/lit/ - Literature

>>14781580
he combines presuppositionalism with coherentism

>>14781580
All paradigms are ultimately and unavoidably circular, thats why he advocates coherentism. Atheism isnt rejected because it's circular, it's rejected because it's incoherent.

>>14781621
but life / the world is incoherent. isn’t a philosophy that reflects that more honest?

>>14781580
having a laugh watching fedoras try to justify their circular reasoning by saying "so what, everyone else does it"

>>14781625
Yes. Based batshit insanity polytheism is the superior model.

>>14781625
How is the world incoherent? That causes all sorts of problems where I don't think you'd even be able to know anything at all.

>>14781625
Are your words there incoherent ?

>>14781580
ddidn't read your gobbledegook but thsi guy looks like a gigantic faggot and therefore I shall not listen to him

>>14781681
based.

>>14781646
They’re both coherent and incoherent, much like the world
>>14781645
The world is full of problems. So it’s a good thing if it causes problems because then it reflects reality

>>14781580
>your argument is wrong
>th-that doesn't mean your argument is right!

That's not the point.

>>congratulations, my son, you came to the logical conclusion that I exist, welcome to heaven...

>My child, you have beaten Heaven's pleb filter. Welcome to eternal paradise.

>>14781634
Based shintoism

>>14781752
tell me about shintoism, anon. in what way is it batshit insane

>>14781695
>It's true and false at the same time bro yea shure

>>14781815
Yeah, unironically

>>14781580
The only coherent case for a theory of existence is one which admits its own circularity and appeals to faith as an axiomatic part of itself. This rules out almost everything except theism.

>>14781830
*blocks your path*

>>14781830
This is only step 1.

Step 2 is seeing that this circularity can only be broken when coupled with infinity and ineffability at the boundary of its own existential-causal boundaries. There is an infinite and ineffable ground zero from which existence springs, which makes existence teleological rather than circular (though it might appear, such as when we think about our universe in a purely material sense, circular). The montheistic case for a personal, creative God as the cause of existence is simply exponentionally more coherent than any competing theory.

>>14781863
Most cosmological theories are arriving at unscientific dead-ends, postulating theories for creation of universe that are apriori scientifically untestable. Surprising? Not to me or to anyone who thought these things true, I fully expected science to expose itself as self-refuting incoherent mess when utilized to explain existence, which is precisely what it did. Feynman might have been an intelligent physicist but as an intellectual, like many physicists of his time, he was hopelessly naive and narrow-minded.

>>14781863
Just how big is this box set?
I scarcely think it is sufficient to block my path. I could just step over it.

>>14781891
Meanwhile, in reality, scientists are more than capable of offering scientific explanations.

But people like you are still going to be screaming that science "cant know nuffin" about "muh ineffable mystery of existence" right up to the hour when the first algorithmically, genetically pre-determined baby is birthed in an artificial womb.

you guys gotta stop rehearsing centuries old metaphysics. the world's moved on and Plato's assertions about immaterial worlds have zero purchase anymore. all previous systems of metaphysics were constructed on lacunae of knowledge. ignorance will always be the basis for theism.

>>14781823
Yeah, unironically you are a dumb faggot who shouldn't be speaking on these matters

>>14781981
Why not? What's wrong with adopting a view that is both coherent and incoherent? My view is coherent, much like Dyer's. But it's also incoherent. So I get more bang for my buck. It's twice as good.

>>14781891
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PliUHKl5xA4

>>14781991
Painfully obvious bait.

>>14782012
Why should someone restrict themselves to one coherent point of view? At least tell me that much. Forget incoherent ones. Why shouldn't I have 50 different coherent points of view.

>>14781994
this does not answer any questions.

According to Orthodox Christianity the essence of God is ineffable (i.e. incoherent). God is the ultimate Truth. Thus the Truth is incoherent. jay dyer btfo

>>14782045

ineffable is not incoherent, its just means its beyond human comprehension

>>14782020
What you're saying makes no sense to the point it seems like you're just trolling, You have one worldview, not 50.

>>14781971
Carroll was BTFOed in all mutliverses by Feser like 6 years ago, that ship has sailed bro

>>14782056
Why? I have a coffee cup on my desk. I can look at it from one angle and then from another. Why can't I do the same with philosophies?

>>14782063
Also, this is, to an extent, a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. The answer is that I CAN do it, since I demonstrably do it all the time. I have lots of worldviews, including the Orthodox Christian one which is a pretty nice one.

>>14782078
You can change worldviews arbitrarily and without any rhyme or reason if you want to, but that's not the same thing as actually justifying the truth of what you believe. Whatever it is you feel like believing.

>>14781891
>Most cosmological theories are arriving at unscientific dead-ends, postulating theories for creation of universe that are apriori scientifically untestable
Name one.

>>14782157
How does one justify the truth? That suggests some sort of meta-truth perspective. It seems like the truth would have to justify me, not me the truth. Unless of course I’m superior to tue truth.

>>14782260
By being coherent and not contradicting yourself for one, and I was talking about justifying the truth of your beliefs, not justifying truth itself.

>>14782296
by my beliefs aren’t the truth. the truth isn’t a belief / point of view. anyway, it’s impossible for me to contradict myself because im a human being, not a logical proposition. the views i hold my contradict each other but that’s their fault not mine

>>14782306
>by my beliefs
but my beliefs*
>my contradict
might contradict*

sorry went to lie in bed with my doggos so i switched over to my phone

It's hilarious when Dyer is debating and he just starts pulling out obscure books from the 6th century with hundreds of post-it notes sticking out.

>>14782306
Do you choose to believe things that contradict eachother? Then thats your fault, lmao.

>>14781631
>having a laugh watching christards try to justify their circular reasoning by saying "so what, everyone else does it"

>people have confirmation biases
>therefore god exists
???
So this is the power of YouTube philosophy

>>14782323
>>14782343
That's not even the argument.

>>14782320
it’s not my fault they contradictories each other? da fuck? even if i didn’t hold them they would contradict each other. are you saying if i subscribed to theism only then atheism and theism wouldn’t be contradictory views? they are only contradictory if i believe both? i guess no views are in contradiction/disagreement as long as i only hold one point of view, according to you

>>14782350
He didn’t say your beliefs are contradictory because you believe them, he said it’s your fault that you choose to hold contradictory beliefs. Btw are you drunk?

>>14782349
I refuse to argue with presuppositionalists because they are conscious irrational dogmatists. Btw your boy Gay Dyer is a crypto-Calvinist.

>>14782372
>he said it’s your fault that you choose to hold contradictory beliefs
yeah, but what’s wrong with that. am i supposed to stand still in one place and never look at things from other angles? seeing something from the back produces a contrary description than seeing it from the front, so i guess i should only look at something from one vantage point. im not drunk

>>14782350
No, it's not your fault they contradict, it's your fault for choosing to believe contradictory things. How is this not obvious.

>>14782411
the word “fault” is really morally charged though. why is it a “fault”?

>>14782388
I see your point bro, but the analogy is not right. Seeing the same thing from two vantage points do not produce two contradictory accounts, only two different, and in this example even complementary, accounts. Saying I see a girl with huge boobs versus saying I see a girl with a flat ass are not contradictory statements, they can are both true statements about the same girl, but what one sees the other don’t. Contradictory statements are the type that if the one is true then the other is necessarily not true, such as saying I see a girl with big boobs versus I see a girl with flat chest. They can’t be both true at the same time with respect to the same girl.

>>14782424
i don’t see how one point of view can encompass the whole of reality though. maybe we paradoxically need contradictory points of view to encompass truth. that seems more reasonable to me than one true point of view, which seems somewhat autistic. as i said earlier reality is a jumbled confused mess, so our philosophy should be also.

thanks for taking the trouble to engage with my schizo ramblings.

>>14782199
multiverse

he is based

>>14783566
on what

His argument is firstly that all world views have to be reduced to an unfounded, most likely circular, assumption as their foundation. But that isn't really the crux or most important point, but rather the jump off point that we should then accept whatever world view gives the most full and complete accounting of things despite being circular. This mostly arbitrary though and if the guest hasn't been bamboozled by this point and they both agree they have reached a "yeah, and so what?" point the argument fizzles out in to a dull agree to disagree.

>>14783629
>whatever world view gives the most full and complete accounting of things
but how can we know that?

If I remember correctly, he said one of the reasons he stopped attending vanilla Catholic mass, is because girls would wear shorts and casual wear. Seems kind of autistic in my opinion, and I understand that novus ordo isn't perfect but it's still not all clown masses like the internet would have you believe.

>>14784011
that's coming from a guy who dresses like an 80s coke dealer? wow

>>14781971
>scientific explanations.
That's the problem, the nature of existence is that its outer bounds lie far outside the reach of scientia

>>14782050
coherence is judged by what is comprehended by humans though

>>14781621
>coherentism
Epistemological? And yet most tenured philosophers gravitate towards some kind of non-doxastic moderate foundationalism. Once again, these literal whos get to act like heavyweights on Youtube because their audience is nothing but a bunch of alienated zoomers who've never read a paper by a living philosopher in their lives.

Maybe /lit/ should start to actually read instead of just consuming memes and YouTube videos made by "edgy" losers whose ideas wouldn't make it past peer review.

>>14784119
plato's schizophrenic batshit insane dialogues would never make it in contemporary peer reviewed academia either.

>>14784126
I take it you have some kind of special epistemic access to the possible world that would justify that counterfactual?

> schizophrenic batshit insane dialogues
Yeah, I'm sure you've drunk deeply from the fountain of Plato buddy.

>>14781634
>follows paganism
>but the dumbed down version
>we wuz logos n sheeit
kek

>>14784142
Do you think Plato's proposed etymologies in the Cratylus would pass peer review in any academic department?

>>14784119
>tenured philosophers
>paper by a living philosopher
OH NO NO NO

>>14782059
>some layman somehow beat a leading cosmologist regarding cosmology
Ok retard

>>14784148
Do you think Plato would be advancing his epistemological thesis in the form of dialogues were he alive today and participating in contemporary philosophical discourse? The standards the discipline have shifted immensely over the course of it's nearly three thousand year history. Give me one reason to suppose that contemporary standards are in anyway wrong that doesn't rely on anachronisms or non-verifiable counterfactuals.

>>14784171
im not playing your dumb nerd games

>>14784157
BAAASEEEED AND HOOOLLLY RED PILLED BROTHER

>>14784171
>doesn't rely on anachronisms or non-verifiable counterfactuals.
Plato would be Diogenes today.
Or Ted.

>>14781894
kek

>>14784171
>Do you think Plato would be advancing his epistemological thesis in the form of dialogues were he alive today and participating in contemporary philosophical discourse? The standards the discipline have shifted immensely over the course of it's nearly three thousand year history. Give me one reason to suppose that contemporary standards are in anyway wrong that doesn't rely on anachronisms or non-verifiable counterfactuals.

>>14781580
>how does he keep getting away with it
his brainless fanbase continue to pay him
that being said Jay is amusing enough. I like his talks on movies and shit even though they are often reaching and I think he knows it but he has bills to pay. Jay's an alright guy I just wish he were more honest.

>>14781830
>This rules out almost everything except theism.
theism of course meaning only christianity since no other theism existed before the jews did

>>14784175
>>14784198
>>14784216
Wow, dweebs on 4chan who've never accomplished anything of value in their whole lives really do have an edge on literally everyone.

Why is Jay afraid of debating the Dimond brothers?

>>14784262
you think your dumb nerd post actually has any significance? wow, man. "hrrrm actually the academic discourse of the counterfactucal disciplinary particiaption,, hmm yes it is very contemporary...so uhh yeah you're wrong mmmk, buddy?". wow dude, good post

Someone give me a quick rundown on his arguments. I want to see if my beliefs can survive his autism.

>>14784147
Start with the greeks

>>14781971
But you're just incorporating metaphysics into materialism: multiverse theory, simulation theory holographic universe theory, string theory, sufficiently advanced ayys etc.
You may as well call it metamaterialism.

I guess reddit laps this shit up. But for how long will the continue consooming this before they realize that it's all scifi fanfiction without any actual empiricism?
Reductional Materialism was supposed to stop at the indivisible atom, but it just keep getting reduced further unto quarks, strings, quantum foams, virtual partials, etc.
It's become turtles all the way down. Eventually people will figure this out and stop buying it as it stops describing a coherent view of reality.
Especially since you'll never be able to fully measure anything bellow the atomic level due to intrinsic uncertainty principles (i.e. the inherent problem of using matter to observe matter).

How many more Rick & Morty multiverse episodes can they make before the average bugman gets tired of the multiverse stories? The "I Love to Science" crowd will be a spent force quicker than you imagine. Then POOF, the grant funding for theoretical physics dries as people tire of the fruitlessness of "How many electrons (angels) can dance on the head of a blackhole (pin)?" or the masturbatory naval-gazing of the String Theory clique that hasn't produced a single experiment to verify anything they've postulated.

Face it. All the low hanging fruit is plucked. The only thing materialism is good for now is coming up with a cheaper way to make lipstick.

>>14783932
I think you miss the point. It isn't about the truth but about answers. Jay seems to think that if there is no way to know for sure then it is best to choose an option that at least offers an explanation rather than just accepting that we don't really have an answer. If you choose God then you can say "because it is in God's nature". If you don't choose God then you can say "we don't have a complete understanding or explanation at this moment". Jay privileges having an answer over not having an answer.

>>14784351
Based.
Scientism and pure quantity btfo.

>>14784351
>But you're just incorporating metaphysics into materialism
Materialism is a metaphysical thesis though. Do you mean the supernatural?

>>14784358
>Jay privileges having an answer over not having an answer.
that's a false dichotomy. the most honest approach is to entertain multiple points of view and weigh them against each other, test them out, see which ones make sense in which contexts etc. something like pragmatism. pragmatism doesn't say we have no answers, it says we have many answers of varying efficacy

>>14782511
popsci memes do not count

>>14784351
Not him but you brought up a good point. Many philosophers said some things about "man's need for metaphysics". I was thinking how is it that people seem to have overcome this need today, but really they haven't. Metaphysical speculation has just changed its popular form to crazy and improbable "scientific" theories.
I wonder what's the next phase going to be.

>>14784055
prove it faggot

>>14784386
>pragmatism
>many answers
>efficacy
OH NO NO NO NO

>>14784351
string theory and holography are not """metaphysics""" and only a terminal brainlet would conflate them with the other dumb popsci memes you've mentioned

>>14784386
Yeah, so you are still not grasping his position yet. To do any of what you suggests presupposes a metacontext where even you and me discussing these things makes some kind of sense. I might not have been explicit enough when mentioning that what Jay is talking about here is specifically the laws of classical logic, why they exist and why they work.
It isn't a general approach to acting when you have limited knowledge in daily life.

If you are familiar with the 'Three Laws of Thought, such as the law of identity, the excluded middle, etc then realise his argument isn't really extending beyond these things. Why do they exist? Why do they hold true? Are they eternal? How so?
Jay would answer that it is because they are part of God's nature and that it is impossible to affirm these laws as objective without grounding them in God because how can the atheist do non-contradictory metaphysics without an absolute point of reference among other arguments.

For what it is worth I am not a Jay fanboy, I am just trying concisely distil his position for the benefit of the curious.

>>14784364
Metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense (beyond the physical).
Metaphysics in the materialist sense is tautological: all metaphysics are contained within materialism and vice-versa. So the metaphysics of the mind in a materialist worldview is a phenomenon reduced to just a physical process of neurons exchanging electro-chemicals.
In classic metaphysics, the mind would be a type of noumenon that exists in a higher-order than mere physics: it can't be fully observed or sensed physical. Yet, it is still considered real.
>>14784403
No it is. It's making claims on the nature of reality while also accepting that it can't be physically observed within reality. The only way verify theories like a multiverse or holographic universe is to be outside of reality or in the case of string theory, beneath it. Even the simulation theory can't be verified if we make a simulation of our reality, you still have to be a higher-order outside of our nested reality to verify that this reality is indeed a simulation.
This isn't Physics. This is Metaphysics.

Bringing it back to the thread topic, if you claim that this is all proven mathematically, then you've just reaffirmed Jay Dyer's transcendental argumentative point. You'd be acquiescing to the fact that immaterial math describes this universe better than material does, making it a more coherent worldview than a strictly materialist one.

>>14784556
im not entirely sure what you're saying here, but it sounds vaguely like sophistry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbT_ZEPSgo4
Here is good explanation of the argument presented well and simpler than some of Jays ramblings

If philosophies like atheism are completely incoherent than how can you even argue against them? You can't argue against "akdhalskhlasfjhakjfjfkjdlksflhlhaskdakjgsdkahsgdiuwidaeie". That's completely incoherent. Just the fact that you can explain these philosophical positions and then argue against them proves that they aren't completely incoherent...no?

>>14784981
Hell, couldn't you apply a sort of transcendental argument here. Jay Dyer engages with these philosophies, analyzes them, breaks them down, and tries to refute them. This presupposes that he is capable of understanding them, and thus they are not incoherent. For him to assess and then refute something which is incoherent would itself be incoherent...am I missing something here. Seems like this whole thing is kind of self-defeating

>>14784999
>999
>post starts with the word "Hell"

>>14784216
Literal cope

>>14784999
>>14784981
Would really appreciate if one of the anons who were defending Dyer could address this. Does he have a response to this criticism?

>>14784981
This is literally children-tier logic.
Not completely coherent / containing contradiction is not the same as unintelligible. Being able to point out the incoherent nature of a given "proof" of zero equals one isn't self-refuting, since if it were, zero would in fact be one since the "proof" would have to be coherent under your false assumption.

>>14785051
So what is "coherence" in a philosophical sense?

>>14785052
Non-contradiction. As I understand it, he argues that every position aside from the one he argues for necessarily reduces to contradiction by leading one to the "knowledge" that there is no knowable absolute knowledge.

>gets called out rightly on incorrect argument
>deflects to opinion of opponent which wasn’t the issue at hand
Based dishonest gaytheist

>>14785052
Coherence in the sense that a set of truthful presuppositions cohere to one-another.
Think of it as a network of beliefs: logic coherently supports reason, logic and reason support mathematics, mathematics supports logic, etc. It is circular.
Using this framework you can add on new beliefs and see if they are paradigmatically coherent forming a more complex and coherent worldview, stuff like language and ethics. However on their own, they have no coherent justification: logic cannot be proved without using logic, reason cannot be proven without reason, numbers can't be proven without numbers, etc. (Godel's Incompleteness Theorems). So you need something that is transcendentally and foundationally truthful to cohere to these first-order level of truths: the Logos. It acts as the building block for all coherent things to build networks of constructive coherency/epistomology/knowledge. At it's very basic understanding, it's a transcendent notion of law, order, meaning and creation. At a more theological level, its saying that stuff like logic is justified because it is presupposed by God.
This is essential because you need a justification for why we should believe in logic or math; so that we don't believe that logic stops arbitrarily working tomorrow or that 2+2 could randomly equal 5. You need to have an coherent explanation why these things are coherent in the first place.
This is known as the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG).

Contrast with the atheist/materialist view that perennially true things like logic, reason, and math materialized out of nothing and/or some random, arbitrary, and ever changing universe. This is incoherent relative to TAG, as nothingness or randomness aren't coherent explanations to why math works when compared to God as foundational justification. Meanwhile these things are true, yet are immaterial; which violates the belief that all true things are material according to materialism.

>>14781580
nice semantic illusions, nerd

>>14781580

ITT

>You can't perfectly explain everything scientifically
>That somehow means the god of abraham exists
>I'm smart so I use meme "-ism" words

How in "God"s name do people come to that conclusion? No wonder richard dawkins lost his mind years ago and now froths at the mouth when anyone disputes him. Fucken hell, why would existence have to be coherent to us? It could perfectly well be that, ultimately, existence possesses a form that we just can't understand/it's randomness or what have you makes it non-understandable in principle. Why would any of that not be possible? And even if it isn't, why would it therefore necessarily lead to God? Why not lead to just the conclusion every person who isn't a moron makes, which is that we just don't have enough information yet and we're working on it? Part of the reason I left the church was because of this goalpost-moving faggotry. God's not real and you're temple-tapping meme bullshit won't save you from an eternity of nonexistence once you're dead.

>>14781736
jesus floating on an egg over the abyss

>>14785325
You are the one moving goal post tho. God has always been there, your are the one who stays maybe in the future we will know well everything maybe random, even tho there is clearly orrder araund us.
Only atheistic arguments move the goal posts, how did life came to be: well aliens, just moving the othology one step back but not really answering the question.

>>14784561
>The only way verify theories like holographic universe is to be outside of reality or in the case of string theory, beneath it.
No no no wrong wrong wrong you fucking leddit popsci retard. You don’t know anything and shouldn’t be on this board since you’re clearly not capable of reading.

>>14784119
So because "most tenured philosophers" do things one way he must be wrong? Even though he has extensively laid out a critique of foundationalism that you didn't watch/read?

Also "peer review" lmfao.

>>14784981
You don't understand what incoherent means, It's not that an incoherent person is incomprehensible, it's that what they believe doesn't make logical or rational sense. Like being a materialist and believing in objective morality.

>>14785325
That's not the argument, Dyer isn't saying that science can't account for everything therefore God exists. He's saying that the foundations of knowledge and thought can't be accounted for without transcendental categories really existing and having ontological status. His point being that if you are a materialist and attempt to reject this you end up causing a train wreck of contradictions that terminates in solipsism.

>>14786342
>no argument
typical

He still hasn't made a meaningful response to VaticanCatholics documentary about him shows him contradicting himself constantly. His followers are idiots.

>>14786745
Any and all Youtube documentaries about Dyer are sad smear pieces, they are just angry that he converted members of their churches to orthodoxy.

>>14786745
The Dimond brothers have a video on Dyer? I’m think I’m gonna watch it.

>>14786745
his critique on catholics is still valid tho

>>14786745
>>14787015
The Dimond brothers aren't even worth interacting with desu. All they do is slander and quotemine (standard tradcath modus operandi).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLOQUnw-FY

>>14787072
It's so weird that Jay is friends with Adam McIlwee.

>>14786673
you have yet to make a coherent point to argue against, all you have is
>I don’t understand it so it’s metaphysics
you’re still conflating rick and morty memes with actual science because you’ve never learned how to distinguish them; if you could read I’d recommend the book String Theory and the Scientific Method or just any physics textbook but I’m sure r/philosophy is more your speed

why yes I love anglo intellectuals and youtubers, the crème de la crème, thank you anglos for your contribution to philosophy and /lit/ quality content

>>14787133
1.) Where is your evidence for String Theory?
2.) Is it even possible to materially prove the truth of String Theory?

>>I don’t understand it so it’s metaphysics
I think it's fair to say that if you can physically provide an material epistemic justification for String Theory, then you're dipping into metaphysical justification i.e. it exists only in mathematic justification.

But if you want to take the absurd route and explain how immaterial mathematics is sufficient epistemic justification for a strictly materialist justification of something like String Theory, then you're wasting everyone's time with sophistry.

>is able to get Dugin on his show before he had any real e-fame
uh, based??
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4AJ-3h6LhUk

>>14784561
I believe that the gap between the humanities and STEM has become so fundamentally huge that they are not different fields but rather completly different worlds, so we have people like this one applying a shallow understanding of the precise knowledge involved and then we have people like this one>>14781971 also applying a shallow understanding about the knowledge involved.

The only difference is that the humanities shot itself in the foot around the 50-60s and has been unable to create "usefull" knowledge by itself, by denying it's own ability to make claims and through extreme fragmentation(science is not a religion but people treat it in such ways because at least it offers one clear path that seems to "produce" something instead of getting to dead end nº 2395) and by making itself subservient to STEMs advances(for example: Behaviourism and ultradarwinism serving as the base for social policies up to the 70s), and proof of this is that the science wars ended up in a stalemate in which both sides just entrenched in their positions even more instead of making any kind of synthesis.

The overall conclusion of this is that we might be getting to the actual limit of how much humans, as a species, can hold knowledge in their little brain-boxes and our systems are starting to go haywire because of this, when this happens the next step is to cut fat or useless fields or having another revolution in information systems (paper->printer->mass media->Internet I have jumped some steps but you surely get the idea)

>>14787171
>2.) Is it even possible to materially prove the truth of String Theory?
YES you moron, the fact that you need to ask this question is why I’m calling you a retard. you don’t know anything. it’s a theory of physics like any other, it makes physical predictions that can be tested in principle, that’s enough to distinguish it from metaphysics - you don’t know this because you get all your science education from youtube videos
>b-b-but the predictions are hard to test with the technology that currently exists
literally irrelevant

>>14787172
One of the perks of being a r****an sp**k

>>14781634
Yes. Batshit insanity polytheism IS the superior model.

>basically everything is true
>Satan is the same as Lucifer, but also absolutely not

I think the correct term is soft polytheism

How does a presuppositionalist justify presuppositionalism?

>>14787555
Dude whoa. can someone answer this question

>>14787072
Completely laughable video, WOW jay took a picture next to an upside down cross, that means he is a devil worshipper!!!!! kind of stuff is what you'd expect to see in a video trying to link obama to the reptilians or something.

>>14787171
>1.) Where is your evidence for String Theory?
there is none. they don't even have a model because the math doesn't work despite some of the brightest minds spending over half a century trying to make it work
>>14787228
you're retarded

>>14787674
The video shows he contradicts himself numerous times.

Amusing that he keeps saying 'abtuse' which isnt a word.

>>14787555
THE BIBLE BRO

>>14781580
who?

Presuppositionalism is a form of witchcraft, and the Lord Yaweh, blessed be his name, has commanded us to slay witches wheresoever we shall find them

>>14787708
He's saying obtuse, which is a word.

>>14787555
Jay Dyer is a wizard

>>14781621
that's not true, the presuppositionalist apologetic worldview is not circular

Only a being that could serve as a foundation of all reality and also has the power to instill the knowledge of his existence within you can escape this circularity

>>14787732
No, he's saying abtuse. He means Abstruse.

Obtuse and abstruse mean different things.

>>14787744
That's a presuppositionalist style of argument. In order to make that argument you have to assume the validity/efficacy of presuppositionalism. Circular.

>>14787756
How do you know he's saying abtuse and not abstruse?

>>14787765
Because they showed him saying abtuse over and over again, instead of abstruse or obtuse

>>14787718
But you presuppose that... Oh

>>14787775
Why did they do that? What was their point?

>>14787775
So it's just a spelling error?

>>14787792
He is presenting himself as an intelligent person when he isn't.

One time he said 'abtruce' which isnt a word either.

>>14787803
Are these serious arguments?

>>14787806
yes

>>14787688
>no argument
typical

>>14786745
>>14787015
>>14787065
>HE’S A VOLCANO OF SOPHISTRY
Just finished watching it and they really seem to refute both Jay Dyer and Palamas

>>14781736
>Congratulations my son, you correctly understood the falsity of absolute divine simplicity and the truth of the essence energy distinction and that the one true church is the Russian orthodox church. Welcome to heaven.

>>14788305
yes, the one true puzzle that separates the wheat from the chaff...

>>14788240
A few years ago Jay was talking about becoming an orthodox Jew on his site. Then suddenly went back to orthodoxy. He's been arguing for orthodoxy for years but only recently got received into the church.

>>14788369
>A few years ago Jay was talking about becoming an orthodox Jew on his site
uh what

>>14788374
Yes, this was a few years back when he was in between being Catholic and becoming orthodox.

>>14787744
Hello? Appealing to that being is a circular move, Jay says explicitly that his argument is circular.

>>14788369
>becoming an orthodox Jew
Based demiurge-worshipper.

>>14789142
Imagine spending years studying complex theological disputes just so you can figure out which brand of demiurge-worship is the "best" one.

>>14788240
>refute Palamas
This is a retroactively refuted notion. Palamas was infallible divinely inspired.

>>14788305
>>Congratulations my son, you did not fall for crypto-atheist rationalist heresy. Welcome to heaven.
ftfy

>>14787674

the dimonds btfo the catholic answers guy for square dancing, they're completely dead serious

>>14782045
Low IQ understanding of Essence/Energies desu. Truth is an attribute of God, just like Love, or Providence, or Justice, or Mercy. These attributes are proper to God's Energies not His Essence. The Divine Essence is beyond all human categories and predication, If you can think of a word describing God's Essence, it is either apophatic (ineffable, unknowable, hypertheos, hyperousia etc) or it is wrong and should be used for Energies, or Persons.

>>14789734
"Essence" is a human category

>>14789751
I know, that is why St. Dionysius goes to great lengths to say that the Essence is an insufficient name and hyperousia is about as close as we can get.

Roman Catholicism is a bugman-tier understanding of Christian theology...

>>14789767
>hyper-essence
Honestly just makes it sound like an attempt on the part of Orthodox theology to avoid some theological issue that they can't deal with by coming up with a nonsensical term and just saying "2deep4u u will never understand it ahah". Not sure if I'm being clear. Not trying to be demeaning, just saying what it looks like to me on a cursory glance. More like a gut feeling. Like, let's say I was explaining a personal philosophical theory to you and then you showed that one of my notions was problematic. I could resolve that by coming up with a new concept, and claiming that this concept resolves the dilemma. Then when you ask for an explanation of that concept I just say "no lol its inexpressible, incommunicable...but uh, yeah, trust me, the whole system hinges on this concept and it fixes everything". See what I'm saying? Just rambling here, sorry.

>>14789829
>Honestly just makes it sound like an attempt on the part of Orthodox theology to avoid some theological issue that they can't deal with by coming up with a nonsensical term and just saying "2deep4u u will never understand it ahah". Not sure if I'm being clear. Not trying to be demeaning, just saying what it looks like to me on a cursory glance
St. Dionysius is quoted by Thomas Aquinas more than any one else, it's not just Orthodoxy that has this 'problem' it's all of Christianity.

We don't claim that the word 'Divine Essence' can be equated with the Essence or equality explain it. The whole point is to say that we know what the Divine Energies are because they are all around us and part of out daily lives, we know who the Divine persons are through divine revelation and the Incarnation of the Word. We do not know what the Divine Essence is. We are created, God is uncreated, His substance must necessarily be so different from us that we cannot even speak about it except by negation. The reason for these distinctions is to protect God's radical transcendence and immanence at once. If Immanence is emphasized, then God loses his divinity, If His transcendence is emphasized, He loses the accessibility we have. Essence/Energies is the only coherent way to explain the two seemingly contradictory aspects of God in divine revelation.

Are you a Christian? not going to judge or anything, its just that I would explain this differently to a Catholic or Protestant than an athiest or other religious person.

>>14789901
No, I’m not a Christian, Not religious at all. I just find Christian theology interesting. The created-uncreated distinction adds a lot to the ideas you were saying. I will have to ponder that.

>>14789942
It's pretty vital theology to Orthodoxy in that it allows for the mechanism where man can become like God without being God (Theosis). It allows for man to transcend his original state, while also keeping his personhood. Else it would all just be sophisticated monism where we end up just being God; which is rather incoherent.

I've always enjoyed the simplified analogy of it as told by a priest:
You have a fire and and a lump of metal. On it's own, the metal is cold and rigid. As it moves closer to the fire, it is exposed to the fire's heat and begins to take on more of the fire's properties: it becomes hotter and more malleable. It becomes like the fire, but that metal will never be fire.
The fire is God's uncreated essence, while the heat is His created energies. We're the metal, who has a choice to live by of the fire and become more like God or to live cold and rigid away from Him.

I've always enjoyed this analogy particularly because we do have a metaphysical sense for God's energies. We know when we're getting spiritually warmer and when we're getting colder. It really does change your properties, the more you get closer to God and become like Him. Though I can imagine those so far away from God, forget what that 'heat' feels like anymore. They just get used to the cold rigidness of a Godless reality.

>>14790387
I like that analogy, as well. Thank you.

>>14790387
Pretty good but the divine energies are uncreated not created.

>>14790410
my bad.

>>14787555
presuppositionalism was retroactively refuted bro

>>14790387
>Though I can imagine those so far away from God, forget what that 'heat' feels like anymore. They just get used to the cold rigidness of a Godless reality.
Not only do they forget what the heat feels like, but when they are brought into contact with it, it burns. I think there is a lot of reasons to believe the idea that Hell is the Divine Energies felt by those who reject them. Because Christ, the New Adam, is resurrected, all men are resurrected in Him. Those who are baptized and participated in His death and resurrection in anticipation of the general resurrection, will experience it as warmth and light, a 'return' to the place they were made for. While those who reject it in this life, by their own state of noetic and spiritual defiance, will feel divine energies, as burning torments. If someone unworthily consumes the body and blood of Christ now, we know that he 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' How much more profound will the damnation be when the unworthy come into contact with the totality of the unrestrained divine energies, in addition to the deified flesh of the Eucharist

>>14790410
That's the thing I don't understand. What does it mean it's uncreated? Something that doesn't manifest in this plane, but God keeps within himself?

>>14789734
Ah, the Daoist approach. Thank the heavens for ancient Chinese wisdom.
Also, Yahweh, the name God provided to man to know his nature, means (and I'm selecting my preferential translation) "I am that is"

>>14791158
>What does it mean it's uncreated?
It can't really be described by words, but it can be experienced by man. The Tabor Light from Christ's Transfiguration and the Burning Bush are examples this God's uncreated energy; it can be experienced on this plane of existence. Meanwhile creation (the natural world) is a product of God's uncreated energies, so there is some things we can learn about God through His creation, but it's only a part.

While man cannot know God's uncreated essence, he can know God through his uncreated energies, much like I can't ever know YOU, but I can know you through talking with you, and seeing what you type, and what you make and do, etc; those are your energies. Knowing God through his uncreated energies is known as Theoria, and is achieved through the process of Theosis: the means to become like God to know more about God. With Gods Grace and man's cooperation, man can transcend his original self and become a saint (holy) through this process of deification. They become illuminated with the knowledge of God through experience of God's uncreated energies and His Grace. This means that they are in a state of Heaven where they are in constant presence and awareness of God's light as they are in union with God. You don't have to be dead to achieve this union, as there are those that reach this transformative state within their living lives and are known as Living Saints; they walk in Heaven while still on this Earth. That's the goal of our existence here: to become saints by knowing more about God. But to know more about God you have to be more like God which requires work and cooperation with God.

I hope this explains this better. I'm not a priest or a theologian, so I may not be the best person to explain this.

>>14784112
says who? an anglo bugman?

>>14781971
Carroll is the best of the night-atheist cosmologist types no doubt, but his theories are so abstract and de grounded in even trying to be science it’s basically fantasy.

He almost simply trying to provide an explanation to extrapolate that there can be explanations even though he knows his explanation is wrong

He still seems more based than most of lit

>>14792813
No, literally all modern society and science.

>>14792429
>Ah, the Daoist approach.
How the fuck is that Daoist? Isn't Daoism advaita-tier monism?

>>14795480
Him talking about a word for God's essence there is pretty much exactly what the Dao is described as in Dao De Ching. I'm Catholic though so I think they're both talking about the same thing