'm asking, do you know what it is?

[Jake]

I have no idea what it is.

[Nick]

Okay. An identity operator in first order logic is basically the symbol that deduces that one thing is equal to another. Are you familiar with that?

[Jake]

Okay. One thing being equal to another and.

[Nick]

Okay. Do you think that I. Identity operators and first order logic are limited to absolute identity.

[Jake]

I don't know what you mean by the question.

[Nick]

So when we use the equal symbol in first order logic, is it limited to absolute identity or can we use other types of identity?

[Jake]

It depends on what system it is. It depends on who is using the equal sign. It can be interpreted differently.

[Nick]

So it can be used differently. Correct?

[Jake]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Okay, great. So I want to show you a formalization here that I used. This formalization is going to deduce why we believe that it is one God. And I'll go ahead and share my screen here. All right, I'll get that up okay. Yeah. All right, Marty. All right, it's on the screen.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, there you go.

[Nick]

All right, so I, I put this into a formalization using first order logic, and I was curious if you could find a logical inconsistency with this. Now he's just gonna chat about.

[Jake]

Was this part of your original presentation?

[Nick]

No. When I said I was going to formulate it, this is what it's about.

[Jake]

Okay, so this was not. Yeah, so if you're, if you're, if you're merely talking about.

[Nick]

Real quick, real quick, real quick, guys. Part of it look appears to not be on the screen there, Nick. It looks like the. Where the F equals. There's an okay underscore.

[Host/Moderator]

Did you want to say anything on the formalization here, Nick, real quick?

[Nick]

Well, I think it's funny that he's about to. When we look at it, he's about to call it wrong. But later on in the debate, we find out he doesn't even know how to read it.

[Jay Dyer]

It.

[Nick]

And if you didn't know how to read it, that's totally fine. I don't expect everyone to understand how to read this. But also, don't say it's wrong if you don't even know how to read it in the first place. And also if you just now learned what an identity operator was 30 seconds ago, you also probably shouldn't be saying it's wrong.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. So can we translate this, this for everybody then?

[Nick]

Yeah. So you're basically saying the Father is not the same. That's what the knot through the equals mean. Is not the same person as the Son. And then the little one that goes like this is an and saying, and the Father is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And then the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And the person of the Father and the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit are the same God and the Father is the same God as the Holy Spirit. That's what it equals. Is. Is the same God as the Holy Spirit. We're now on the second line. And the Son is the same God as the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit are one God because they're under one G. That's all that's saying. It's all. It's just formulating the fact that we believe that they're distinct persons, but one God in a way in which first order logic is using it.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. And you. And to be clear, for everybody here. This is okay what you're doing here because you are using relative identity here.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Host/Moderator]

You know what they say.

[Nick]

Early bird gets the ultimate vacation home book.

[Host/Moderator]

Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to

[Nick]

the action, whether it's waves lapping at

[Host/Moderator]

the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks.

[Nick]

Well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with Verpo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141.

[Host/Moderator]

Select homes only. Yes, it is you. You are counting identity according to the sort or sortal.

[Nick]

Right.

[Host/Moderator]

God.

[Nick]

Right.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay. I just wanted to clear that up because I know for a fact that people were confused about this. I figured we should clear that up.

[Nick]

Yeah, probably. Someone asked me in the Q A and I. I explained it as well.

[Host/Moderator]

So people are still saying hieroglyphic.

[Nick]

Yeah, that's what, that's what it looked like to Jake. He thought it was hieroglyphics. Just fix that a little bit. Yeah, it's okay. It's. You can see right there. It's just a G. That's all it is.

[Jake]

Okay.

[Nick]

All right. Yeah, I'll just continue your time. Go ahead, Go ahead.

[Jake]

Yeah, so if. If the question is, and this is what seems to be the hang up the. Or what your approach is the entire time, if you think that, and I'm just grabbing a book here because it's relevant to what I'm going to say now, if you think that merely providing a. A logical structure on paper in which the Trinity can fit in and be in and be consistent within that structure itself, then sure, I fully grant that.

[Nick]

Yeah. Like, literally at this point, the debate is over. Like, he's openly admitting in this formal system the Trinity is logical. Like, what more is there to talk about?

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, I. So push back if you think I'm wrong here, that I think you needed two concessions. One being that this is consistent under relative identity into that either he's going to concede to relative identity or concede that this is a possible construal or something like that.

[Nick]

Now all he needs to do is accept this is possible. He doesn't even have to.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

If he's admitted that it's that this is consistent, then he's giving up. That the Trinity is illogical.

[Nick]

Yep. Logical. There's no system in which, yeah, say it's consistent.

[Host/Moderator]

He does try later on to argue against relative identity. But I, I, the only way that I think he tried to do that is by calling it ad hoc.

[Nick]

Yeah. Being ad hoc has nothing to do with whether or not something's like, because again, it's not ad hoc. But even if it was ad hoc, it has nothing to do with, with whether or not a logical system is consistent. So it's just, I mean just his misunderstanding of what logic is.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I could come up with a system that is ad hoc and some of the people who talk about paraconsistent logic will come up with all kinds of wild, crazy kind of out there systems and they're fully consistent. It doesn't mean that they're true, but they're consistent.

[Nick]

Exactly. And I think this is where he was getting the hang up in the debate is he was trying to say, okay, well is this specific? Is the Trinity like is it true? Right. Like we could just say that is it true? Well, the debate wasn't about whether or not it's true. If it's whether or not it's true, obviously we're going to start going to the church fathers and we're going to start using divine revelation. But that's not the case. The case is whether or not we can ever make a formulation.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. That's why this was I think pretty doves. And there was a similar situation too in the bow to branch Bo Branson discussion about the, you know me and premise that he had with, with Dr. Branson when they got to the, the tape, the logic table, because Jake kept wanting to make it somehow necessarily inconsistent for there to be the Son to be God and the Father to be God and the Spirit to be God, but there to be one God. And once Dr. Branson show from the logic table that there's nothing inconsistent with that because you can have, you can have something that's part of a class of things that it doesn't have all the same properties of the members of the class. Right. And if you show that then it's not logically Inconsistent. And so Jake keeps not understanding that there's metaphysical things out there in the world. And then there's types of logic and logical systems argumentation that doesn't necessarily imply an immediate metaphysical stance. So it's like a metaphysical quietism that some systems of logic or arguments have and they don't necessitate the ontological conclusions. And that's what he's not understanding. He's wanting and needing it to be all of this ontological stuff. But if he wanted to do that, then like, like Nick said, he needed to make it. The premise of the debate should have been is the Trinity true? Not is it logically inconsistent?

[Nick]

Yeah, because the whole point was he thinks the LPT can make it so, in which there's no way we can say that Trinity's one God if we're actually being consistent. Yet that's not the case. And so he fumbled very badly. And we'll see over the next like couple minutes I'll continue asking him the same question and he just can't come up with a proper answer and understanding of it.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, really quick, I'm seeing people in the chat asking what the underscore is. Nick, correct me if I'm wrong. The underscore before the G is just marking the sortal.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah. So yeah, it's, well, not necessarily marking a sort of, because it's also under the term person. And person wouldn't be a sortal there. Yeah, so you see that very first line, Father is not the same person. He want to be a sort of. It's basically just marking a term in which they're. They're all under that they're either the same as or not the same as. That's all it's doing.

[Host/Moderator]

Gotcha. Okay, let's keep going.

[Nick]

Consistent.

[Jake]

I mean, I'll give you an example. Peter van Endwagen in this text here goes into quite a bit of detail regarding relative identity. And he formulates the Trinity and his particular model and understanding in what he calls relative identity logic. So yes, if you're using a relative identity logical structure in a similar way that Peter van Inwagon is, then it can be self consistent. But that has nothing to do with my argument.

[Nick]

So you agree though, the model I gave is indeed logic. So the Trinity, the model that I gave is indeed logically consistent.

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Okay, so can you tell me an inconsistency?

[Jake]

I think the.

[Nick]

I mean he literally just completely contradicts himself. It's. Oh yeah, it is self consistent, but nah, it's not a lot. What

[Host/Moderator]

I think what he's trying to say there is. No, it's not. Because relative identity is something he doesn't hold to.

[Nick]

Bruh. It doesn't even matter. That has nothing to do.

[Host/Moderator]

No, I, I know it doesn't. This is, this is why, this is why I was telling you on our call too. I'm like, I can't tell what's happening here, but like, I want to give Jake the benefit of the doubt and just say he's not being a good communicator here.

[Nick]

I just think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll be honest.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, well, I'm gonna. I'm gonna choose to be nice.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Jake]

Problem that you're not understanding is merely because you can put the model into a specific logical structure that you hold to and it can be consistent within that. That therefore it's logical in the general sense.

[Jay Dyer]

No, no. All that has to show.

[Nick]

What does it mean?

[Jay Dyer]

Not illogical.

[Host/Moderator]

Right, Right.

[Jay Dyer]

In other words, if he concedes that in that system it's consistent and not illogical, then all of that that he just said is irrelevant. So I mean that. That was the premise of the debate right there.

[Nick]

Literally, for something to be logically consistent, according to the class.

[Jake]

Exactly. That's, that's, that's what the debate is. And the hang up is, the point is, is that if you are using a logical structure or a logical system, like Van and Wagon does in the book, right, where he uses relative identity logic and this is what he describes it as, then yes, it can be a consistent. Within its own paradigm. However, I do not ascribe to that paradigm. I do not believe.

[Host/Moderator]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

Is his lack of subscription to the paradigm is. That's called a psychological report in debate. And that's irrelevant to the topic of the debate. Yeah, I mean, that's cool, but so what? Like, what is that?

[Host/Moderator]

Whether it's reminded me of debating New atheists back in 2011. 2012.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Nick]

Subscribe to this model. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's. You cannot. I cannot be illogical.

[Jay Dyer]

This is how Matt Dylan. He still argues. He still says, I don't find this convincing. Okay, so what?

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

What does that do with it?

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah.

[Nick]

What does that prove?

[Host/Moderator]

Let me know if you want to jump to a different time stamp or anything too, Nick. Okay, I'm just gonna keep going, I

[Nick]

guess like a minute, because we're going to keep talking about this for like the next. Next minute or two. He's just not really gonna answer he's gonna keep contradicting himself. Model that I gave. Logically consistent, yes or no?

[Jake]

It all depends on how we're defining logic. That's the whole point.

[Nick]

I just. I just told you how we define it.

[Jake]

So are. Are you accepting any logical system whatsoever?

[Nick]

We're talking about class. That's why I said according to class. We're talking about classical logic right now. So according to classical logic, I gave you the definition of logical consistency. So can you answer the question now?

[Jake]

Is this question. I am answering the question.

[Nick]

I'm saying I'm not asking about different models. So just yes or no it's relevant. Trinity. Logically consistent. According to this model, it's.

[Jake]

It's consistent in the same way that J.C. beal's contradictory Christ is consistent.

[Nick]

Okay, I'm asking is it consistent according to the definite. The classical definition of logically consistent?

[Jake]

Only in the sense in which you use the term logic in such a general way to include all of these different formulations of logic, which I don't accept.

[Nick]

We're only using one. We're using first order logic.

[Jake]

Yes, and you're using relative identity logic, aren't you?

[Nick]

There's no such thing as relative identity logic. Relative. Yeah, you can pause it there. Relative identity is not its own section of logic. Relative identity is under classical logic, it's you. It's just all it's doing is changing the identity operator. And so he's mistaken again to say that it's a completely different type of logic. Like this doesn't make any sense.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals and earn four times the points look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go, pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Walden University Sponsor]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters.

[Nick]

But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more.

[Walden University Sponsor]

Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products

[Nick]

in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, well, so maybe this might be a good place for the, to help the audience out too, because many people are going to argue that like if you hold to some sort of relative identity, you are going outside of the confines of classical logic. Or you might be rejecting Leibniz law, for instance.

[Nick]

Yeah, that's again, that would just be a misunderstanding of logic. You can use Leibniz law with things other than absolute idea. Leibniz law does not necessarily have to use absolute identity. We can say two things are identical using relative identity and that they're absolutely ident. A equals B in this sense in every way. Right. It doesn't necessarily necessitate in all other ways that they're also identical because Live in his law never states that within this law that the identity operator is absolute identity. It's not, it's not the case at all.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, let's keep going.

[Nick]

Identity operator within first order logic.

[Jake]

So again, you're using, you're, you're, you are relativizing identity. Correct.

[Nick]

We're using the relative identity operator. It's not its own type of logic

[Jake]

is being identity is being relativized. I don't accept relative identity. That's the point.

[Nick]

Great. Whether or not you accept the relative identity, I'm not asking whether you accept it. I'm asking if there is a contradiction according to this view or if we use the trinity in this formulation, would that be logical?

[Jake]

And I already, I already responded. When you say, would you say, would that be logical?

[Jay Dyer]

I have a comment here.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, what's up?

[Jay Dyer]

Relative identity is not identity relativize. This is kind of a basic. He's missing, he's doing a word concept fallacy. So for example, like, it's like classes of things, right? Or things having a different set of cells or something over time. Like that's not relativizing the identity. It's just saying that the identity is relative amongst a class of things, that it might share properties, but it also might have, might not have other properties that that class of things has. That's not relativizing the identity. So he doesn't understand what that means.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, and I'm already seeing some objections in the chat that like I briefly brought up earlier. Maybe you guys just want to take the time to address them now. Right? Somebody's saying, for instance, that is modifying Leibniz law. So it's not Leibniz law anymore.

[Nick]

Like a very dumb comment to make. Because if you're saying that it's modifying Leibniz's law. You're presupposing that Leibniz law is automatically used with absolute identity. Yeah, yeah, it's not. And so. Nope. No, nobody said. Nobody says that. Lyman has never said that. Nobody says that. So, yeah, it's just very, very misinformed to say that.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, do you want me to keep going from here, Nick, or fast forward again or.

[Nick]

That's cool.

[Jake]

You can keep going from here into Jake's logical paradigm. And according to the logical paradigm, that is the standard amongst logicians and philosophers, the answer would be no.

[Nick]

I'm not asking according to your paradigm. I'm asking according to.

[Host/Moderator]

Wait, I do have a question on this. Okay. Because I hear this line all the time. Is there actually like a consensus or what's considered like, like an orthodox view of logic and identity amongst philosophers? Or is this just like a cheap rhetorical point, like, do you guys know identity?

[Nick]

I don't think there's one of identity. I mean, I'd say most orthodox use classical logic, but

[Jay Dyer]

the orthodox theology predates modern analytical philosophy. So it's not going to have a lot of the same fleshed out ideas. And that's why I know we're not on the subject of counting by identity or counting by division, but like, that's common in the ancient world. Different things were counted in different ways because they were different types of things, right? So like, you can't count something abstract or what's called second order imposition, which is just to say something kind of conceptual, like a law of logic or a set of things that's not physical. You can't count that as a half, right? Like you can't say half the law of logic, right? So for those kinds of things, it required counting by identity. But for other types of things, like in the mundane world, like, it makes a lot of sense why people would have counted by division, right? Like, I have a bagel, I split it with my Jewish friend. We've counted by division. Now one bagel has become two, right? And when. And so when even Al Ghazali, he counts by division. The church fathers and the ecumenical councils, when they talk about the divine essence, one and undivided, they're counting by. By division. But other things are counted by identity. And that's not inconsistent. And he kept calling it ad hoc. And even at the beginning of this debate when I was listening in the car, he still calls it, that's an ad hoc way of counting. No people in the ancient world counted both ways, not ad Hoc. It more so has to do with the types of things being counted and whether it be it's functional to count them in this way or the other way. And so if we're talking about a thing that has unity and multiplicity, ironically, his own Allah would have to be counted both by division and by identity. So the 99 ontologies that he talks about would have to be counted by identity versus Allah's essence being one and undivided. So he doesn't really understand that it's the same metaphysical problem. It's just different. It's different things in question, whether it's on top, whether it's the attributes or whether it's the persons. It's the same metaphysical problem at work here. So the fact that as you translated into a formal system here, which he's admitted is consistent, he's still not understanding that. It's just talking about classes of things, like it's saying that one thing can

[Host/Moderator]

be

[Jay Dyer]

set off against another thing in a class of thing and have a relative identity that's the same, but also not the same in other respects. It's, it's not that complicated. I don't know why he's, I think he's just sort of going off into other deflections to get away from the fact that he realized, oh, I might have messed up in the conceit of the debate.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Jay believes Jews are the chosen people. Still confirmed. All right, let's keep going.

[Host/Moderator]

All right.

[Nick]

A paradigm of classical logicians, when they define logical consistency, is it, is this model I gave logically consistent according to that definition?

[Jake]

Oh man, I think you're missing the point when you keep using the word logical and logic according to classical logicians. I'm saying to you that my interpretation of that is not an all encompassing buffet of whatever you want to input. I don't accept relative identity or relativizing identity as a genuine aspect.

[Nick]

I'm not asking if you accept it, I'm not asking that. I'm not asking if you use it in your order. It's not what I'm asking. Okay. What I'm asking is, and if you want to deny the definition that I gave, that I gave a source for as well. So I'm not asking about your logic, what you take from, etc, I'm asking, using the relative identity operator and the formulation I gave according to the definition that classical logicians use, is it logically consistent?

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Yes or no?

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Okay. You said you agree. I mean, he, he knows, like Jay said, he Knows he messed up, so he changes his answer. At first he said it was, and now he says it's not. He can't make up his mind what's

[Jay Dyer]

up with his new set. Looking like a vape shop.

[Host/Moderator]

Dude,

[Jay Dyer]

I'm about to order a damn, you know, know apricot syrup from my vape in there. Can Jake give me some halal vape? Jake?

[Host/Moderator]

That's the name of the shop.

[Nick]

Oh, yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, man, the hookah.

[Host/Moderator]

Oh, boy.

[Nick]

Bro.

[Jay Dyer]

Anyway.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, well, where. Where do you want to go from here?

[Nick]

Almost done with the guy's name, I think.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay.

[Nick]

Agreed with it. That doesn't mean there must be a contradiction within this. So if you could put it back up on the screen. And I would like Jake to show the inconsistency here.

[Jake]

Again, you're. I don't know if I'm talking beyond you or you're not understanding me when you keep asking if it's logically consistent, it means according to what logical system? Logic according to what logical system? And if you're asking me is it consistent in a. In a logical system which accepts identity being relativized, then the answer is yes. If it's in a system. If it's in a system that does not accept identity being relativized or take that as a genuine standard, then the answer is no.

[Nick]

Okay, that's classical logic. Accept relative identity as a part of a specific model that can be used.

[Jake]

That's. That's debated. Branson, for example, himself seems to think that it doesn't.

[Nick]

Okay, so do you believe it does?

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Or are you just saying you don't know?

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Okay, why do you believe that?

[Jake]

As I said, because I'm appealing to others who are experts in the field are saying that no, the cl. How you define classical logic or classical identity is going to be understood in a specific way that does not have identity being relativized.

[Nick]

Wait, do you even know how to read this? Can you put it back on this?

[Host/Moderator]

Do you know, before we get to that point, Am I missing something with his response there, Nick? Because I feel like he just said a bunch of nothing right there.

[Nick]

Well, yeah, all he's. All he's trying to say is that he believes relative identity isn't classical logic. So I'm not even using classical logic. Also, I don't even know if Both says that. I. I haven't personally seen it.

[Jay Dyer]

Maybe if he does say that, because I. I don't.

[Nick]

I've never seen. Right now, because, yeah, Bo in his dissertation has an Entire section on relative identity. Yeah, he does his and. And I never read anywhere in there him say it's not.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm looking to see if he says that.

[Nick]

Yeah, I mean he literally formulates relative identity in there using first order logic. So I don't see then how he's gonna turn around and say it's not classical logic.

[Host/Moderator]

Well, while you're trying to find that Jay, we'll go to this part. I guess I felt really bad for Jake here, man.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, post Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pickup or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing.

[Nick]

Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump [e-mail] let's sha. No purchase necessary BTW Group void where prohibited by law.

[Ryan Seacrest]

CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Nick]

How to read this? Like, do you know what I'm saying here?

[Jake]

Dude, you. Are you out of your mind? You're not asking.

[Nick]

You. It's not. It's okay. It's totally fine. You're not.

[Jake]

You're not. You're not listening to what I'm saying at all.

[Nick]

Okay, I. I understand. I'm asking a question. Do you know how to read this?

[Jake]

No, I do not.

[Nick]

So. All right, bro, you could have just said that from the jump, bro.

[Jake]

Okay, none of this has anything to do. None of this has anything to do with what I'm saying.

[Nick]

But it doesn't, bro. It does because I told you that. Okay. What is a model in classical logic? What is a model?

[Jake]

Model is a set of premises that are being used to describe a particular doctrine.

[Nick]

Never. I don't know what. No, no, that's. No, no, I've never. A model is a specific set of premises that's used to describe. Is he trying to say a model equals a syllogism? Like, I don't. That's what it sounds like he's trying to say. I'm not sure. Very weird.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. So why don't you. Why don't. Why don't you answer that. The question for, for people like, yeah,

[Nick]

a model is basically going to be a set of what it's going to be like predicates like we're using here. So it's going to be a certain system that we're using in which we can deduce that there is a conclusion that can be considered logical, it can be considered consistent. That's what I'm using here. I'm giving a model using first order logic in which we're describing something that is going to be consistent. It has nothing to do with premises and it has nothing to do with a, I don't know, the metaphysic, metaphysical properties of a thing that lead to that sort of conclusion. Like, I don't know where he's getting his definition from here.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, there's really interesting literature even on model, model theory in general as it pertains to first order logic. Yo, Nick, actually, I'm going to send you this book.

[Nick]

It's.

[Host/Moderator]

It's an old one. It's called model theory. I think you'll like it.

[Nick]

Cool.

[Host/Moderator]

Remind me later. Okay, let's keep going.

[Nick]

Oh, no, no, that's not okay. Oh my gosh. Okay. That's not what it is. Okay, what we're talking about, when we understand what it is, it's a specific domain that is being used. Okay? It's a specific domain. We can use a identity operator, it's using different logical symbols, etc. This is what I'm giving you. The reason why I asked you that question.

[Jake]

There's no content.

[Nick]

No, the content is the things like the identity operator.

[Jake]

What is the content? What is the meaning behind them, the predicates?

[Nick]

Okay, first order logic.

[Jay Dyer]

Because he's not understanding that you don't have to have a metaphysical entailment. Right? You can still argue that it's logically consistent based on. It doesn't even have to be the Trinity. Right. It could be anything that fits with within a class of things. Right? So he needs to just simply show that that's inconsistent. It's the exact same move that happened in the Branson debate with the logic table where he kept assuming that there's all these metaphysical ontological entailments. With anybody who says that the Son is God and the Father is God, then there's only. There's only. Then there's more than one God. Like he's saying that you have to accept the, you know me and premise that all this metaphysical baggage. And it's like, no, just by logic itself, there's nothing inconsistent with Something having some properties amongst a class of things that it shares and other properties that it doesn't have amongst that class. You can't show that that's inconsistent. That's why he didn't understand and didn't prove his point in the Branson debate. And it's like a very similar move that's being made here because like he just keeps stating what isn't actually addressing the inconsistency. And so now he realized he's got to go into saying, well, I, I don't accept your system of logic. Okay, but that again is not proving that a model of the Trinity is inconsistent.

[Nick]

Yep, absolutely. Behind the predicates. And that's basically no. Okay, you don't deal with the contents behind the predicates. You do the predicates themselves. Okay, so again, the reason why I ask you what a model is because according to my definition of logically consistent is. And, and again, the one I gave SCP is that it is there is one model, which is what I gave you just now, that there is one model in which you can give that is logically consistent. So again, I want to make this very clear and ask one more time. I don't care about any other model. I'm asking according to first order logic and classical logic. I'm asking specifically, would this trinity model be logical?

[Jake]

No.

[Nick]

Okay, so then again, according to definition that said that there has to be some sort of contradiction within the model itself, that it would prove that it is illogical. So can you give me the.

[Jake]

Doesn't have to be a contradiction within the model itself. What it is is it's contradicting logical framework that's used. You're appealing to sep, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you look at their entry on ident, it defines classical identity as obeying Leibniz's law, which you are not obeying.

[Nick]

Wait, wait, wait. You think relative identity goes against Leibniz law?

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for store wide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pickup or delivery, restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing Victory Lane.

[Nick]

Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

[Ryan Seacrest]

No purchase necessary VTW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNCs21+ Sponsored by Chumba Casino yes, it does.

[Nick]

Okay, so you think the identity operator in Liveness's Law is necessarily absolute identity.

[Jake]

Liveness's Law, yes, it is absolute identity.

[Nick]

Can you not say that A is equal to B in one sense, and then that proves that they're identical in that sense entirely?

[Jake]

Okay, do you want me to actually bring you up the source from Stanford Encyclopedia to show you what it actually

[Nick]

says that says that. That the identity operator is necessarily absolute

[Jake]

identity tells you that. It tells you that classical identity is understood as obeying Leibniz's law. Amen.

[Nick]

I agree. This is.

[Jake]

Classical identity is part of the classical logical framework. So if you're not obeying Leibniz's law in terms of absolute identity, then you are not obeying a part of the classical logical structure.

[Nick]

Okay, can you show me a source that necessitates.

[Jay Dyer]

So in Dr. Branson's paper on page 25 and 26, he gives two different versions of relative identity argumentation for the Trinity. He says there's pure and there's impure. And in the second version, impure, he. He says that there's nothing that necessitates that you have to have a classical identity claim. For example, he says at the last paragraph, so long as in this formulation, he's saying X is the same God as Y doesn't entail a classical identity claim between X and some other term, we are safe. And it doesn't seem that it would on the Ray Brower account, which is the. The second version of it, which. Which he calls impure relative identity. So that would disprove what Jake claimed earlier.

[Nick]

Yeah, and that's what we're using, obviously, is impure. I don't think relative identity. Most people, when they're holding relative identity, believe in impure because the difference between pure and impure relative identity is just pure. Relative identity theorists believe that it's going to be you. Relative identity is used in every case. It's the only kind of identity to be used. Impure believe, okay, it can be used, but other types of identity can also be used. That's what most are doing.

[Jay Dyer]

He says on the Ray Brower argument, the divine nature is definitely not classical, classically identical to the person. So we need to go into more detail. He says that essentially it's consistent.

[Nick]

Yep. Amen. Amen, Jake misquoting Bo once again, just like he did in your debate. Let's know.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, he might have just read the first part and thought that, oh, they're just using pure relative identity.

[Nick]

Yeah, just read. Read a quarter of it. Makes sense. The taste that live in his law uses absolute identity as the identity operator.

[Jake]

I can show you here.

[Nick]

I don't know how you can show me that when you didn't even know when you didn't even know what an identity operator was 10 minutes ago. I don't know how you're going to show that, dude.

[Jake]

If you want me to show it to you one minute in my own time so I don't waste your time, but I can show you exactly where the Stanford encyclopedia entry explicitly states what classical identity is, how it's defined, and what domain it falls under. And yours does not follow that.

[Nick]

Okay, I'll just ask one more question.

[Jake]

Classical identity.

[Nick]

It's. Okay, I'll just ask one more question. Okay, what is the formalization of statements such the infant's rule determines three gods. Do you actually have a formalization of your statements?

[Jake]

Yeah, I gave it in my opening statement here. If I pull it up here second.

[Nick]

Okay, so we can wait for him to do it and I'll just ask him one question about that. I assume this will be the last question. So once he pulls that up, I'll ask him one question about it and then we can waste the whole last minute.

[Jake]

Today we count Fs by one. Logical subjects that are too discernible from or at least not identical to one another and our F. That is, if X and Y differ in any way and are both fish, we count them as two Fs. So if you plug the father and son for as an example, just as two, for simplicity's sake, the father and son are logical subjects that are discernible from each other.

[Nick]

Since we pulled that up.

[Jake]

Not. Not identical to each other. Are both F. Meaning are both God and they differ. Are both fish. So we count them as two Fs. We count them as two gods.

[Nick]

You're a time. So yeah, I want to stop there real fast. That's not a formulation. What he just gave is not a formulation. Okay, I'll. Let me here, I'll share my screen just real fast because. Because Bo actually does give formulations for relative identity in his paper. Here's like one example where he gives the formulation of N pure right here. You guys might not be able to see it.

[Host/Moderator]

You're gonna have to zoom in on

[Nick]

this yeah, I'll just give the reference. Oh, wait, can I. Actually, I can. I think I can zoom in here.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, just control and scroll.

[Nick]

Oh, frick. It might not let me. Okay, let me just.

[Host/Moderator]

Christian. Minecraft server, dude. Just kidding. It's okay.

[Nick]

Okay, so you guys can see right here. He does get.

[Host/Moderator]

Scroll over to the right a little bit or like.

[Nick]

It doesn't let me, I don't think, for some reason. Oh, wait, there you go. Okay, so he does give a formulation. Here's npr. He does give a formulation in his dissertation. But the issue is Jake doesn't know what a formulation is. And so what he just gave was not his formulation. This is his formulation. But he doesn't know what a formulation is. So that's like crazy, man. But yeah, yeah. So he. And I asked him. I. I knew he wouldn't answer this. I want to ask him what the inference rule was because. Brad, it was. There was no inference rule because it wasn't a formulation.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, do we want to do his cross exam for you now or did you want to. Is this where he brings up all the essence energy stuff with you?

[Nick]

Essence energy, the birds, all that good stuff? We'll do this. We don't. We don't have to go over the closings and all that because that'll probably. We're already two hours. But. So we'll do his cross. Just pull that up. Ask him this. What is. He doesn't have to answer though. Okay, I was gonna ask you what's the inference rule for that? Yeah, it says time.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, so.

[Nick]

All right, so now we're gonna throw it over to Jake for his 15 minute cross examination. I will start the timer on your first word, Jake, whenever you're ready.

[Jake]

Okay, one second, let me just. I'm just removing this.

[Nick]

Gotcha.

[Jake]

Okay, Nick, by what relation do you count Gods in the Trinity?

[Nick]

Are you asking how we formulate it such that it's one God? Are you asking how we determine it, like in our epistemology?

[Jake]

No, I'm asking you how do you count Gods in the Trinity?

[Nick]

Sure. If you're asking how we formulate it, it's going to be using the relative identity operator.

[Jake]

Okay, so what makes it such that there's only one God in. In the Trinity?

[Nick]

Yeah. Given that in our set of statements there's only going to be one sortal.

[Jake]

One sortal. And what is that? One sortal.

[Nick]

The sort of is going to be stand for God.

[Jake]

Okay, and what are the criteria to fulfill that? Sortal.

[Nick]

Yeah, sortal itself doesn't have any underlying criteria more than just what it is itself. Right. A sort of, is just going to be a standard counting. It's going to be in place of accounting method. So it's, I want to pause it here because it's a good part too. It doesn't say so we kind of talked about this earlier as well. But he's assuming that sortals and these predicates in first order logic have underlying metaphysical content that we have exactly used.

[Jay Dyer]

Yep.

[Nick]

And so we, we, when we're using this, right, we can say that, okay, F. Yeah, we know it stands for the Father, but now what about the Father we know or what about the Father we provide? It has nothing to do with that. And he's assuming that there. It doesn't make any sense. Sense what? The thing is itself.

[Jake]

How do you know what it is?

[Nick]

Yeah, we don't, we don't say what it is. We simply say it's God. It's standing in place for what we formalize.

[Jake]

So when you say we know it's

[Nick]

God, we don't know exactly what the attributes of this God is.

[Jay Dyer]

There's a good example of how to understand this. Like if anybody thinks this is kind of confusing. Like I Remember Father Deacon Dr. Ananias has a good example where it's like, if you think about when you're doing logic or argumentation and you talk about possible worlds, right. And you say is this, you know, logically inconsistent in any possible world? You're not actually logically, you're not saying that ontologically there are all these other worlds. Right. You're just saying that there's no possible world where this could be logically consistent or could work. It does not necessitate that there's all these other multiverses. Right. So Jake seems to not understand when you say something like in the set this is consistent. It doesn't necessitate all the theological metaphysical baggage that he wants to, to add to it.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, hey, no, I think you said, what you said that, well, there's nothing to add on there behind it.

[Nick]

Yeah. The content behind it is going to have to do with epistemology. So we have content behind it, but it's going to have to do with the epistemology of the thing.

[Jake]

Content.

[Nick]

Yeah, I mean, I'll answer the question, but it has nothing to do with the logic of the Trinity. Behind it is obviously going to be what we believe the Christian God to be.

[Jay Dyer]

So this is, I mean again, this is like, I, I, I'm glad that the debate went in this direction. But also it's like, I'm guessing that the rest of the debate's going to be about whether or not he has to debate the logical consistency or whether or not like, because he's already conceded it.

[Jake]

It's.

[Jay Dyer]

It's not inconsistent. Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm not trying to just be repeating myself, but it's like, oh, is this all he does the rest of the time, Nick?

[Nick]

So pretty much, yes. He goes into that and then he also goes into. He talks, start talking about, you know, the created birds and his uncreated birds and stuff like that. He mentions you. He's like, you know how Jay believes in uncreated birds and stuff like that?

[Jay Dyer]

Why didn't he make a premise? Is it true?

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Host, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Tyler reddick here from 2311 Racing, Victory Lane.

[Nick]

Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

[Ryan Seacrest]

No purchase necessary VTW Group void.

[Nick]

We're prohibited by law.

[Ryan Seacrest]

CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Nick]

I. I don't know. That's why that's what I'm saying. It's like he doesn't understand there's a difference between arguing the metaphysical truth of a thing versus arguing if it's logical.

[Jay Dyer]

Logical consistency. Exactly.

[Nick]

I mean, it's, it's bad. Yeah. That's all he does the whole time. And I, I even said that if

[Host/Moderator]

you watch my Nick to contradict himself.

[Nick]

Yeah. And if you watch my opening, I literally put that in my opening because I knew he was going to do that. In my opening, I said what he can't do. And under that I said argue about the metaphysics or the difference in properties. And he did exactly what I predicted because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Jay Dyer]

It's like the difference between the question is a equal a consistent versus what type of a thing is a equal a right. It's a Category. It's like two different questions.

[Nick]

Yeah, very bad. What do you mean, who? I'm defining it in the statement, who

[Jake]

defines what the Christian God is and the paradigm in which one is the same God and the other isn't.

[Nick]

Again, this has nothing to do with the topic, but to me, the Orthodox.

[Jay Dyer]

All irrelevant.

[Jake]

The Orthodox Church.

[Nick]

Yep.

[Jake]

Okay, so how do they know what it is? How do they define it?

[Nick]

Divine revelation.

[Jake]

Divine revelation. Okay. Where does divine revelation tell you the criteria for counting as the same sort of God or not?

[Nick]

We don't. We use the formalization of statements for that.

[Jake]

So it doesn't tell you. There's no.

[Nick]

Wow.

[Host/Moderator]

Wow.

[Nick]

Divine revelation doesn't tell you whether to use a relative identity when you're accounting or what type. Bruh. Like, no, duh. My. My bad. God didn't provide us with a specific counting method.

[Host/Moderator]

That's a feature, not a bug.

[Nick]

Oh, wow.

[Host/Moderator]

At least by my view. I think that's the future, not a bug.

[Nick]

Yeah,

[Jake]

here it is. And what everybody needs to see is Nick is putting symbols on a page and saying these symbols are consistent with its own system, but there's no actual content.

[Host/Moderator]

Wait, that. Okay, that phrase right there.

[Jay Dyer]

He doesn't have to show the content.

[Host/Moderator]

Right. But that phrase is also really important because I see Muslims echoing the same phrase, which is this model of the Trinity is consistent within its own system, but the system is relative identity. But that's not a trinitarian system. Yeah, like there is a rhetorical. There's a rhetorical.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, it could be a trinitarian system, and that's the problem.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, What I mean by what I mean by what I'm saying there, Jay, is it's not a system invented for the Trinity. It's not like a system. That's all I'm trying to say. It's. So it's trinitarian in the sense that it's compatible with the Trinity and trinitarian models, but it's not a. It's not a system that's necessarily trinitarian. Like, you could hold to relative identity and not be a trinitarian, for instance. That's all I'm trying to say.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but none of that matters whether it's consistent or not.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

[Jay Dyer]

Not that you were saying that, but yeah.

[Nick]

It has nothing to do with the model of the Trinity. The content has to do with the metaphysics, which we can provide. But again, it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Jake]

Okay, so what. What are the. It's not about the metaphysics. It's about how you are counting and arriving at there being one God.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, that's the metaphysics, though. That's not the question of the consistency. So he just contradicts himself.

[Nick]

He doesn't understand the difference between what, how we, how we talk about metaphysics and logic. He doesn't understand it. It's kind of the core of this whole debate.

[Jay Dyer]

It's a category mistake, which it's understandable because I think a lot of, and I'm not being just out of hand rude towards Jake, but I think a lot of people like. It's like a more of a sophomore kind of mistake that you would make in philosophy where you would think that there's a necessary ontological entailment with a logical system. But that's not the case. In fact, there's. Boolean logic is intentionally developed to not have any ontological commitments.

[Jake]

You're saying that they're one God because they are one sortal. What is that one sort of?

[Nick]

Yeah, the one sort of. Again, if we want to get into metaphysics, it's going to be the, the people that have the omni properties.

[Jake]

Okay, so having the, having the omni properties is sufficient for counting as one God.

[Nick]

Yeah, that's what we define as one. God is going to be the being that has the omni properties.

[Jake]

And those are all essential properties. So sharing the same essential properties is sufficient for counting as one God?

[Nick]

Specifically the omni properties. Yeah.

[Jake]

Okay, so what's the difference between that and the case of human beings, Peter, James and John, when it comes to the example that I gave from Gregory

[Nick]

of Nissan, that human beings are potentially instanced while Gods are not potentially instanced because God has no potential under divine simplicity.

[Jake]

You cut out. You cut out on, on my, on my end. Can you Repeat the last 10 seconds?

[Nick]

Yes, it's okay. Because humans are potentially instanced while God is not. So we would believe that humans are particulars while gods are not particulars.

[Jake]

Okay, and what establishes that gods are potentially not potentially instance, but humans are?

[Nick]

Yeah, the fact that we believe God is pure act and he has no potential because potential would lead to change. Meaning that he's not perfect. Perfect.

[Jake]

What does it mean for God to not have to be pure, act and not change? You mean in any sense?

[Nick]

No, I. I mean specifically passive potential.

[Jake]

Okay, so do you believe that God acts in succession and does different things at different times?

[Nick]

Wouldn't say it's act in succession, but I would say he has active potential.

[Jake]

What do you mean? He doesn't. Did he? Okay, let me ask it this way. Do his energies have a beginning in time?

[Nick]

If you mean that they temporally manifest, yeah. But it's not a beginning to them itself.

[Jake]

It's not a beginning to them themselves. So his energies only have a beginning in manifesting, but the energy itself doesn't have a beginning?

[Nick]

Correct.

[Jake]

And what's your justification for that?

[Nick]

According to the Orthodox Church, that the energies are eternal? According to St. Gregory Palomas.

[Jake]

Well, why does he say that some of them are not eternal?

[Nick]

Like what? Which ones are eternal?

[Jake]

Okay, let me ask it this way. According to Gregory, Palomas, are all of the on energies eternal?

[Nick]

Yeah, eternal in their ontology, yes. Not in their manifestation.

[Jake]

Okay, so why does Gregory say the exact opposite?

[Nick]

Oh, where does he say that? Their ontology is created?

[Jake]

Okay, so you don't know your own churches?

[Nick]

Please.

[Jay Dyer]

Where does Gregory say that? I've never heard that.

[Nick]

Yo, apparently Palomas believes the ontology of God. It's created. That's insane. I mean, bro, that's just like. I don't. I don't even know how you can read that.

[Jay Dyer]

He's talking about in book three of the Triads, which is the passage where he says that there are different energies, and he says that some of those energies manifest in time and come and go. Yeah, but that doesn't entail that God undergoes change any more than Jesus in the sense of like limiting himself in the kenosis, that he underwent change because he will willingly became man and was born in one location and not another location. Like it's. It's a both and. And not an either or so. And you see this a lot in Muslim debates because they want to say that, well, if. If the second Person of Godhead came down and became incarnate, then he necessarily underwent change. But there's nothing that requires that a being who has free will, who willingly limits and chooses not to exercise all of his capacities, there's nothing about that that necessitates change. So when we say that God is pure act, we're speaking that in a sense the divine essence is pure act contrasted to created things. But we're not saying in a cataphatic way the divine essence is pure actuality, because then there could never be any mode of being that one person enters into that the Father or the Spirit doesn't enter into. So it's cataphatically or apophatically the case. The divine essence is not acted upon, doesn't undergo change, etc. But the energies do do different things because God does different things and different actions. So that's why there is capacity or first actuality in God, as I think Bradshaw argues. And Pino says the same thing in the footnotes in his dissertation. There is real free will in God. There is first actuality or capacity because God has free will and he can choose to create a world with Aquinas or a world without Aquinas. He doesn't have to actualize everything that he could do or does do. And again, the kenosis passage proves that because he willingly underwent a humbling to become man. And thus, for example, when he's man, he's not destroying the world, he's not creating the world. So God does different things. And I think the Cappadocian acceptance of divine simplicity in this way makes a lot more sense than the Roman Catholic, which is he's trying to pit us, me and you, against each other and other orthodox against each other, when he knows that this is a. A somewhat of a difficult debated issue between exactly what's going on with the theophanies and the third triad where Palomas says that there's a manifestation that comes and goes. And he's trying to just simply say that. Well, that necessitates that God underwent change. It doesn't necessitate that God underwent change because the divine essence remains unchanged. All of its properties are still there. Just like when the Son became incarnate and became limited to be in one place, in a mode of being man, he's still omnipresent, but in the mode of being human, he's in one place, in a special mode, in a special way that he's not in Bethsaida, he's not in Capernaum, he's in Jerusalem, he's in Bethlehem. Right. Is he still omnipresent? Yes, but see, what they want to do is make it an either or to where? Well, wait a minute. If he's in some location that he's not in, in another location, in some sense, then he's now lost omnipresence. No, it's a both and he's still omnipresent, just like John says when he became flesh and walked around amongst us in John 1, he says, but he was still in the bosom of the Father. He's still being eternally generated, even though he's walking around in a special mode of being in one place and not in another place. So this is something, I think that is again, it's a, it's a. It's a mystery. And most of the church fathers, whether it's Cyril or whether it's Maximus or whether it's Palomas. They discuss the fact that the theophanies

[Ryan Seacrest]

are hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Post Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pickup or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Nick]

Tyler Redicure from 23:11 Racing the rush of racing. Nothing beats it, but Chumba Casino comes close. Chumba's got fast, fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses, and all the action you can handle.

[Jake]

Now that's a ride.

[Nick]

Ready to hit the throttle, get in the driver's seat and head to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. Sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Ryan Seacrest]

No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. 21/ terms and conditions apply.

[Jay Dyer]

Mysterious as is the incarnation. But we need a theology and a metaphysics and a toolkit that allows for the possibility of one hypostasis to enter into a mode of being that the other two don't. And if God is just a sort of simple monad, or if it's this Allah that has no relation to the created order, then none of that makes any sense. All right? And he would say, well, I don't care because I don't need Allah to be incarnate.

[Nick]

Oh, really?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, then what is the Quran that's created in relationship to the uncreated Quran? How is there an uncreated Quran next to Allah? Thus he gets into all those problems that Salafi Islam has.

[Nick]

Yep, exactly. It's. He's trying to give arguments, but they actually work against him. And that's the whole issue. And I think, again, like I said, I think this whole time he's literally just trying to kind of combat when I made him say his God has 99 ontologies. And he really wants me to admit that I have more than 12 in mind.

[Jay Dyer]

That's. No, that's a great point. I forgot that that's. That was your other debate with him, right?

[Nick]

Yes, yes.

[Jay Dyer]

So he wants to come back and get you to say that the energies and the manifestations are these 99 uncreated birds and. Yeah. Tongues of fire, right?

[Nick]

Yep. He's trying to get his get back, man.

[Jay Dyer]

I just now understood where he's trying to go now. That makes sense now.

[Nick]

I didn't even get it in the moment. And inspiring philosophy called me after. He's like, I think he was trying to do that. I was like. Because he actually ends up mentioning it at the end. He ends up mentioning his night in ontologies at the end. I was like, okay, that makes sense.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay,

[Nick]

you can go ahead then.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, cool.

[Jake]

Show you what that is.

[Nick]

I would love to see where he.

[Jake]

What's that? Sorry?

[Nick]

I would love to see where he says the ontology of the energy is created, please.

[Jake]

Okay, so I'm gonna read that quote in just a section second. Do you believe that anything that has a beginning in time is created?

[Nick]

If you're talking about its manifestation, no, it's not necessarily created. If you're talking about its ontology, then yeah.

[Jake]

Any this the statement anything that has a beginning in time is created. Is that true or false?

[Nick]

Are you talking about ontology or are you talking about manifestation?

[Jake]

I'm making a general statement. Listen again. Anything that has a beginning in time is created.

[Host/Moderator]

What's really interesting here is he was trying to like slam metaphysics into your formulation during the debate the whole entire time. But now that he made a metaphysical distinction, he doesn't want to deal with it.

[Nick]

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how whether or not if something is in time, it's created has to do with. It's a trinity's logical. But, you know, he should have made

[Jay Dyer]

the premise of the debate all the energies.

[Nick]

Yeah, he should have more true. Yeah, I don't know why he didn't do it that way, but never know.

[Jake]

Is that a true statement or a false thing?

[Nick]

Not if you're just talking about manifestation, no.

[Jake]

So it's a false statement. So there could be.

[Nick]

You're regarding manifestation as well, then. Yes, it's false.

[Jake]

So there could be things that have a beginning in time which are uncreated.

[Nick]

If you're just talking about when it manifests, then yes.

[Jake]

I'm not talking about. I'm talking about a general statement. There has nothing to do. You can fill in whatever you want.

[Nick]

To clarify, are you asking about its ontology or its manifestation? Which one?

[Jake]

I'm asking in general, is anything that has a beginning in time uncreated?

[Nick]

Again, you're talking about manifestation. It can have a beginning or cannot. If you're talking about its ontology, no, it's ontology cannot be created. But again, nothing. This has to do with the Trinity being logical. This is crazy.

[Jake]

It actually does because you're making the claim and this is what you don't understand. You're making the claim that your system is consistent. I'm going into the details of your system. Hold on a second. I'm asking the question now. As soon as we start to do so, you start fumbling. You don't even know that there are etern uncreated energies that have a beginning in time. You said all of them are eternal.

[Nick]

Waiting on you to show me the quote of him saying it's ontology has a beginning. Still waiting on. You haven't showed apply because you don't have it.

[Jake]

I will, I will show that.

[Nick]

Yeah, later. But it's never going to happen here.

[Jay Dyer]

He says here it's the third triad that he's talking about. And one example that Palomas does give when he's debating with barium is the power of creating, right? So the power of creating. God has that from all eternity. But to actualize that power to create, which he freely did, did have a beginning in time. And when Palomas is arguing with Barlium, he says that work ceased. And that's why we say in the beginning that God rested, Right. So one answer to Jake's question could be the action of creating the world. That's an uncreated power from an uncreated God or uncreated source. But it's an action in time and space. There's nothing that. There's nothing about God acting in time and space that in any way compromises the properties of the divine essence any more than the sun being in Bethsaida and not in Capernaum somehow compromises omniscience. Both of those things can be true at the same time. So what he would need to show is that, that somehow that that's impossible. So he would have to have like. What he's trying to do is to have a metaphysics that nothing like that can come to be in time and space. Basically God can't be or act in time and space because any action would be eternal. So theophanies would then have to be created because they come and go. God can't come and go. But whenever this comes up, whether it's barium or anybody else, the fathers typically do say that God transcends the logical antinomies and he's above the laws of logic. He's above the metaphysics of what the created order and structure has because he set them in place. So no, he's not bound by those things.

[Nick]

Yep.

[Jay Dyer]

Anyway, I don't mean to derail it, but.

[Nick]

No, no, on topic. That's good.

[Jake]

There are, however, energies of God which have a beginning and an end. As all saints will confirm our opponent. Meaning Nick thinks that everything which has a beginning is created. This is why he has stated that the only reality, only one reality, is unoriginated.

[Nick]

You haven't even asked the question.

[Jake]

You asked me to read the quote. Now I'm reading it.

[Nick]

I'm getting a citation for it.

[Jake]

Essence of God, adding that what is not the essence derives from a created nature. So now I'm going to ask you, first of all, it's not Nyssa, it's Gregory Palomas. It's Gregory Paloma.

[Nick]

He just misinterpreting the triads like crazy.

[Jake]

Let me finish.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Let's.

[Nick]

Let's question.

[Jake]

It's Gregory Palomas, the triads. Now, do you believe that the energies are uncreated realities?

[Nick]

Yes, they're uncreated realities which begin manifesting within time.

[Jake]

Okay. How many uncreated realities are there in God?

[Nick]

Yeah, we don't have a specific. We don't make a specific number to it.

[Jake]

Is there one or more than one in ontology?

[Nick]

There's one.

[Jake]

Okay. And each there in ontology, they're one.

[Nick]

Absolutely.

[Jake]

In reality.

[Nick]

How many are there in ontology? In reality, they're.

[Jay Dyer]

One would be reality.

[Jake]

So are there multiple?

[Nick]

I don't know of any ontologies that are in reality.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, the unreal ontological argument for God's existence, which. Where he's not real anyway.

[Jake]

Realities within God.

[Nick]

Not if you're talking about ontology. No.

[Jake]

What else was what? What else would be different between reality and ontology?

[Nick]

Yeah, you could be talking about the effect of them or their conception.

[Jake]

No, I'm talking about the actual entity itself.

[Nick]

Okay, so the entity is going to regard the ontology. So there's one.

[Jake]

Okay, so there's only one. There's only one uncreated reality in God.

[Nick]

Yes. And ontology. Yes.

[Jake]

Okay, so why does Gregory Palomas say exactly the opposite? He says our opponent thinks that everything which has a beginning is created. This is why he, the opponent, has stated that only one reality is unoriginate, the essence of God, adding that what is not this essence derives from a created nature.

[Nick]

Yeah. How does that refute my view? Because he's talking about the actual reality of the thing in terms of its effect.

[Jake]

He's talking about the energy.

[Nick]

Is he talking about the ontology of it?

[Jake]

Yes, he says the reality. There's only. He says his opponent thinks that there's only one reality, which is the only

[Nick]

thing in reality about God. The ontology.

[Jake]

That's what I just asked you. What is the difference between ontology and reality in this?

[Nick]

Because he can also manifest and it's a manifestation, can be distinct from the reality itself.

[Jake]

No? Okay. Another quote from Palomas. As Basil the Great says, and I quote, is it not ridiculous to say that the creative power is in essence similarly that providence is in essence and foreknowledge simply taking every essence as energy and the divine Maximus says goodness and all that the Word implies all life, absolutely all immortality and all the attributes that appertain essentially to God are works of God and do not have a temporal beginning. Non being, that is to say, is not anterior to virtue nor to any of the realities mentioned above, even though the beings which participate in them began to exist in time. None of these things. None of these things is the essence of God. Neither the uncreated goodness nor the unoriginate eternal life. All these exist. So now I'm asking you he says explicitly that these are uncreated realities and uncreated things. How many uncreated realities and things are there within God?

[Nick]

Again, an ontology one and manifestation multiple.

[Jake]

What does reality mean? It's not ontology.

[Nick]

You think? No, reality isn't only ontology. Wait, is manifestation not in reality? Is manifestation not in reality?

[Jake]

This is so pathetic.

[Nick]

You really don't Manifestation is not reality.

[Jake]

Really bad. And and I thought Mr. 99 ontologies. Look how this

[Jay Dyer]

one comment I mean ontology is a. Is kind of a generic term in metaphysics. It can refer to a lot of different things I mean specifically has to do with being but I mean you also there's flexibility with these terms so I mean it might have been a little better for the debate to be maybe more precise but in the Palamite synods they do specify that each of the energies is a distinct reality. And so I would have hey it's

[Ryan Seacrest]

Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st spring in for store wide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and culture pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Tyler reddick here from 2311 Racing Victory Lane.

[Nick]

Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

[Ryan Seacrest]

No purchase necessary VTW Group void where prohibited by law CTNC's 21/plus sponsored by

[Jay Dyer]

Chumba Casino I would have just said to Jake, you know, yeah, sure, God's energy is one, but it's also many. So. Well, what's the problem with that?

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, because then he's saying like the way that the way he's using ontology is the only thing that exists in reality. Like if God creates something, right? And then obviously the thing he creates isn't him himself. Like the world, does that mean, like the world doesn't actually exist in reality? Like it doesn't. Doesn't really follow.

[Jay Dyer]

But when Thomas is arguing against barium, he's arguing that there are these distinctions in God that have to be the case. For example, in 150 chapters, if you look at 98 to 103, he says that you can't say, like Jake was quoting Basil. You can't say that foreknowledge and eternal glory are the same energy. They have to be really different, because foreknowledge only relates to, or providence only relates to the created order. Eternal glory is always the case whether God had created or not. So there's a reductio that Palomas does in, in 98 to 102 or 3 where he says that this reductio proves that you can't equate the energies. So. But the energies are still one in that there's one being and one God acting in those energies, manifesting or becoming actualized in the mode of the three persons, right, that are bringing that to. To reality, bringing that into. Into actuality. But they are different realities. And that's something that the. I forget whether it's the first or the second Palomite Synod makes it really clear.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, but you can see him bringing up nine ontologies. It's very insecure, Right?

[Host/Moderator]

I actually didn't catch this when I watched it.

[Jay Dyer]

But so, but here's the thing, like, setting aside all this, even if Jake got you to admit that there's infinite ontologies in God, why would that be a problem in our system when his whole argument has been that it's inconsistent to have a being with real distinctions when he's got 99 ontologies? So it's. It's like he wants to pin us. He wants to be exempted from the problem that he's presenting for our system is what I'm trying to say. It's like, yeah, if it's a problem,

[Nick]

it has to be a problem for him.

[Jay Dyer]

But Jake, you just argued a minute ago that you don't accept the other paradigm. Okay, why, why should we accept the Islamic paradigm if we're all within our own paradigms? You're going to have to show that within our paradigm this is somehow inconsistent.

[Nick]

Absolutely. It's crazy.

[Jake]

Since you didn't solve the LPT and you didn't solve the Essence Energy distinction problem. Do you believe in uncreated?

[Jay Dyer]

That's the premise of the debate, though.

[Nick]

And uncreated, we literally never even talk. I don't even know if we really ever talked about the LPT for real.

[Host/Moderator]

He never really actually gave like a formalization of the lpt, right?

[Nick]

No, he didn't like at all. Like, he literally just said, oh, how do you count? And I explained it. He never gave argument.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, also, he would need to show why counting by identity and counting by division can't be done at the same time for different types of things. Like, he, he just said, that's ad hoc. Okay, but even like you said earlier, even it was ad hoc if it's consistent, you have to show that it's inconsistent.

[Nick]

Yep, exactly. I think here soon he's going to start going on the uncreated birds. We'll find it.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, this part, man, what this guy do with lpt.

[Nick]

But no, I don't. I don't believe in uncreated birds.

[Jake]

No Trinity. Do you believe in uncreated birds?

[Nick]

I don't believe in uncreated birds. And that has nothing to do with the topic.

[Jake]

Okay, so when the Holy Spirit appeared and descended in bodily form as a dove, was that a created dove or an uncreated.

[Nick]

Like a dove? It doesn't say he was a dove.

[Jake]

Was. Was he a dove or not?

[Nick]

No, he descended like a dove.

[Jake]

Did he appear as a dove?

[Nick]

It doesn't say how he appeared. It just says how he.

[Jay Dyer]

This is funny, because he didn't know what the text actually says.

[Nick]

No, he didn't. He totally misquoted it, dude.

[Jay Dyer]

It doesn't say he appeared because this comes up in the icon council where they say the only appropriate images that you can use the Holy Spirit in iconography after the coming of the Messiah is tongues of fire or as a dove. It doesn't mean that they. And they explicitly say, but the Holy Spirit is not a dove or a bird because it's a symbol that represents in the icons,

[Host/Moderator]

his.

[Jay Dyer]

His manifestation. So it's an energetic manifestation proper to the person of the Spirit. It's not a dove, it's not an incarnation. So he's thinking of it like the Holy Spirit is incarnating, like a dove is a dove, like Jesus incarnate, that God incarnates as a man. And that's not the Orthodox teaching.

[Host/Moderator]

Do you think he just went to an Orthodox church one day and saw the iconography on seeing the Holy Spirit being portrayed as a dove in the churches and was like, yeah, okay, this is what Eos believe, probably.

[Jay Dyer]

But also, he used to be in our discord. And when he came to the discord, he was there, I think, just to get kind of reconnaissance. And so he probably remembers a lot of the stuff that we talked about back in 2018, 19 in the Discord. And, you know, when people talked about the Holy Spirit's energetic manifestation, he probably thought that, oh, well, that means Holy Spirit's appearing as a bird,

[Nick]

but definitely does not know. Energy manifestation is for sure.

[Jake]

He didn't appear as a dove. It's a yes or no.

[Nick]

It doesn't say whether he did or not. All it says is how he descended.

[Jake]

Did God appear as a fire in the Old Testament?

[Nick]

He appeared within a fire, not as the fire itself. It says he was within the fire.

[Jake]

Was the fire created or uncreated?

[Nick]

I would assume that the fire was created.

[Jake]

Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

I gotta be honest. I do.

[Nick]

No, we talked about that. But the good thing I said there, I just assume it's created.

[Ryan Seacrest]

I. I didn't know.

[Jay Dyer]

It's.

[Nick]

Yeah, there's no, like. Because there was no thing, like, obviously in the text itself is going to say whether or not it's created within that verse itself. But it's fine if it's uncreated. There's no issue with that. Like, it literally doesn't change anything about his argument. So that's the good part.

[Host/Moderator]

I don't know. It's terrible.

[Jake]

The angel which wrestled with Jacob was the Son in the pre incarnation?

[Nick]

Well, yes, I believe the angel of the Lord was the Son.

[Jake]

Okay. And was the angel of the Lord who physically wrestled with Jacob and was doing wrestling moves. Was that entity created or uncreated?

[Nick]

Yeah, an angel is a form of office. So the entity would be referring to Jesus and he was uncreated. The angels. But.

[Jake]

But what he appeared as was that appearance. Was that uncreated or created?

[Nick]

Yeah, appearances. How he appears is a manifestation of the uncreated.

[Jake]

Was that manifestation created or uncreated?

[Nick]

Yeah, the manifestation Itself was uncreated, but manifestation itself was created. You say? Yeah, this part was funny, bro. We talked about this. I literally just said the same thing twice on opposite. I clarified what I meant right after. But this part was a lake. They clipped this part so much, bro. I said the manifestation was created. The manifestation was uncreated, bruh. I just said the same thing twice on accident. It was so funny. They clipped that part and then they. You know.

[Host/Moderator]

That clip's running wild.

[Nick]

Yeah, it was so funny, bro.

[Jake]

Repeat that again.

[Nick]

Itself, who appeared within it, is uncreated. So who appeared within it is uncreated. The manifestation itself is created.

[Jake]

Okay, so the manifestation itself was created. So there was something created with respect to the wrestling of the angel.

[Nick]

Yes. Meaning that the manifestation was not eternal, man.

[Jake]

You're going to be in trouble with Jay Dyer. He's going to have to teach you.

[Nick]

One minute. One minute. He. Dire fallacy. Again, this man swears. He swears. Jay's gonna anathematize me, man. I think the next part is where he either brings.

[Jay Dyer]

We covered that earlier.

[Nick]

Yeah, the next part I think he either brings up where you mentioned something about the fire. No. Yeah, I think that's the next part he brings on top, but keep playing it because he talks about Jada.

[Jake]

Oh, now. Now we're gonna get to. What about the fire at Pentecost? Was that created or uncreated?

[Nick]

It doesn't say.

[Jake]

What do you believe?

[Nick]

I don't have a. Specifically. It doesn't say.

[Jake]

It doesn't say. So you don't. You don't know if it's created or uncreated?

[Nick]

Doesn't say. Why would I make an assertion one way or the other?

[Jake]

Okay, so you don't know.

[Nick]

Yeah, because it doesn't say. What are we talking about?

[Jake]

If you actually read orthodox theology, you would know that they say that it's uncreated.

[Nick]

Oh, like who?

[Jake]

Yeah. So back to the last question. Do you believe Muslims?

[Nick]

Orthodox theology? That's why when I asked him who said it, he probably never even read.

[Jay Dyer]

He's just going from me. Because he. Yeah, in the video that he made, he played clips from me. Yeah, but. But the theophanies are. I think they are uncreated.

[Nick]

Yeah, he just. Yeah, again, that's why I say it's a J. DI Fallacy. Because instead of actually quoting like. Like where Jay gets his sources, he says, Jay said it. Like, bro, that's funny.

[Jake]

Christians worship the same God.

[Nick]

Nope.

[Jake]

Is that because they have distinct attributes or properties?

[Nick]

Because Your God has 99 ontologies and mine doesn't.

[Jake]

Okay, so having a different property makes them count as a distinct God.

[Nick]

Yeah, having different ontologies.

[Jake]

Okay, so why when the father and son have different ontologies, one is begotten and the other isn't.

[Jay Dyer]

He said, so then this is ambiguity, right? Like they don't have a different ontology.

[Nick]

Yeah, he said, why is it when the father and the son have a different on time, he thinks, yeah, because the son is begotten. That means the son is a different ontology and the father died.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Big blunder.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, this, this was the, you know, me and premise debate. He still doesn't understand that when he debated Bo Branson because he thinks that if the son came from the father, he cannot be in the same class of beings as God like the father, because he's, he doesn't have the, the pre. The. The predicate of being ungenerate or unoriginate. But Dr. Branson shows in that logic

[Ryan Seacrest]

table like, hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Tyler redick here from 2311 racing another

[Nick]

checkered flag for the books. Time to see celebrate with Chumba. Jump [e-mail] let's Chumba. No purchase necessary.

[Ryan Seacrest]

BTW Group void.

[Nick]

We're prohibited by law.

[Ryan Seacrest]

CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Jay Dyer]

For example, you can be a carnivore, you can be an omnivore, right? And you're in the same class of meat eaters. But an omnivore eats more things than a carnivore. But they're both in the same class of meat eaters. And so that's a logical way to show that just because the son lacks the property of being unoriginate, it doesn't follow from that that he can't logically be in the class of God. And that's. That was the logic table problem that Dr. Branson presented to, to Jake in the debate. And Jake just kept saying, but no, there has to be the. You cannot be God if You are generated. And it's like, but why? And he says, God. He says, God necessitates. This is the you know me and premise. God necessitates being unoriginate. Okay, how do you demonstrate that, though? In other words, you would need to demonstrate the you know me in premise first before you argue that you have to be that. That to be God requires being unoriginal. And he says, because it's logically inconsistent. And that's why Dr. Branson presented the logic table and said, okay, an omnivore eats all things, including meat. A carnivore eats only meat. They're both amongst the class of beings that eat meat, even though an omnivore eats more than the carnivore. It's that simple. And he couldn't get that. And he still doesn't get it because it's exact same problem where he's saying this to you.

[Nick]

Yep. Hasn't learned at all. Time.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Yeah,

[Host/Moderator]

Mike sounds so tired and done at this point. We're at times. We're at time.

[Nick]

You can ask, but Nick is not obligated to ask or to answer, but go ahead.

[Jake]

Okay, so just finishing the question is then, why doesn't the father and son, who have distinct properties and therefore distinct. Why do they not count as two guys?

[Nick]

Same way you didn't answer my question about what the inference rule was. I'll decline to answer yours unless you want to answer my question about inference rule, and then I'll answer that one. All right, we're gonna go to the five minutes.

[Jay Dyer]

There's so much ambiguity with the terminology he's using because it's like, do they have different ontologies? And it's like, well, again, the word God is a generic term. So if you think that God picks out only an ungenerated, unoriginate essence, which is the, you know, me and premise, then. Okay, then you would have an argument. You would have a point. But that. That's the thing in question, right? Whether the Trinity is logically inconsistent, not whether the, you know, me and premise is true.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah. He demonstrated he really didn't know a lot about anything in this debate, and it was very unfortunate. I was hoping he would bring a formal argument, we could discuss it, but, you know, I guess not. I guess he's just not. Not that kind of guy, man.

[Host/Moderator]

Any final thoughts about the debate, Nick? I mean, I think you did a good job.

[Nick]

I mean, the fact that even Unitarians are siding with me probably shows something. I mean, that's. Normally Unitarians are Very Muslim sided. So it's kind of embarrassing.

[Host/Moderator]

That is true. That is true in my experience recently. Let's get into some super chats and then if you guys have anything you want to bring up in the meantime too, just let me know. There we go. One Way Apologetics. By the way, guys, sub to One Way Apologetics. This is the front of the channel. Nick dominated this debate and made Jake look like his son in the cross examination. Nick finishes Jake's career. Where did Nick go? Okay. A mind has a will, thought and knowledge. But no one says that a mind is a conglomerate of three parts. Unless you're a physicalist who denies the mind as its own entity. There's only one ontological object. J.D. anything you want to say to that? Well, I saw your face.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean this sounds like a Unitarian type of argument that somehow from properties of a created mind. It must be. That must be the case for an uncreative mind. So you would need to demonstrate how we know that because we see that as a property or a feature created minds, that that necessarily has to be the case for the divine mind.

[Host/Moderator]

All right. The unknown properties of the nature are. Are distinct from the properties of the energies. The energetic props are analogous to the natural crops.

[Nick]

I don't know what he's referring to.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out. The context is here.

[Jay Dyer]

Sorry, I'm not too much ambiguity in the terminology there to know what he's. What he's saying.

[Host/Moderator]

The Christian God is omnipresent in whom we live and move and have our being. The God of Islam is a hypothetical deity out there somewhere. Exactly. Like a polytheistic God, but only one of them. Yeah, I mean like if you're a salophy, you believe that there's a guy in space that you can take a rocket to. So. All right. Umar Lighthouse was talking about you on Tick Tock. Is this about me or Nick?

[Nick]

Oh, I think it's about me. If you. He's like. He's some weird dude. It's like everyone's every Muslim sidekick on Tick Tock. He's like. Like tries to be the main show but no one actually takes him seriously. So I think he just posts random stuff about me to try to get views. Strange guy.

[Host/Moderator]

Mike Holtz is some sort of three system logic. I've heard some say that there are different systems of logic, so contradictions can exist. I mean like, yeah, I mean like you could be a dialotheist. Jay Dyer is coming to anathematize. And see. Jay, this is. I'M I'm. I'm. I wasn't making it up. People are saying that you're going to come to anathematize and spank Nick.

[Nick]

Pause.

[Jay Dyer]

So can I make this little chart here? Can you make that visible? Just because.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, let me see.

[Jay Dyer]

I think this is really helpful if you. Because this is like they constantly rely on this argument and if you notice, Right. So under the class of things called, quote God, you have. And obviously I'm not excluding the Holy Spirit. I'm just making a simple example here, right? The Father is unoriginate and he generates the son. The son lacks the property of being cause or being unoriginate. But that doesn't fall. It doesn't follow that he can't be under the class of things called God. Think about this in terms of the way Nick formulated this logically, right? So we're not getting into the ontology. We're just saying, logically speaking, classes of things, right? Just like a meat eater as a class can include an omnivore which eats all things, including meat, and a carnivore that eats only me. Right? They're all under the class of meat eaters. Even though carnivore lacks the property of eating all of the other things that the omnivore eats, it doesn't follow logically from this that they're no longer in the same class of meat eaters any more than logically, it follows that because the sun is generated, he cannot be in the same class of beings called quo God.

[Host/Moderator]

That.

[Jay Dyer]

And all you need is that to show that half of Jake's argumentation that he keeps repeating. Since the Branson debate is just simply a non sequitur,

[Host/Moderator]

you've inspired me to keep subscribing. Thank you, Mr. Gabe. Glad you guys are bringing up a person of color like Jay. The African American community is underrepresented in this field.

[Jay Dyer]

Amen, brother.

[Host/Moderator]

I was born in Romania to a Christian family. Panty Coastal.

[Jay Dyer]

That's a song on my channel. He's quoting my song.

[Host/Moderator]

I wanna. I need to hear that song now, Jay.

[Jay Dyer]

You should hear that one. That was pretty funny.

[Host/Moderator]

Can I just find it on your channel?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it's called Panty Costal.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay, I'll check it out. J.D. why do you identify as. I'm gonna have to watch your channel now, Jay. I don't. I don't like, consume content at all.

[Nick]

Like something. Right.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, or YouTube or anything like that. So don't take offense to the fact that I'm not familiar with the The J.

[Nick]

It's like a fever dream, watching history.

[Jay Dyer]

You don't want to get involved. You don't. You're too scared to get into the JD question. Forget the JQ question. You don't want to get in the JD question.

[Host/Moderator]

Great to see you on IP stream. You should join their streams more often. If my boss Mike is happy with that, I would love to have you more often too, Jay.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, Mike and I have always had good conversations. I'm always down for it.

[Host/Moderator]

I will ask again. I would like to humbly ask if Pope J. Dyer would grant me an annulment. I wish to leave my Mormon space wife for Funko Pop.

[Jay Dyer]

This is all from the songs on my channel. So I have a whole bunch of playlists called Cringe Core and these. They're all just quoting the songs from. From my playlist. So we got. We got a Mormon song, we got a black bishop song, we was Kang song, all that kind of stuff.

[Host/Moderator]

Crazy. Okay, I'm gonna have to look into this now. That probably explains.

[Jay Dyer]

There we go.

[Host/Moderator]

Jay was on a black diva queen time.

[Jay Dyer]

That's why I was late. Dude, I'm on bipoc time.

[Nick]

Oh, that's what bipox stands for. Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

Like indigenous person of color. How dare you not know that

[Nick]

I'm hella racist for not knowing that you're hella racist.

[Jay Dyer]

You didn't even know that, dude. Unbelievable.

[Nick]

I'm so racist. My bad.

[Host/Moderator]

One of the funniest things in the stream is Dan not knowing any of the J Dire lore. Man. I don't. Yeah, but I'll familiarize myself. I will listen to Jay Dyer while I write my script tomorrow. I guess

[Jay Dyer]

just listen to the songs. You'll have fun with those.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

Mormons wives, Pantecostal.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Nick]

Drew McIntyre here from WWE.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Wielding the Claymore can be a life

[Nick]

of chaos when I'm not dominating in the ring. Chumba Casino is how this warrior takes a wee break with hundreds of online social games.

[Ryan Seacrest]

And new weekly releases.

[Nick]

There's also always something fresh to try and those daily boosts next level. Even my free time feels like Valhalla. So when life feels like a battle Kick up your feet, have some fun and let's Chumba. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY VGW GROUP VOID WHERE

[Ryan Seacrest]

Prohibited by law CTS and C's 21+

[Jay Dyer]

Sponsored by Chumba Casino we was Kang song. And then there's a whole bunch of them. There's a Hobbit song. There's all kinds of stuff.

[Host/Moderator]

One of my. One of my. One of my really good friends, like in. In person likes to listen to your. To you a lot. So I'll just have him acquaint me.

[Jay Dyer]

Send you the good. The hits.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. Yeah. Jay, I was going to call the police for the way you destroyed Captain Crunch. Great debate. He deserved it. Very hateful person.

[Nick]

I genuinely laughed out loud when I heard Harriet Tubman. Bro. Like, genuinely laughed out loud.

[Jay Dyer]

That was probably one of the greatest source citations in a debate I've ever heard.

[Host/Moderator]

So when asked for oral Harriet Tubman.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes.

[Nick]

And her family.

[Jay Dyer]

And her family as the oral tradition to prove the black Hebrew Israelite cult theology.

[Nick]

Yes. I had to, like, replay it. I was like, the bird really? Just say that. That.

[Host/Moderator]

Sorry, that's like, still processing.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I know.

[Nick]

Watch it. Just watch it. It's funny.

[Jay Dyer]

And by the way, the. I thought so like an hour and a half in, it was just completely. Not just totally ridiculous. I thought the debate was pretty much over. And then somebody asked a super chat about the. The son of God, whether he's uncreated or created. And this Captain Crack Rock is an Aryan, so he believes that Jesus was created. And then we had this great exchange towards the very end where he was. I was like, well, does he. So if I. I'm a father and I have a son, and he has the same nature. Nature. And he agreed to all that. And I said, does the son have the same nature as his father? And he says, yes. And I said, is the father's nature uncreated? Yes. Is the sun uncreated? And then he froze. So there's an action. There's a whole excellent part at the very end because a lot of people shut it off after like an hour and a half. But there was some. Some gems towards the end of the debate too.

[Host/Moderator]

Man. I'm gonna. I'm gonna be binging some Jay Dyer, I guess, this week.

[Nick]

There you go.

[Host/Moderator]

Yo, Nick. Ask Jay if he'll sub what I

[Nick]

assume he's talking about sub to him

[Host/Moderator]

no sub to you or maybe I don't know.

[Nick]

Yeah, I don't know. Sub to everyone. Chad.

[Jay Dyer]

I think I have. Yeah, I think I have. I follow Nick on X and tick tock. I'm not sure if I follow him on YouTube or not, but I will.

[Nick]

Sure.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm not sure there's a lot of people that I have. I don't follow on. On YouTube. Not, not to be rude, I just. I just don't know.

[Nick]

Yeah, I'm not subscribing now, buddy.

[Jay Dyer]

Look at that. I just followed you. So look at that. There we go. Follow. Oh, back let's followed you, dude. I didn't.

[Nick]

Hey, I see them notifications off, make sure to turn them on. We locked in.

[Host/Moderator]

Jay did a good job against Captain. I can't say his last name by finally asking for historical evidence of Hebrew Israelites rather than endlessly debating scripture, theology and all. Cap. With serious toughest. That's wild, man. I can't wait to see this. Nick, what is your background and how did you learn these concepts?

[Nick]

Oh yeah, I went to a very esteemed university, J. Dyer University. I used to watch a lot of his videos and yeah man, I'm a. I'm a proud student. Learned everything. Everything wrong I say comes from Jay. Everything right comes from the books I read.

[Jay Dyer]

There we go.

[Host/Moderator]

Flavorski and Ananias say that the energies and the essence are ontologically different, distinct. Is this true?

[Jay Dyer]

So again, the word ontologically distinct, that's a. It's a little elastic term. Right. So the Palamite synods define the distinction to be the same level of distinction as between the person persons. So this is an argument that Palomas himself, himself makes. So yes, they're different realities and whether you want to fit that into some later scholastic thing, I think that's a futile effort. I think we only need to use the types of distinctions that the. The futuristic era used. They're good enough. So if Basil says the distinction between nature and person, or the distinction between the energies or between the person themselves is the same level of distinction, that's good enough. Now one way to solidify this in your understanding is if you read the little 100 page debate between Palomas and the barley of mite. The debate progresses from the status of the distinction to participation. And that's the best way to cash this debate out. Because at the end of the day what matters is what are we participating in in terms of uncreated reality, uncreated energy, and basically he pins the barley and might by saying well, look, we all agree we don't participate in the divine essence. We can't partake of that. So what are we partaking of? It can't be another creature, because then we would be Aryans. This is the argument Palmas makes. So the uncreated energies have to be different than the essence and able to be participated in. But they're not the essence. Right. So again, this ends up being the entire 80, 100 page debate between Palomas and Barley mine. So that will answer people's questions. But a lot of times when the Roman Catholics ask this, like, none of these people ever read. It's not even that long of a book. It's 80 pages. I don't know why none of these people. And I'm saying this even about people that are friends. Like I told Tim Gordon to read that six years ago. I've told every Roman William Albrecht in the Roman Catholics I've ever interacted with. Scam Shamu. Like they never. They just won't read it. They don't care. So you're not gonna do the reading? I can't help you,

[Host/Moderator]

Jay. My. My friend just spammed me with a bunch of links to a different.

[Jay Dyer]

There you go.

[Host/Moderator]

A bunch of videos of yours.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm about to retire from all this anyway, Nick, you can come into being a apologist. You may have Internet apologetic throne. I'm joking. Because I'm gonna become a musician. So I'm going full time cringe core.

[Nick]

So let's go. It's so exciting, y' all see, I got the keys. He gave me the keys now. All right. And y' all remember what the keys mean according to Catholics.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. By the way, according to Nick Fuentes said the other day, the key. So there's only one key?

[Host/Moderator]

Apparently there's only one.

[Nick]

Ah, my bad.

[Jay Dyer]

Key. It's not keys. It's just the key.

[Nick]

Yes, yes.

[Host/Moderator]

If Jake's reasoning for why Jesus is called the word of Allah and the Quran is correct, then why isn't Adam called the same thing? I don't know what this is.

[Jay Dyer]

I remember something like when I debated Jake, there was some argument about Allah's hands. And that just means that he made Adam. And so I never really understood what he was trying to argue. Like, because he's supposed to say, Allah has those. Uncreated. Yeah, an uncreated foot and all this stuff. And it's like. And what is that? He says it's a foot befitting Allah. Is that this foot?

[Host/Moderator]

By the way, Bro.

[Jay Dyer]

Bro's showing his Actual feet, bro.

[Nick]

Yellow. Why y' all foot so yellow?

[Jay Dyer]

You just a sick. Because I'm walking on nasty ass Airbnb for you. Assume that this.

[Host/Moderator]

Wait, do you not have like, calloused feet? Nick, what are you doing?

[Jay Dyer]

How do you know this is. This is the uncreated foot?

[Nick]

Dude, this isn't Bruh. Yeah, with his short shorts. I thought bro had underwear on earlier for free. On for free. They gotta pay for that.

[Host/Moderator]

No, I'm wearing ball hungry, isn't he?

[Jay Dyer]

What?

[Host/Moderator]

Jake's an authory, isn't he?

[Jay Dyer]

What? I can't hear.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, yes.

[Host/Moderator]

So, yeah, so he.

[Jay Dyer]

He believes that Allah has a body and he. That, for example, I don't know if we. If we've gotten this in the debate, but Ibn Tamiya has this argument that Allah has to have uncreated laughter because it's more perfect to laugh than not to laugh. And since Allah is perfect, he has to have eternal laughter.

[Nick]

That's hard.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, I, I am.

[Jay Dyer]

Why is it more perfect to laugh than to not laugh like that? I've always thought that argument was funny.

[Nick]

I'm pretty sure I actually seen some saints that say, like, Jesus never laughed or like something like that. Something very interesting about Jesus not smiling or something. I read something about it like a year ago. I like interesting.

[Host/Moderator]

Jake needs to retire the Metaphysician title now. My super black of color has arrived. Listen and watch when black queen is speaking.

[Nick]

There you go.

[Host/Moderator]

I, I, I, I.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, well, you can. You can blur that out. I apologize.

[Host/Moderator]

No, no, you're good, bro.

[Nick]

I'm not mad as we speak, saying this man just threatened a muscle.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I was. I was joking. I'm joking being a thug, dude, because

[Nick]

he said anyone who wanted to sneak in Jay's Airbnb, y' all know y' all can no longer do that now.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, there's whole channels of guns like Demo Ranch.

[Nick]

Oh, that's true, I guess. Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

11 million subscribers of gun channels.

[Host/Moderator]

So we're just gonna. We're gonna. We're just gonna move on and hope and just hope that we don't get knocked. That's all. Can relative identity be denied in an imperfect. In a per. And in a perfect. Wait. Gosh, this is throwing me. I don't even know what that means in Imperfect World. It's the bad grammar that's killing me. Sorry.

[Nick]

I still don't know what it means.

[Host/Moderator]

I don't know what this means, though. If Jake ever put an honest effort into understanding the Trinity, he would leave Islam seeking to Understand the trinity in Islam led me from Mormonism to real Christianity. I think Jake wants his virgins more than the truth. I don't know. I hope Jake comes becomes a Christian. First thing to do is demolish your argument that Allah is the God of the Old Testament. They deceive people saying it's the same God.

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean God. The Old Testament has a. A temple. It's like, like I've never understood how Islam just ignores all of this. Like giant sections of the Torah deal with the temple and the literature. So okay, so. So massive port. Like massive portions of the Torah are corrupt. And then when you ask them how do you know which. Correct. Like what parts are corrupt and not corrupt? It does what Quran says.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. It's stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals that earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Lindor, Chips Ahoy, Gatorade, Host, Ziploc and Zoa. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions. Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on jumbacasino.com I looked over the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up [e-mail] to claim your free welcome bonus. That's chumbacasino.com and live the Chumba life.

[Nick]

Sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Jay Dyer]

No purchase necessary.

[Nick]

VGW Group void. We're prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

[Host/Moderator]

Yep.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay.

[Host/Moderator]

So yeah, I recently made a video about this Jay where because Muslims nowadays will say that the basically they'll do general confirmation conscious edits, that whole thing. And I basically made a an argument showing that even if you grant that, it's epistemically impossible to verify whether or not Muhammad was a real prophet at the time of Muhammad. So Islam is false even if the Islamic dilemma is false.

[Jay Dyer]

So I can't believe Nick thinks I'm in my underwear. Dude, I'm wearing polo shorts.

[Nick]

No, listen, earlier you like lifted up your leg and it was like up to halfway through your thigh and all we could see was that. And I like, I was like, bro, this dude's wearing underwear, bro. It looked like it.

[Jay Dyer]

I immediately came in from the stream and hopped on here. You think? I just like, I immediately walked in, just disrobed.

[Nick]

Bro was like, I'm in the Airbnb, let me stream naked. Let's get it. Jamie, wait for me after the stream.

[Host/Moderator]

Sorry, irrelevant to the stream. But any book recommendation arguing for the philosophical necessity of God's goodness. Been having some doubts regarding deism and this could help. I don't know about you guys, but I don't even think you need a book for this. If you just have omnipotence, I think that's going to entail omniscience. Omnipotence and omniscience together are going to entail omnibenevolence. And, and I can make a short video on that if you want to, but I don't know what you guys think on that topic.

[Jay Dyer]

I think it seems like it would, but I don't know about a specific book on that.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, the short argument I have for it, if you're interested, is basically like I work off a thesis called Motivational Internalism. So like the basic idea is like we make evaluative judgments based off of the things that we know. But we have powers and liabilities, we have weaknesses of the will, stuff like that. But we still generally are going to make decisions based off what we think is good. But because we have weaknesses, because we have liabilities and corruption, the noetic effects of sin, stuff like that, we will make bad judgments, but we still will chase after those things. Now you have a being that's omniscient and omnipotent. That being is not going to have any weaknesses. That being is going to have the access to all the things that are good and what's not good. And that's just going to entail based off motivational internalism, which is a really uncontroversial thesis in my opinion, that God is just going to necessarily be omnibenevolent. That's the short version. I don't know what you think about that argument, but yeah, Jake, the Muda physician is owned foreign debates on the Trinity. Kind of embarrassing for Islam's best dawah bro. Muslims don't think God would limit himself out of love to heal the rift between us and him because they are servants to. Meant to submit to Allah. Sad. Yeah, and that's actually really interesting. Because one of my go to examples is I used to be a firefighter, Jay. And one of the examples I always give is, like, I always ask people, like, do you think it's a good thing for, like, my lieutenant to come into a fire with me or get on scene with me? The person that's like, so that's supposedly supposed to be leading me and stuff like that. And people would be like, no, he'd be a bad leader if he didn't go boots on the ground with you. Right. And so you're extracting this really intuitive principle, and then you ask the question, so should God exemplify such a moral principle? And then they all of a sudden say, no, it's really weird.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm good.

[Host/Moderator]

No, no, go ahead.

[Nick]

Sorry.

[Jay Dyer]

No, it's fine. Muslims don't think God would limit himself out of love to heal the rift between us. Because, yeah, I mean, you can tell that the formulation of Islam is really just the mindset of a medieval Arab slave owner. Right. And they transfer that to God. You're just the slave of Allah. And, you know, there's a couple places where Paul says he's a bond slave and a bond servant. So that imagery is not totally divorced from scripture. But we're also made sons. We're not just slaves, we're made sons. So it's interesting to me that Paul uses hagar, and he says that the Jews, by extension Islam in the Orthodox prayer books. Even in the 1800s in Russia, Muslims were called the Hagerines, Hagarites. So there's this interesting association between slavery and that religion. Paul calls unbelieving Jews slaves. And yet, for what we have in our religion is to become sons. And why is that? Well, because we are by grace what the son of God is by nature. So we are adopted as sons and were made fully inheritors of the promise. And in those religions, that's completely absent.

[Host/Moderator]

Usain Bolt runs like a cheetah. Usain equals cheetah.

[Nick]

I think he's just using the absent identity thing.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah. Thank you for the gifted membership. Trent Horn cooked Jay for acting unchristlike.

[Nick]

It's okay for trying to do it. Well, anyone else does it.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. But I mean, Trent acts. Trent basically did the exact same thing. And by the way, Trent doesn't call out other Roman Catholics that did 10 times worse things than anybody else in the Orthodox world has done. Right. So, like, voice of reason doesn't call them out. Countless Roman Catholic PDF priests and bishops not going to call them out. But if you. If somebody like Andrew Wilson said the F word. Gotta make a ten minute video.

[Nick]

Yeah,

[Host/Moderator]

I don't know the drama there, but Trent recently made a video that included me and I don't even know if he realized what my argument was. But anyway, Jay and Nick, you guys don't believe in a filioque? Would proceeding necessarily mean created or is there a way to wrap my head around it?

[Nick]

No, I mean, we believe the spirit proceeds from the Father. That doesn't mean that he's created. Proceeding doesn't necessarily mean creating.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, the energies also proceed, hence energetic procession. And the energies are not created.

[Nick]

Yeah.

[Host/Moderator]

He follows this up with yes, I am stupid.

[Nick]

We're all stupid.

[Host/Moderator]

It's okay then what's the meaning of the song you wrote? I'm assuming you're talking about the metalcore song Not Without Lies. It's a acoustic song I wrote a while back about how much I despise secular humanism and how it's destroying us. So if you like, listen to the lyrics, like, you'll hear some of the lyrics are like, we, we sold our soul. Wait, what was it again? It's we traded the truth for dopamine. We sold our souls to silver screens. Right. It's, it's all about how secular humanism and the pushing away of Christ in our culture has basically made us a bunch of drones who are seeking dopamine to fill this void. And we have meaningless lives and all this other stuff. So if you want that. Oh, that's your hint. Listen to the lyrics more in depth as you listen to the song because I think you actually think it's pretty cool. But yeah, Demolition ranch mentioned. When did we mention that?

[Nick]

I don't know.

[Host/Moderator]

I don't know. Okay. How would you explain the Trinity to younger kids? My 8 year old nephew has a lot of questions about it. I have young kids, My oldest is 6. And. I, I, I honestly just said there's like this one be. There's one being that we call God and there are three persons and I don't know if my son's happy with that. So I guess it depends on the questions. What about you guys?

[Nick]

I've never tried to explain to a

[Jay Dyer]

kid, so I haven't either. It's a, that's actually a good question.

[Host/Moderator]

It all depends on how the kids like asking. Like my 6 year old asked about the incarnation the other day and the analogy I gave him, I don't know why this is here, but like basically I'm like, hey, my son, imagine this ball is the divine essence and this Switch controller strap is a human property, like the human essence. Any. And I'm like, if I put this on top of this, am I changing the Godness? He's like, no. And I'm like, right, so this is kind of like how you can understand the incarnation and you can. It's like. It's not perfect, right. But it gets minimally the point across to kids where it's going to satisfy them, and you just kind of help them by asking them more questions about what they're asking about. That's my advice. Okay. I was basically asking, don't we count everything by relative identity? Essentially? I don't know.

[Nick]

I mean, that would be only if you heard it hold the pure relative identity, which, again, most people don't. Who hold a relative identity. I definitely don't. I hold the impure. Which means we can. We can also count by other ways. So, yeah. And I don't think that we count everything by relative identity.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, that's all the super chats.

[Nick]

Cool.

[Host/Moderator]

Any last words, guys?

[Nick]

I'm gonna know.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, thanks for coming on. Everybody. Sub to Fearless Truth. Jay, I'm pretty sure you have way more followers than we do. Everybody go check out Jay Dyer, too. Still.

[Nick]

Go check out Jay. What the heck, man?

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, well, everybody knows.

[Jay Dyer]

Are we on?

[Host/Moderator]

Oh, Jay, Maybe. Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

You got more than me.

[Nick]

Y' all got, like, double more than him.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. You got 400. I got.

[Host/Moderator]

Again, that goes to show that I don't pay attention to social media or anything like that.

[Nick]

Jay, aren't you almost at 200k too?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I'm right at 198. Somewhere in there.

[Nick]

200k celebration stream coming soon.

[Host/Moderator]

All right, so wait, how much do you need for, like, 2,000 more?

[Jay Dyer]

I'm at 197, I think.

[Host/Moderator]

Yeah, right now.

[Jay Dyer]

198. Okay.

[Host/Moderator]

All right. We got 816 people watching right now,

[Jay Dyer]

so there's a lot of haters, so.

[Host/Moderator]

Okay. Hate Sub and Hate Watch. I expect you to do this. Go do it for both Fearless Truth and Jay Dyer. Guys, thanks for joining again.

[Jay Dyer]

Absolutely. Thank you, guys.

[Host/Moderator]

Close this out.

[Nick]

God bless.

[Jay Dyer]

Sorry I was late.

[Nick]

Now you're good, bro. God bless, guys. You made it to the end of this video, which means this message matters to you. If you want to see more content like this, reaching people for Christ, you can help make it happen. Your support makes these videos possible. Click the link below and donate today. And if you want to go even deeper, consider joining our Patreon community. You'll get early access to videos behind the scenes, content and a place to connect with others passionate about this mission.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway is Stock up savings time now through March 31st. Spring in for storewide deals and earn four times the points. Look for in store tags to earn on eligible items from Hunts, Nerds, Pillsbury, Lowry's, Breyers, Quaker and Culture Pop. Then clip the offer in the app for automatic event long savings. Stack up those rewards to save even more. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy drive up and go pick up or delivery restrictions apply. See website for full terms and conditions.

[Host/Moderator]

Hey, it's Bubba Wallace from 2311 Racing.

[Jay Dyer]

You know what it feels like forever sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff?

[Host/Moderator]

Good thing I've got Jumba Casino. With Daily Boost and social Casino games on tap, this is the kind of

[Nick]

fun that makes time fly. Why not turbocharge your downtime play [e-mail]

[Host/Moderator]

let's Jumba sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Nick]

No purchase necessary.

[Ryan Seacrest]

VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply.