Speaker A
Your question is with regard to signification. You are intending to say that by saying signification, this means that there's an image of the divine, which according to us is an impossibility.
Jay Dyer debates a Muslim interlocutor on divine signification, uncreated speech, essence-energy distinction, and analogical predication, probing the coherence of Islamic and Christian theology.
Key Takeaways
- Whether created language can signify the uncreated is a central unresolved dilemma between the two traditions.
- Analogical predication versus a strict doctrine of dissimilarity is the key methodological divide.
- Both sides accuse the other of circular or subjective reasoning when grounding claims about God.
- The essence-energy distinction is pivotal for explaining divine attributes without collapsing into univocity or pure apophaticism.
What the video covers
- The debate centers on whether created language (spoken or written) can signify the uncreated divine attributes, especially regarding the Quran as uncreated speech.
- Dyer presses the 'dilemma' that created words signifying uncreated realities requires some similarity, which the opponent's doctrine of dissimilarity seems to deny.
- The opponent distinguishes divine attributes from created spoken words, arguing signification of the divine is possible while comprehension is impossible.
- Dyer challenges the use of Newtonian physics analogies and the appeal to effects as created things signifying the divine.
- Discussion turns to the essence-energy distinction, with Dyer arguing that Eastern-style apophaticism risks inconsistency about divine distinctions.
- Dyer contends the opponent relies on circular or subjective justification, such as 'it feels right' or 'I feel it.'
- Debate covers Christological language such as 'begotten' and whether God's eternal actions imply temporal change in divine power.
- Dyer raises objections to the Quran's uniqueness and the claim that no other Quran exists, versus apostolic succession and Church councils as authorities.
- The exchange repeatedly accuses interlocutors of restating positions rather than answering dilemmas and of straw-manning each other's views.
- Overall the video is an adversarial apologetics debate with frequent cross-examination, dense theological terminology, and limited resolution.
Chapters
- 00:00Opening: Signification and the Divine Image
- 01:48Created Speech vs. Uncreated Divine Attributes
- 04:00The Dilemma of Signification and Similarity
- 08:00Analogy, Dissimilarity, and Newtonian Examples
- 12:00Essence-Energy Distinction and Christian Likeness Critique
- 16:00Begotten Son, Eternal Generation, and Divine Power
- 20:00Circular Reasoning, Authority, and Apostolic Succession
- 23:40The Quran's Uniqueness and Closing Exchanges
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
But when we say an image of the divine is an impossibility. It refers to a mental picture of the physical of any physicality relating to God. Not the spoken word which okay are spoken words creatures.
Speaker A
But when we say an image of the divine is an impossibility, it refers to a mental picture, of the physical, of any physicality relating to God. Not the spoken word, which, okay, are spoken words creatures?
Speaker A
Yeah. So it's a creature, right? So language that we speak is limited. Is it a creature though?
Speaker A
The spoken word, the spoken word that we speak, language, is limited in its very nature.
Speaker A
Yes. So the spoken word signifies to a divine creator. Yes. The spoken word it's still a creature. It's it doesn't matter if it's spoken or whether it's written. The created status is the same.
Speaker A
Yeah. So it's a creature, right? So language that we speak is limited. Is it a creature, though?
Speaker A
Well, in our position, we are saying that when the the revelation of the Quran, what there are two things that you must make a distinction of. One is the divine attribute and then there is the spoken word that we speak. There two
Speaker A
Yes, it's language. Okay. So the language signifies the divine attributes of the uncreated. A creature signifies the uncreated.
Speaker A
A basic logical example for you. If I say God, when I say God, what am I signifying? If I say Jesus, who am I signifying to it?
Speaker A
Yes. So the spoken word signifies to a divine creator. Yes. The spoken word is still a creature. It doesn't matter if it's spoken or whether it's written. The created status is the same.
Speaker A
No, but my position as you may have misunderstood is not the way you are articulating my position. We are saying that the the Quran for instance or the divine names of God when we speak the divine names with the spoken word
Speaker A
Who actually said that the spoken word is divine? This spoken word that we speak. If I speak, I'm asking you your position: the uncreated speech.
Speaker A
I know that. That's why I'm asking you, how do you get out of the dilemma? You just keep restating your position.
Speaker A
Well, in our position, we are saying that when the revelation of the Quran, what there are two things that you must make a distinction of. One is the divine attribute, and then there is the spoken word that we speak. There are two.
Speaker A
A created things not being ascribed to God. Meaning you just admitted that words are created. You just said speech was created.
Speaker A
I know you distinguish them. I'm asking you how you get out of the dilemma.
Speaker A
When when you signify something, does it mean comprehension? It doesn't. I didn't say comprehension. I just said signify. You said signifying indicates.
Speaker A
A basic logical example for you. If I say God, when I say God, what am I signifying? If I say Jesus, who am I signifying to?
Speaker A
You say signification is possible. Signification is possible. Well, I don't have your doctrine of dissimilarity.
Speaker A
Well, we believe that you can do analogia. You can do analogical predication. Your position says you can't. So that's why I'm asking you this.
Speaker A
But it doesn't the comprehension doesn't matter because you've already you've already weighted the the distinction between Allah and this world such that it's not possible for him to be imaged or signified in any way in created reality.
Speaker A
No, but my position, as you may have misunderstood, is not the way you are articulating my position. We are saying that the Quran, for instance, or the divine names of God, when we speak the divine names with the spoken word, created words, they signify towards the divine. But the spoken word that me and you speak is not divine in itself.
Speaker A
Okay. How is it possible given there's no similarity? There does not need to be similarity between two things.
Speaker A
I know that. That's why I'm asking you, how do you get out of the dilemma? You just keep restating your position.
Speaker A
For instance, if you if you understand Newtonian physics, uh there's no similarity. That's a red herring. What is the how do you distinguish the attributes in Allah if there's no similarity when within uh firstly effectuation of the God's divine attribute?
Speaker A
There's no actual dilemma there. There is a dilemma, because you're using created things to pick out and signify distinctions in the uncreated, which you said there's no similarity to.
Speaker A
effects are created. Divine power. When you believe the effects are created when when the effects when you feel the effects, those effects signify to the divine, don't they?
Speaker A
Created things not being ascribed to God. Meaning you just admitted that words are created. You just said speech was created.
Speaker A
I've given you and I've given No, you haven't. You just stated the position. Look at the answer. The answer is you've given autobiographical details, not an actual answer to the dilemma. The answer is that you can feel signification of some other.
Speaker A
Well, our speech is created. Yeah. And it's signifying the uncreated. Yeah. It can signify towards the... Okay. So how does it pick out and signify something that's totally dissimilar to it?
Speaker A
For instance, when you see the divine power and the divine will in your daily life, I'm asking you how you know it's the divine power and the divine will. And you're just saying because it's true because I feel it.
Speaker A
When you signify something, does it mean comprehension? It doesn't. I didn't say comprehension. I just said signify. You said signifying indicates.
Speaker A
Yes, it does. The word Jesus according to you signifies this is my time to ask the you can ask that question in in your cross examination.
Speaker A
So there's some similarity. If there's no similarity, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker A
You don't believe in an essence energy distinction. The the pro the problem that Christians fall into is that they fall into total uh total likeness between creation and the divine.
Speaker A
You say signification is possible. Signification is possible. Well, I don't have your doctrine of dissimilarity.
Speaker A
When they ascribe to I'm telling you our position. So you're you're telling me what I'm telling our position is to reject univical predication.
Speaker A
It's not a problem in my system. Comprehension is impossible. Like divine, the vision of the divine is possible.
Speaker A
No, it's a [clears throat] both and and not an eitheror. I mean you have the same problem when you say Allah speaks into you believe Allah spoke to people so you have the exact same problem again again the uh
Speaker A
But the comprehension doesn't matter, because you've already weighted the distinction between Allah and this world such that it's not possible for him to be imaged or signified in any way in created reality.
Speaker A
distinction not do you believe in a distinction we know you believe but that's like that's like citing a passage me citing a passage of the Bible when you give its rational interpretation And I asked for an argument to justify
Speaker A
That's not telling you anything about Allah. That's totally incorrect. What we state is that signification towards the divine is possible. Comprehension of the divine is impossible.
Speaker A
No. No. I I used that but I also said to you the word God for.
Speaker A
Okay. How is it possible, given there's no similarity?
Speaker A
Okay. My question is uh when you say Jesus begotten son of God, does that mean that God instantiated him and he came into being? uh he did not come into being the way creatures come into being but he received his existence eternally
Speaker A
There does not need to be similarity between two things.
Speaker A
Eternally begotten means that he's eternally coming from or coming forth from the person of the father.
Speaker A
Okay. Then you're not really learning distinct things about Allah, and you don't know if there are distinctions in Allah.
Speaker A
Beginning is an analogy. It's not it's not unibical. Give a give a rational example of that.
Speaker A
For instance, if you understand Newtonian physics, there's no similarity. That's a red herring. How do you distinguish the attributes in Allah if there's no similarity, when, within the firsthand effectuation of God's divine attribute...?
Speaker A
Correct. The same way that you use Allah as first and last. It's an analogy. It's an analogy. [clears throat] How is So, it's an analogy. A father and son, but it means Jesus has no beginning.
Speaker A
The effects are creatures. They're not God. So that's circular. You're relying on another creature to distinguish effects. When you observe God's divine power in your life, when you observe God's divine power in your system, they're creatures. The effects are created. Divine power. When you believe the effects are created, when you feel the effects, those effects signify to the divine, don't they?
Speaker A
But is is he part of the essence of God or is he a divine attribute?
Speaker A
You're just begging the question. I want to know how that's possible in your metaphysic. I know you believe that. You just keep stating the position.
Speaker A
So this divine person is a part of the divine essence. There's no parts in the divine essence.
Speaker A
I've given you, and I've given...
Speaker A
But those persons are not attributes. Correct. So what's the distinction between a person and an [laughter] attribute?
Speaker A
No, you haven't. You just stated the position. Look at the answer. The answer is you've given autobiographical details, not an actual answer to the dilemma. The answer is that you can feel signification of some other.
Speaker A
Yes. So what's the distinction between a person and an attribute in this particular theology?
Speaker A
That's a totally subjective argument. That's circular.
Speaker A
So are all three persons distinct or one? They are distinct in one way and they're one in another way.
Speaker A
That's not subjective. It is circular. It's true because I feel it.
Speaker A
So whi which uh one do you worship? All three. We worship the person of the father through the son and in the spirit. All three.
Speaker A
For instance, when you see the divine power and the divine will in your daily life, I'm asking you how you know it's the divine power and the divine will. And you're just saying, because it's true, because I feel it.
Speaker A
Correct. So but at the same time you believe the father instantiated the son. He didn't instantiate him. He eternally begott him. Meaning that he eternally came forth from the father.
Speaker A
That's a circular argument. So with regard to the word God, when you say the word God, does the word God signify to the divine?
Speaker A
But it doesn't make sense because we don't deny analogical predication. Give an analogy from our from our theology. How that would even make sense? If I said God uh brought forth his divine attribute. Firstly, we do not believe in that. But how would that make
Speaker A
Yes, it does. The word Jesus, according to you, signifies... This is my time to ask. You can ask that question in your cross-examination.
Speaker A
created categories of logic are going to be first reference point is not the mind it's correct revelation right so which revelation you mean the new testament no I mean the whole bible the theophanes and everything I argued in my opening
Speaker A
So it's a rhetorical question, but the point being that, yeah, but I don't have... We believe in the essence-energy distinction, which is part of how we answer this problem. That's why it's not a problem in our system.
Speaker A
speak in order to convey this? Well, that's just resting on assumption that different languages can't convey the same uh truths or concepts. It can.
Speaker A
You don't believe in an essence-energy distinction. The problem that Christians fall into is that they fall into total likeness between creation and the divine.
Speaker A
Well, that's just assuming that God didn't providentially guide the scriptures. No, if you say for instance uh in Arabic, the son of God in Arabic, it has a total different concept to saying begotten the begotten son of God.
Speaker A
We don't say total likeness. The word analogical means similar, not total likeness. It's not univocal. We reject univocal predication. So that's not our position.
Speaker A
Yeah. And that's why it leads to atheism, right? Because it doesn't it doesn't rely on anything but the autonomous mind. But you you're relying on revelation. So I'm saying which revelation did g was this articulated in in meaning for instance the king James
Speaker A
When they ascribe to... I'm telling you our position.
Speaker A
So organized religion in the sense that you would expect us Muslims to adopt the organized religion known as Greek Orthodoxy in order to to attain salvation.
Speaker A
So you're telling me what I'm telling our position is: to reject univocal predication.
Speaker A
We have to fall into blind conformity to this church. Well, it's not blind conformity. It's a uh apologetically provable faith.
Speaker A
When they accept that God is contained within the womb of Mary and contained by the six directions and time and place, they make a total analogy, total similarity between creation and the divine.
Speaker A
But I'm saying then that would go back to I'm look at the the logic of this.
Speaker A
No, it's both, and not either-or. You have the same problem when you say Allah speaks. You believe Allah spoke to people, so you have the exact same problem, again and again.
Speaker A
Correct. Which is the church and even from amongst the churches, not the Catholic Church or the other churches. You mean the Greek Orthodox church. Correct. And then I'm saying would you expect me to to blindly follow this church
Speaker A
I mean, your argument for this was that it just seems right, it feels right. So you've already relied on a circular, subjective argument. I've given you the distinction between...
Speaker A
And what's the argument? Well, I gave you countless messianic prophecies and theophanes that show that ours is the truth.
Speaker A
I asked for the justification for the distinction, not whether you believe in a distinction. We know you believe it, but that's like citing a passage. Me citing a passage of the Bible when you give its rational interpretation. I asked for an argument to justify how you can say that created things signify the uncreated. And you said, because it feels right, because God moves in our lives.
Speaker A
Jesus came here today and Jesus told informed me of something. I would follow I would follow Jesus. But Jesus would obviously articulate that and and convey that in a particular language. So what language did Jesus convey this?
Speaker A
No. No. I used that, but I also said to you, the word God for...
Speaker A
And what languages with those texts? It's in multiple translations. I mean, we have liturgies in every language. I mean, you seem to think that it's not possible for God to speak in the vernacular, which is I think kind of
Speaker A
Yeah. But in our system we have... The last time, guys. Last time. Last time. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Speaker A
Did God have to create the world? No, he did not. Okay. So, uh was there potential in God to create or not create?
Speaker A
Okay. My question is, when you say Jesus, begotten Son of God, does that mean that God instantiated him and he came into being?
Speaker A
God will from eternity to create. Okay. But willing and actualizing are not the same thing.
Speaker A
He did not come into being the way creatures come into being, but he received his existence eternally from the Father.
Speaker A
Uh whatever God has willed from eternity will come about. Okay. So did he choose to create the world?
Speaker A
So how did God create him, if he's not created? So what do you mean by the word begotten?
Speaker A
The actualization is the the point of inception or the what we refer to as the tanges is also w. So when the world will come about is will by god also.
Speaker A
Eternally begotten means that he's eternally coming from, or coming forth from, the person of the Father.
Speaker A
That's what your your books say. The the will is the divine will is eternal. I know the divine will of he he w when he created he actualized it in time though right no but time itself what's the definition
Speaker A
So he emanates from God. It's not an emanation. It's a natural offspring. A beginning.
Speaker A
that from all eternity right Allah wills to create and then at a point it it is actualized right it's not eternally is it creation eternally actualized again at at a point when it comes when you say okay that's the point in time that I'm
Speaker A
Beginning is an analogy. It's not univocal. Give a rational example of that.
Speaker A
you're attempting to place God in time and place God's frequent time and place before the instantiation does God have different actions I'm asking a different actions. Yes.
Speaker A
Father begets a son. They have the same nature.
Speaker A
point. Uh God has willed everything from eternity and then that thing comes about when he had willed it for for that.
Speaker A
Yeah. But a son is born...
Speaker A
Was the creation eternal or did it instantiate at some point? The creation is never eternal.
Speaker A
Thank you. So, God w to at some point have a power that he didn't always actualize that he then actualized.
Speaker A
When God has willed from eternity, you're saying what I'm talking I know you're saying he will from eternal. I'm talking about the creation itself. Let let me uh rephrase your question so I understand it well.
Speaker A
Do you intend to say that the divine power of God effectuated the existence of creation prior to which the divine power was not doing anything?
Speaker A
Is that what you intended? I didn't say that. I'm asking you specifically. You know what I'm asking you? I'm asking you about did God will to create at a certain point? Does it actualize at a certain point? I know
Speaker A
it's eternal. You say he's eternally to do it. [laughter] It actualizes where at the point where it's instantiated.
Speaker A
Thank you. So there was a movement from potentia to act and thus change in God.
Speaker A
No, that doesn't entail a change in God. It doesn't entail change on your system.
Speaker A
It does because your system defines God as pure act. According to our system, it doesn't. I tell you why. Because if you read my book, you' notice that I mentioned effectu effectuating attributes.
Speaker A
Attributes which bring about an effect. Divine power is one of those attributes. Right? When it brings about an effect, it doesn't bring a change in God.
Speaker A
So God has potential though. You're admitting that if he willed to do it and it there was a change in it not being in that doesn't bring that doesn't bring about a change in God.
Speaker A
It does because on your system on your system it admits potentia in God. God went from I tell you why it doesn't. The attribute remains the way it is. The effect is comes about.
Speaker A
Yeah. But you say the act is also gone. I'm asking about the act itself. I'm not asking about the the eternal willing, the action of doing it.
Speaker A
Again, if you had read uh the creed books, they don't say the divine actions are eternal. Did you read that?
Speaker A
Right? That's what I'm asking you. So God does something that he didn't do before.
Speaker A
But what what do we mean by divine actions? It means the effectuation. So he moved from a state of potential to there was a change there. There was a potential for God to create or not to create and then he created. So there was
Speaker A
a potential that he actualized. If you actually read the books, the books don't say that. What they say I'm asking you how you answer that. I know you don't believe.
Speaker A
I'm I'm telling you if you if you go refer back to the books, they don't say what you're saying. They say that the actions, divine actions are not even considered to be a within God. They're not considered to be within God. That's
Speaker A
not the belief of the Muslims. Right? You believe they're distinct. I understand that. But that's not answering the question that I'm asking you. I know you think they're distinct.
Speaker A
But but if if nothing contingent is coming about within God or his divine attributes, the the question is how does God act and there's no potential in God to do something that he didn't have to do.
Speaker A
It's a description of the effect of the divine power. I'm not asking about the effect. You admit that he's doing one thing here and something different.
Speaker A
I explain again when we say the divine actions, it's a description of the effect.
Speaker A
Okay. I'm asking you about the act itself because you said the the acts are distinct.
Speaker A
Again, why are you not understanding? because you won't answer this question about the act itself.
Speaker A
I am answering the question. No, you're not. You're just talking about the effects. So, you're skirting the question because this will lead I tell you why I'm answer I am answering your question.
Speaker A
What is the act itself? The act is a description of the effect of the divine power.
Speaker A
No. So, the act is the effect. So, you just you just you just didn't answer the question.
Speaker A
That's what we mean by the acts of God. Okay. That's why it doesn't work. Don't you understand what I'm asking? What that's why I'm pointing out? You're just looking at the effects. That's why your system beginning with man's mind doesn't
Speaker A
work because you don't have because all you go to is causal chain. You never get to the thing itself.
Speaker A
30 seconds. 30 seconds. You have to give a correct citation of our actual position.
Speaker A
I'm asking you the position. I'm telling you the position that when we say divine action, you just said it's the effects.
Speaker A
When we No. Yes. It's a description of the effect. So the act is the effect. I'm asking you what the act is and you're saying it's the effect.
Speaker A
Yes. Okay. That doesn't make sense because the act is God. The effect is a creature. Why it doesn't make sense to you is because you're not getting the you don't even get the objection. You're not getting the objective.
Speaker A
Time time time time. Yes. So, uh when you say Jesus who is divine and a part of the divine essence, entered the womb of Mary, you believe God entered the womb of Mary and came out the private organ of Mary. And what
Speaker A
doesn't this defile God? Doesn't this I specifically said there's no parts in God? So you keep attributing parts because you think the distinctions entail but the fact that you believe Jesus is human and divine.
Speaker A
He's a divine person who assumed human nature. Yeah. Yeah. So he had human nature. So you believe he was contained in the womb of Mary when he came out was he covered in blood?
Speaker A
Uh no the the birth from Mary was a virgin birth. Yeah. But when even when women give birth they give birth. The the child is covered in blood. Was Jesus covered in blood at the time of birth?
Speaker A
No. Because the covering in blood is part of the effects of the fall and Jesus was not Jesus coming out from the private organs of a woman. Isn't this a defilement of God Almighty himself?
Speaker A
No. The biological existence was created by God. There's nothing inherently defiling about the body. And no, he was not born according to the Why why would God outlaw uh the woman when she's in a men's in a period in the
Speaker A
Old Testament? All these laws are I just I just denied that his birth was according to natural process. It's a virgin birth. It's a miracle.
Speaker A
You said that the the defilement of uh I said that there's nothing inherently defiling about biology. And I added that he did not have a natural birth.
Speaker A
But if if there's nothing defiling about uh natural birth uh in this case or you say gen there's a different reason for the virgin birth.
Speaker A
No, but the I said there's not a biological defilement. I I didn't say there's not a moral defilement.
Speaker A
A woman. So you're confusing biology with spirituality. two different but a woman urinates from her private organ for God to come out of that private organ.
Speaker A
Now that's just based on your presupposition that that's defiling. It's not because Mary Mary did relieve herself.
Speaker A
Sure. Didn't sure. Yeah. So for God to come out of that is that not no more defiling than God creating those organs and so God is silly.
Speaker A
When God creating those organs, it doesn't mean God touches those organs or anything of that nature.
Speaker A
It doesn't matter because he still created it. It's not it's not tactile touching. No God coming.
Speaker A
Do you think physical things are defiling? If if that weren't the case, then why would the laws of menstruation this is why I mentioned the laws of menstruation?
Speaker A
Because they were sick. They were typological. They were types of what was to come.
Speaker A
No, but at that point, I mean, I'm telling you what our position is. If a person relieves themselves, why do they clean themselves? Because it's considered impure.
Speaker A
That's not phys that's not a spiritual defilement. That's a that's a cleanliness. That's clean. We don't believe that physical ritual impurity is the same thing. When Moses would enter the temple, he would wash himself, bathe himself, clean himself.
Speaker A
Moral purity is different from ceremonial purity. That's what I'm trying to tell. But I'm saying that there's a defi defilement of on your presupposition is a defilement.
Speaker A
No, it's not. When Jesus was laid on the cross, was he naked? No. All historians will tell you when people were crucified.
Speaker A
All historians. So you keep appealing to all these uh these fallacies. All historians, you can't show all historians. That's a fallacy, by the way. That wouldn't matter how many historians say that. If you if you go to valid historians, they will tell you
Speaker A
Romans when they were imp. That's another fallacy. That's that's the uh that's the impurity fallacy that only the valid historians. So you just keep using fallacies private regions. Uh would Jesus eat food and drink?
Speaker A
Who are the pure who are the true historians? That's a fallacy. No, but Jesus when he would eat and drink, would he relieve himself?
Speaker A
Yes, he had biological processes. So again, is that not an insult to God and the the necessity to God that to ascribe these things to God? No, because God created that biological process itself. So if it's wrong to participate
Speaker A
in it, then he shouldn't have created impurities to God. That's just your presupposition of what's impure.
Speaker A
Then how can again any anyone who has these contingent attributes would by definition be perishing.
Speaker A
Yeah. But you're you're you're thinking in either ors, right? So the divine hypothesis of Christ underwent no change. So he doesn't become contingent as if he underwent change. We believe he contention because the very meaning he doesn't no only in your dialectical
Speaker A
system and I'm telling you that we reject your dialectics of opposition. What do you exactly mean by contingent?
Speaker A
It's a both end and not an eitheror. So he didn't become contingent by stepping into time and space.
Speaker A
What do you mean? What's your definition of contingent? Well, he entered into time and space in the same way that he entered into time and space in all the the generally. What's your definition of contingent? Contingency would be subject
Speaker A
to change, would be uh related to creation, would be related to composition. So all of those things are features of his human nature. The divine hypotheasis of Christ didn't go undergo change.
Speaker A
I would define contingency as existence after non-existence. Yeah. His human nature came into existence. I already said that.
Speaker A
So his human nature which is also divine. No, it's not. So he has he's a combination.
Speaker A
He created his divine nature is divine. His human nature is not divine. So God created God created a human body correct within within the womb of Mary. Correct.
Speaker A
But that human body which is Jesus is the logos which transferred. It's not a it's not a transformation.
Speaker A
It's a joining. It's a both and not an either or. How did they join? How did how did the go the divine essence join with the body?
Speaker A
It's a divine person that possesses a divine essence that joined two possess. How did he possess?
Speaker A
How did he do it? He's God. He can do that the same way that he can speak in time and space like you believe.
Speaker A
No, we don't believe he can speak in time and space. Did Allah speak to people?
Speaker A
We don't say that. We don't say again that's you pre that's a straw man arguing.
Speaker A
Did does the Quran say Allah spoke to anyone? You're making a presupposition and then Yeah. Well, when I asked you what it meant, you couldn't again my question is how did the divine transfer himself from the from the
Speaker A
throne from a place to the the womb of Mary? Meaning is that what you mean?
Speaker A
He's not contained in any time. He's not contained in a place, but he can step in. It's because it's a both end. He can do both. It's not an he did he submerge with with the 30 seconds body and with Mary at that
Speaker A
time. No, it's not submerged. He underwent no change. I don't know how many times I have to say that he underwent no change. But that doesn't make any logical sense because you're saying he was formed in the womb of
Speaker A
Mary, but that's the human. You're just assuming that he underwent a change by how did the divine enter the human flesh the same way that the divine enters into any point in time and space. So that's again the difference between us.
Speaker A
Generally speaking you believe the divine can enter time and place. We believe God is omnipresent. Yes, he is everywhere present. So in your previous discussion you appealed to a natural disposition of people in a pagan state. Well we actually have people like
Speaker A
Aristotle who did not conclude with the position that you conclude with. In fact, he did reason and came to the conclusion of eternal creation. And so to appeal to a natural disposition is to commit the naturalist fallacy as they
Speaker A
pointed out. So, uh, you can't just say, well, uh, there's a there's a a natural disposition that's out there that if people would just reason correctly, they would come to the conclusions that I come to because you said that that
Speaker A
that's where they would they should properly come to. Well, we have countless instances of pagans who don't come to those conclusions, that don't come to classical theism. And you said, 'Well, but Christians debate. Okay, but every position, right, comes to
Speaker A
different positions. There's a lot of debates. So, the question is, why are you appealing to these fallacies as if they're arguments against Christianity?
Speaker A
Okay. Uh why I mentioned natural disposition was because uh what firstly I'm not solely referring to uh natural disposition. I'm referring to the rational mind that from the rational mind a person can reach this conclusion that God exists. Now, why I mention
Speaker A
that? Why not? So, you're starting from creatures. Why? Why it's not a fallacy is because I'm saying that even you will will agree with me that a person can conclude that a divine being exists who is all powerful all knowing up to that point.
Speaker A
No, we don't believe that. I don't believe in natural theology. That's what I'm telling you that your system is inconsistent because you start [laughter] epistmically with natural theology and then you try to move to these things that go outside of nature and causation
Speaker A
and you have an atomist position and a casalist position that doesn't even allow for causal change. Can can a person uh naturally conclude that there is a God?
Speaker A
Yes. The true God. Yes. But they know it not by the by not by rational deduction. They know it in their heart.
Speaker A
Okay. Not by rational deduction according to you. But who if that's if you limit you said you start with the created mind of man.
Speaker A
If you that's if you limit natural deduction to causal arguments. But you can also Okay. Are you an occasionalist? Do you believe in causal chains or not? If for instance uh the I was just making a point there. If someone deduces that
Speaker A
there is a divine creator from the the creation of everything around him. That's not the argument of Aristo that's not Aristotilian logic necessarily. It's a person can observe the sun and the moon and everything around them and conclude that there is a divine god.
Speaker A
Okay. But do you understand that Aristotle's reasoning led him to conclude and they believe in certain additional attributes of God Almighty to that from natural revelation Christians and Muslims agree no they don't I'm telling you right now we don't agree I'm I'm critiquing your
Speaker A
position and you're not answering okay so so the question for you from from me to you at that point was why rational basis do you have for trinity and you went on to revelation but I gave an example of how people can rationally
Speaker A
get to my position that's the point of mentioning that no I asked you specifically how you get from created things and causal change when we don't know actually if your position even actually affirms causal change to some creator.
Speaker A
Uh again uh the the observation of creation alone alludes to the existence of a divine creation.
Speaker A
That's what I'm asking you to justify. You're just saying it is the case. I'm asking for the justification of that claim of the claim of creation alluding to a creator. Yes. In my that's presupposing that it is a
Speaker A
creation. I want to know why it's a creation by a single creator because the again because creation itself is not sub that's presupposing that it's a creation. I'm asking you how you know it's a creation. Don't say that
Speaker A
it's a creation. Again, you just keep employing the term employing the word creation in a in a general sense.
Speaker A
There is no such thing as creation in a general sense. So you're you're just using circular arguments. Every one of your replies is circular.
Speaker A
What what what would you refer to as I want to know the justification of your position. Not my position. I want to know your justification. Do you know what it was to give a justification?
Speaker A
The world around us is not self- sustainable. Okay, that's the assumption of your position. I want to know how you know that.
Speaker A
How we know that? Because when we observe everything around us. Okay, so you know that it's true by observation by observing. That's a circular argument.
Speaker A
It's not. It is. You just stated a circle because when we observe everything around us, everything is perishing in nature.
Speaker A
How do you know everything is perishing unless you have access to all things? How we know is because we know the entire universe is physical in nature.
Speaker A
You as an individual know the entire physical universe when you when you begin with sense data. You said you begin with sense data. How do you have a universal knowledge state?
Speaker A
I tell you how I know. Uh everything in the universe is either moving or still.
Speaker A
I just asked you how you know a universal state of affairs and you restated a universal state of affairs because everything in the known universe is either this is your your circle. This is a circle.
Speaker A
No, it's not circular. I'll tell you how. I want to know how you you don't have access to everything. Do you have access to everything?
Speaker A
I I know with my mind rational judgment is your mind has access to everything.
Speaker A
No. Uh did you read the part on rational judgments? I'm asking you. Did you read the part?
Speaker A
I'm asking you right now. How do you have access to universal states of your mind is not universal.
Speaker A
I'm answering your question. You said you know sense data if I said to you how do you get from sense data to universal states of affairs?
Speaker A
If you read if you read the two parts of my book I mentioned can you tell us right now? So we don't have your book. Can you tell?
Speaker A
I mention I'm telling you rational judgments and I mention empirical judgments and in the rational judgments I mentioned rational judgments are those things which are formulated from the mind alone. One of those rational judgments is your mind created.
Speaker A
So you're begging the question how you get to a universal state of affairs. You just state your position. You're not actually given a single argument for the position. It's asking justification.
Speaker A
Stating your position is not a justification. Judgments I know from my rational judgments. I know everything in the universe is either moving or still.
Speaker A
Okay, that's a circle. I asked you how you said because it's because it's so because I know everything is moving or still.
Speaker A
You don't know that because you begin with sense data. I'm asking you how that got into your mind. Your mind's not you're not omnisient.
Speaker A
I tell you how you know that from your mind. If a person was born deaf and blind, he would know that.
Speaker A
That's a particular instance. That's not a universal. You're trying to get the universals from particulars. Guess what?
Speaker A
You can't do it. If there was a person who was born deaf and blind, he would know rational judgment.
Speaker A
30 seconds. He would know what's impossible. That's again you're you're trying to say that because that's a state of affairs.
Speaker A
It's a justification. So you don't know what it means to justify a claim in basic epistemology.
Speaker A
He would know that something that's not an argument. The fact that some random guy knows something. And by the way, that doesn't justify it. If some if someone is is born without any empirical data, physical data, he would
Speaker A
know something is impossible to move. How do you know that? You're just saying that you go and check with someone who's born blind.
Speaker A
That's a particular time time. All right. Astra's final rebuttal. Whenever you're ready, Esra. Okay. Going back to [clears throat] what I mentioned with regard to Jesus and his divinity. You said that the only way you know of Jesus's divinity is through
Speaker A
revelation. And the revelation is the gospels or or the whole Bible as you state and and the church. So how do you know the Bible and the church are authentic?
Speaker A
Because of the impossibility of the contrary by via a transcendental argument. Explain that. So all the other worldviews and systems out there have basic moves in epistemology, metaphysics and ethics that lead to contradictions. Our position is the only one that gives a
Speaker A
coherent account for that and that's because our trinitarian metaphysics allows for that. Uh how does your trinitarian metaphysics make more sense with the that I articulated which would make more sense for than a man being God? Because this
Speaker A
claim of a man being God was not appeals to more sense and common sense or fallacy.
Speaker A
It's not made only by you're just appealing to fallacy your church. It's also made by in America for instance you have every other decade you have people claiming to be divine none of that's relevant to what's true or false
Speaker A
and in fact you have even the viserian in Russia fallacy divine meaning how he would say that he relies on his church that how is that relevant to us how is that relevant to what's true or false how do you determine the the
Speaker A
truthfulness of these claimments well by argumentation by logic by revelation all those things what type of logic because you reject circular reasoning uh as a fallacy in itself at the ultimate paradigm level I affirm circular reasoning I mean ultimately for
Speaker A
us God is the final authority so he is the final authority that that is self-referencing but again how would you reference to God well through a lot of different ways I could look at the Bible I could look at
Speaker A
logic I could look at mathematics I could look at the all the things that I'm telling you that in itself is the circular reasoning that that is totally irrational meaning you're saying you believe in Jesus being divine because of the Bible but then
Speaker A
you're saying no I presented a transcendental argument which is a specific type of argument.
Speaker A
Yeah. And I said to articulate the transcendence is an argument by the impossibility of the contrary that the impossibility of the church being falsified of Christianity and teaching false or the trinity not being true of the whole Christian paradigm. Yes.
Speaker A
That Christianity cannot be falsified logically and rationally. That's what you you believe. No, that's not what a transcendental argument. That's part of the argument. A transcendental argument is that an argument that if we have knowledge, knowledge has preconditions and the
Speaker A
preconditions are more fundamental and more certain than the knowledge itself. Those transcendental categories themselves prove theity.
Speaker A
How how do you even know Jesus claimed divinity in in Jerusalem which is not the case historically it can never be substantiated from independent. We just lectured through the gospel of John.
Speaker A
Every chapter has references to Christ deity. And then we go into the historicity of the gospels themselves, the council of Nika. They couldn't meaning for hundreds of years there was no even there was no consensus on the gospels. So how how do
Speaker A
you know that those four gospels are the only authentic gospels? So but I'm not a Protestant. So that objection doesn't apply to me because I believe in the tradition of the church.
Speaker A
You believe in the tradition of the church, but the church did not have a consensus for 300 years.
Speaker A
So, so for 300 years there was a possibility of other gospels being truthful. No, because the church didn't just rely on books. They relied on tradition.
Speaker A
That's what I just said. So, you you rely on again you rely on a body of men in the in the council that were formed and you No, not just that, but also apostolic succession, right? to the bishop Rick as
Speaker A
a succession by the succession from Jesus was in Peter for instance why couldn't they determine the the authenticity of those gospels from the early years well they had different gospels and the authenticity was determined in successive councils which one was the actual gospel of Jesus
Speaker A
well there's four different gospels that record different aspects the word gospel refers to the whole revelation these current gospels Jesus went to such and such place and preached the goel What gospel was Jesus preaching?
Speaker A
Okay, so this is a word concept fell. See the word gospel is used in different senses. Sometimes it refers to the total revelation that the whole church has.
Speaker A
Sometimes it refers to what Jesus is specifically teaching at that day and sometimes it refers to the written text Matthew Mark.
Speaker A
The authentic gospel as I would understand it is the actual gospel of Jesus. Where is the gospel of Jesus?
Speaker A
It's the whole apostolic deposit that he gave to the church. So you're saying the teachings of Jesus are contained within the four gospels themselves.
Speaker A
I just said it's the entire deposit both written and oral that the church possesses.
Speaker A
So this body of the church from the time of Jesus and the ascension of Jesus.
Speaker A
He believed this body could not agree for 300 years with regard to the correct. Oh, it's not that they couldn't agree. It said the church spread throughout the Roman Empire and different people [clears throat] had different things.
Speaker A
But but there were many gospels which were rejected. But they untrue. Were they what?
Speaker A
They weren't true. And those Christians who wrote them were false prophets. Yeah. Just like your your religion has people that committed heresy and taught false things, too. So, what is this supposed to prove?
Speaker A
No. But the difference is that in Islam, there's never been another Quran. There's no other Quran. There's no one claiming to have another Quran.
Speaker A
Okay. You don't think the modern liberal higher critical scholarship isn't attacking the Quran? No, they don't claim to have a a different revelation.
Speaker A
That's not the point. You're making the argument that because people dispute the text, it's therefore not true.
Speaker A
The actual difference for 300 years, we didn't have a lack of consensus of what Jesus or what the prophet actually taught in Christianity. For 300 years, that's a fallacy. We we do have a consensus. The consensus is that only
Speaker A
works against a Protestant. Your argument doesn't work on me because I'm not a fallacy is actually actually the fallacy is in your claim that there's a succession of uh pristine teachings of Jesus being preserved for hundreds of years in succession.
Speaker A
We can read it. It's right here. Right. You got a lot of books behind you. So do I. I can I we can read these.
Speaker A
No, but it's that's not actually the case that you've had a systematic and if you had read these, you would know it is.
Speaker A
The first 300 years you rely on a body of people to tell you that Jesus was God. But there's no actual the gospels predate the first 300 years.
Speaker A
So that's that's a fundamental mistake. The gospels predate the people the first 300 years. So that's fundamentally wrong.
Speaker A
That Jesus actually you don't know about the you don't even know what's true of the first 300 years of the church.
Speaker A
The Jesus there's no actual uh authentic Christophology from Jesus. You see these right here? There there's a whole bunch of it right there. So you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker A
Of course. Of course you I can list you the authentic time. sign. Woof.
Topics:Jay DyerIslamChristianitydebateapologeticssignificationanalogical predicationessence-energy distinctionQurantheology
![[YBA] frosti — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KAH0o3xSL3w/maxresdefault.jpg)
