Speaker A
I just had a conversation with Jay Dyer where I went up on one of his live streams using an anonymous account. And when I got up on this anonymous account, I told him that I wanted to discuss the
Jesus and Whatnot recounts a debate with Jay Dyer on the Filioque, where Dyer allegedly shifted to epistemology and refused to engage the arguments before he was removed from the stream.
Key Takeaways
- The debate centers on the Filioque and whether the essence grounds the procession of the Spirit.
- The two speakers disagree on the proper starting point: patristic exegesis versus epistemological paradigms.
- The host frames Dyer's shift to epistemology as an evasion of substantive arguments.
- The account is one-sided and presented by the host, who is also the uploader.
What the video covers
- The host joined Jay Dyer's live stream under an anonymous account to discuss the Filioque without being recognized.
- The host argues from a Thomist-leaning position, citing the essence as the principle of spiration and raising the question of whether theophanies are creatures.
- Early in the exchange Dyer engages with logical arguments and asks for patristic citations, which the host presents.
- When the host presses questions Dyer cannot answer, Dyer reportedly shifts the discussion to paradigms and the host's epistemology.
- Dyer rejects the host's proposed internal critique on the grounds that he does not accept Aquinas's theology.
- The host complains that Dyer never responds to his points and that the exchange became a dispute over epistemic starting points rather than the Filioque.
- A significant portion of the excerpt is an argument about the principium quo and principium quod, the divine essence, and whether the Son would be an Arian Christ without spiration.
- The host points out Dyer's use of Latin terminology and the fact that he cannot cite where the distinction originates in the Cappadocian fathers.
- The video ends with the host being removed from the stream, which he presents as a recurring pattern for Dyer.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and anonymous entry to the stream
- 01:37Opening exchange on the Filioque
- 02:58Debate over the essence as principle of spiration
- 04:05Argument on theophanies and Latin terminology
- 05:57Principium quo and the Arian Christ objection
- 08:01Shift to epistemology and paradigms
- 11:00Internal critique dispute and removal from the stream
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Felio Quay with him. And he was very open to this idea. Now, the reason I used an anonymous account is because obviously if I went up using my Jesus and whatnot account, he would recognize me and try and start debating something
Speaker A
that wasn't the Felioquay. But I really wanted to talk to him about specifically the Felioquay. So, I joined using this anonymous account and we start having this really good discussion and I'm bringing forth logical arguments. I'm uh attempting to bring forth the fathers
Speaker A
and he's open to this at first. You can tell in the beginning of the debate he's really trying to engage with my logical arguments. He even tells me that he wants me to bring forward fathers, which is going to be really important later in
Speaker A
the debate. But you can see there's a certain point somewhere in the debate where he realizes that he doesn't know the answer to some of the questions that I'm asking. Maybe it's cuz he didn't understand or he just didn't have a
Speaker A
proper response at the time. And he absolutely flips. He tells me that he's no longer going to have this discussion uh or that he wants to talk about the paradigm now. He literally says, "I'm moving the discussion to talk about
Speaker A
paradigms." And he starts talking about my epistemology. And so eventually I just say, "Hey Jay, I am willing to take on your epistemology. I will take your worldview and do an internal critique." And his response to that was just,
Speaker A
"Well, I don't accept St. Thomas's theology, so you can't do that." And I thought that was absolutely ridiculous because you can watch the entire debate.
Speaker A
Jay never responds to any of the points that I brought up. And that was very disappointing for me to experience. But, um, hopefully you guys enjoy this debate and you'll even see me get kicked off of the stream, which is just a Jay Dyer
Speaker A
classic at this point. So, thank you guys for watching and God bless. You've been waiting this whole time, dude.
Speaker A
Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. What's up? Uh I was I was hoping to maybe have a conversation about about the Felio Quay with you if you're interested.
Speaker A
Okay. Yeah. Um so so obviously uh I'm a I'm a toist because you know the whole Catholic thing. Um and I I I take the stance of Gary Gulrange. Um obviously I believe you can't distinguish the persons without the filioquay uh some in
Speaker A
spirit but I I wanted to take a slightly different approach um from arguing from did the capidosian can you tell me how the capidosians distinguish the persons yeah well we have some that talk about relative opposition we can get into that
Speaker A
but that's not my main argument like obviously that's something that's not what I argued relations of opposition is not relative opposition they're two different things.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. And again, we we we can get into that maybe later if you want, but but right now I just wanted to to run an argument by you and and hear your thoughts on it.
Speaker A
Well, can I ask you before you run your argument, do you agree with Aquinus and Sumocontra and Tlays that he seems to speak as if the essence also generates inspirates?
Speaker A
Yeah. No, I I agree that the the essence is the principle by which I would say it's it's the principium quo remot. But I I wouldn't say that um the essence is the principium quote as in as in the the
Speaker A
father and the son. Okay. How about let's just talk about the theophanes because that's more relevant. Do you think the theophanes are creatures?
Speaker A
Well, I I just I I just want to run my argument by it real quick.
Speaker A
Well, are the theophones creatures though? Because this is the kill shot for tomism. Yeah. Well, uh I mean I'm not too well versed in that. I just wanted to run an argument. It's similar. It's it's a pretty basic toistic argument. It's not
Speaker A
really like I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it really. I don't we don't need to like go back and forth too long on it.
Speaker A
Oh, so you don't want to talk about the actual kill shot for tomism? Well, I don't I think it's a disservice to I think it's a disservice to give the impression that you guys actually have this like high tiered way to account for
Speaker A
this and that uh when your whole position falls apart if you don't believe that God can be in space and time.
Speaker A
Yeah. And again, like we we could totally debate theophonies. I could come on a different live, but I just had a specific argument I was hoping to to ask you about like and if if you want to say, "Hey, that's a stupid argument,
Speaker A
that's totally cool." I just kind of wanted to hear your thoughts on it because I've never actually heard like an orthodox opinion. Answer your question. I will answer your question that you run when you answer if you answer some of mine as
Speaker A
well. Yeah. Okay. Sure. We we we can we can totally do that. Go ahead.
Speaker A
Okay. So, are the theophanes creatures? Is this the one? Oh, you you want me to run my by first and then you you do yours?
Speaker A
You go ahead first. Yeah, you can go ahead first. Okay. So uh we we would say that the father obviously being the the monarch of the trinity um he is the first person and then there's the son who is the
Speaker A
second person and then the spirit is is the third person. This is obviously uh as we we both agree according to order of nature not some weird temporal Aryan crap.
Speaker A
Um but then we would say that the uh principium quorum uh in which the the sun is begotten would be the divine essence itself and we know that because what is being communicated is the divine essence. know Latin? Do you actually
Speaker A
know Latin? Uh, I I wouldn't say I'm fluent, but I I know the terms that I'm using.
Speaker A
No. So, why are you trying to quote a bunch of Latin as if you know Latin? It comes off as pretentious and fake.
Speaker A
Yeah. Not trying to be pretentious. I was I was just That's just the typical terms that are used. I I can say it in English if you would like.
Speaker A
No, it's the typical terms that are used for people that know Latin and you don't know Latin. So, you're doing it to give the impression that you're a scholar?
Speaker A
Yeah. Language degree? No, I wasn't claiming to be a scholar. It's just the that's just how I've heard it referenced. The the people I've talked to, they they reference it that way. I can speak all in English if you
Speaker A
would like. Go ahead and make your argument. Yeah. Do you want me to do do no Latin is allowed anymore?
Speaker A
The argument. Okay. Yeah. So the principian quorum which would be the divine essence um is we we know that it's the divine essence because that's what's being communicated to the son. The father is not communicating paternity but rather he's
Speaker A
communicating divinity to the son. Um and at the he's also generating he's also generating the hypothesis of the sun too right?
Speaker A
Uh sure. Um but but when he begets the sun, what is being communicated is the divine essence. Um and at this time obviously using temporal language to describe the trinity because that's the best way to do it. Um the spirit is not
Speaker A
uh being spirated yet according to the order of nature. And so that would mean that in the divine essence, in the divine nature, the principium correum, we still have spiration. And so if we're to say that the sun does not receive
Speaker A
spiration, when the divine essence is communicated to him, he's not receiving the fullness of what is in the divine nature. And so that would mean that he is uh in some form an Aryan Christ.
Speaker A
So then does the holy spirit receive spiration as well because he has the fullness of divine nature.
Speaker A
Yeah. So that's where the distinction between principium corotum and principium corroximum or for people who don't speak Latin the remote principle by which is that is that is okay who made this distinction before Thomas Aquinus or the Latin church where is that in the
Speaker A
capidosian well again this is more so a logical distinction it's just a logical distinction um it's a distinction no it's a distinction invented to protect and defend your model so I'm asking if it existed prior to the middle ages
Speaker A
yeah I don't think I could give you a specific quote But I could defin Well, yeah, I would say sure. I don't know.
Speaker A
I'm willing to admit that. But you have to let me at least explain the distinction first before you just say, hey, you know, we we can't even bring up that distinction because I don't have You're coming up with a distinction to
Speaker A
where it gives the impression that for the son to have full divinity, it requires that he has the ability to spirate. And now when I say, okay, well then does the holy spirit also generate and spirate? Your answer is, oh, well,
Speaker A
you see there's this distinction. Well, no. So it's it's the same reason that the sun doesn't beget another sun.
Speaker A
That's the only distinction that I was going to make is because the principium proxy terminates within the person of the sun, right? Because there there is a where does this where does that come from?
Speaker A
What do you mean where does it come from? This is this is the logical conclusion.
Speaker A
That where where do you get that from? Because the sun doesn't beget more sons.
Speaker A
You would agree with that, correct? Why not? You're just asserting the position. I'm saying why couldn't he?
Speaker A
Why am I supposed to assume that dogmatic assertion is true? This is what to do. You guys just assert.
Speaker A
No. No. So, so I you you would agree. Yeah. Because I'm trying to explain it.
Speaker A
It doesn't matter whether I agree. It doesn't matter. I'm asking your position No, this is how how we logically conclude the trinity. You Why should I accept that that's a logical conclusion without you just asserting it?
Speaker A
Because we're both trinitarians. We both agree the sun doesn't What do you mean it doesn't matter what the position is?
Speaker A
It's irrelevant to what you're arguing. Why are you talking about my position when you're arguing your position? So what if so what if my position agrees or disagrees? It's irrelevant to the argument you're making.
Speaker A
So you let me just clarify. You want me to bring up somebody else's position.
Speaker A
And why why am I supposed to accept that assertion? That's because because it's the object of the divine uh action that's being completed.
Speaker A
So when we say moreism, well, sure. I mean, obviously that's my position, but you have you have to let me explain it. You can't just talk over as soon as I try to explain. You're not giving me the reason why you're
Speaker A
asserting the position again. Well, I was about to supposed to accept that this model is the right model for answering this question.
Speaker A
Yes. I was I was about to explain that and then and would you would you let me just finish the the point and then and then you can tell me why you disagree to the question.
Speaker A
I'm trying to but you're not letting me assertion again. No, you're not. Again, you guys don't understand epistemology.
Speaker A
You think that just asserting positions is giving me the reason why I ought to accept the Thomas dogma. Why?
Speaker A
Well, well, no. Obviously we we have the same epistemology. So we can kind of bar epistem. We don't you talking about we do absolutely do not.
Speaker A
We have we have the fathers in the church. We can bar people infallibility. We can even bar to I've spent 10 years arguing against your epistemology. We do not have the same epistemology. You have a classical foundationalist model of epistemology. I
Speaker A
do not. That's why I debated Trent Horn against natural theology. I reject your whole system and paradigm.
Speaker A
Okay. How about how about you just you let me say the the point that I'm trying to make and then you can tell me afterwards where you disagree.
Speaker A
No, because you keep yapping and filibustering and not answering the question. I'm asking you an epistmic question. Why should I accept the toistic account of that question when I don't accept toism? And you said well you have the same type of position and
Speaker A
same epistemology. No, I don't. No, those are not acceptable answers. Again, I I I can we can talk about church fathers the question why I ought to accept the toistic metaphysical dogmas that you push. I we we can bar toism if you want.
Speaker A
I'm just trying to to explain the position. You haven't let me made the make the argument.
Speaker A
No, you're not. You were not. No, you were answering my objection by just stating the Thomas position. So now it shifts into an epistemic question of why ought I accept the Thomas position and model.
Speaker A
Okay, we let let me try and extend an olive branch here. Let's extend let me extend an olive branch. We can use just Capidosian fathers, okay? Or we could just use just just fathers that we both venerate. Capidosians, let's go to the
Speaker A
So, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So, I'm not even allowed to bring up fathers now.
Speaker A
So, I don't believe you interpret them correctly. I haven't given you my interpretation. I haven't given you my interpretation.
Speaker A
You didn't give any interpretation of the capidosians. What are you talking about? Yeah. So, then why are you saying I don't interpret them correctly if I haven't given you an interpretation?
Speaker A
Because you're an evidentialist and I'm not going to give you evidential lines of argumentation when I'm asking you a paradigm level question.
Speaker A
So, I wait, let me let me just clarify. I'm not allowed to use natural logic and I'm not allowed to quote fathers. What?
Speaker A
What? What am I those positions? Why would you? I'm not a natural theology proponent or a classical foundationalist.
Speaker A
But I'm not allowed to talk about fathers either because you don't accept my interpretation.
Speaker A
You can you don't understand the allowance. I don't care what you can. You can refer to all the things you want to. I'm just going to keep calling it out as to why it's a nonsequittor and I don't accept that as an argument.
Speaker A
So you don't accept the the early church fathers that we both venerate and you don't accept accept your interpretation. I don't theory neutral.
Speaker A
I haven't given you an interpretation yet. How do you know you disagree with it?
Speaker A
I I don't accept the to reading of the Capidosians because I've dealt with it before.
Speaker A
Okay, let's pretend I Let's Then goes to it. So the question moves to a paradigm level question of epistemology and models. So why am I supposed to accept your model of theory neutral epistemology classical foundationalism?
Speaker A
Okay, Jay, pretend I never told you I'm a toist. Let's just have a conversation about the Felio.
Speaker A
I debate paradigms. Do you not understand this? And no, you don't because you're Thomas. Do you understand you can't and don't debate paradigms?
Speaker A
Yeah, Jay. I I'm not here to debate paradigms. I'm here to debate the Felio.
Speaker A
Moving the debate to that because it gets to that because I don't accept your interpretation of the Capidosians.
Speaker A
So, you couldn't refute my point. Now, you're just you literally said you're moving the goalpost to debate something else. understand when it when it comes to a question about this is the exact same debate I had with Arrow four years
Speaker A
ago or not Arrow uh whatever that Thomas guy's name it's the exact same debate where you want me to accept a bunch of metaphysical givens and assertions in the totic scheme and I I don't because I have a different paradigm so the
Speaker A
question moves the debate moves to the epistemic level well okay I I agree that that if you want to move it to the epistemic level that's something you can do But you you haven't moved there. It's not me wanting to
Speaker A
because I'm telling you I have totally different paradigm for how I read the Capidosians and I don't accept your self-evident uh toistic arithian metaphysics.
Speaker A
Okay. So So Jay, you can't prove those things. Jay, let me ask you. Do you do you accept Keep repeating my name?
Speaker A
I I didn't I just asked you. I said it one time. That's how you address people.
Speaker A
Okay. I won't say your name. I ap I apologize. I apologize. Uh, sir Dyer, um, do you accept the the the fathers that we both venerate?
Speaker A
Are you this stupid? Really? Are you serious? Are you guys It's like a cult. It's like talking to people in a cult. The question is, do we have the same church fathers? The question is, we read them from different paradigms. Do
Speaker A
you think that they're self-evident truth self-evident self-interpreting texts? No, not always. I think that there are some that are that are obviously very clear, but I I'm just asking from like you can break it down to epistemic absurdity. If if you're scared to answer
Speaker A
the question, you can break it down to epistemic absurdity. Okay. So, if it's epistemic absurdity, you should be able to easily refute my challenges.
Speaker A
No, because everyone can be broken down to epistemic absurdity. That's this sophistry that you're trying to impose on me. But I'm just telling you like, hey, we both agree on the fathers. You won't even engage with my point on the
Speaker A
fathers. We don't agree on the fathers. That's what I'm telling you. We do not agree on the fathers. We agree on who they are.
Speaker A
not how to read them. Okay, you can tell me that I'm reading them wrong, but you have to let me read you a quote first.
Speaker A
It doesn't matter because I don't accept your reading of them. It It literally doesn't matter. I'm not a [laughter] read at I'm not going to read the Capidosians in a lens like you guys do.
Speaker A
So, you're not going to give me an interpretation? You're just going to say, "Oh, no. You're wrong. I don't accept yours." I'm going to say very simply that you believe that there's nothing in the intellect that's not first in the senses because that's the
Speaker A
uh parapathetic axiom and I'm going to just ask you to explain to me why I'm supposed to accept that when the parapotetic axum itself is not in the sense data that's the beginning point of your whole system day sorry didn't mean to say your name
Speaker A
didn't didn't mean to say your name didn't mean to say your name you can run back to you know saying oh I just don't accept your epistemology therefore your points are invalid but that that that simply isn't how
Speaker A
I've spent 20 years now. I know how debate works. Congratulations. I I mean, that's awesome that you spent 20 years doing this, but I want you to actually address any of the points that I'm bringing forth here.
Speaker A
My challenge is to you are at a paradigm level. So, you're operating just like an atheist who wants to debate things that are not at the paradigm level. So, you can keep yapping about how you read the Capidosians. Why is that funny?
Speaker A
Because Jay, you haven't answered any of my points. You you interrupted me and didn't let me give a point.
Speaker A
My challenge is not at the level that you're arguing. It's at a presuppositional level.
Speaker A
Jay, when I came up here, you agreed to have a conversation about the filioquay, not about toism or eastern orthodox paradigm level interp.
Speaker A
It didn't turn into that. You just ran to it. I'm just asking you. That's the question. That's the questions I'm asking you. So, you can either address those or just ignore them.
Speaker A
Okay. So, Jay, it man, I did it again. I I did it again. I agree. I I I agree. I did it again. I'm trying not to say your name. I promise.
Speaker A
Just doing it because you think it's funny. It's not bothering me. It just makes you look like you're silly. Like I'm trying it's weird.
Speaker A
I'm trying not to be silly. Linguistic program or whatever. May maybe I'm just a little nervous. I don't know, man. There's there's a lot of people watching.
Speaker A
I'm sure. I'll bet you are. Yeah. So again, you understand that my approach is paradigm apologetics. That's my whole thing. That's what I do. Now, you can address that type of stuff or not. I don't care what you do because I
Speaker A
left your system a long time ago because it's and thinking gay. So you can either address my line of argumentation or you can just keep yapping at something that's irrelevant to what I'm arguing.
Speaker A
Okay. How about you tell me your paradigm and I will argue from that. Yeah. So I don't accept the parapathetic axium.
Speaker A
Okay. So that's tomism 101. Now tell me why I'm supposed to accept it. I don't have to prove.
Speaker A
Do you know what about the parathetic? Do you know what it is? uh is basically like nothing in the intellect is is not first in the senses.
Speaker A
Yeah. So that's the beginning point of your whole system in terms of epistemology in terms of how you know things how you reason about the world.
Speaker A
So tell me make sense of that. If the parathetic aim itself is not insensitated then it's self-refuting.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sure. It's self-refuting toism is wrong. But can we talk about the filioquay? You tell me what your authority is.
Speaker A
You read the capidosian you goober. No. Okay. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out now.
Speaker A
So you admit your paradigm is wrong. Yeah. Sure. Toss it out. I'll take yours. I'll take whatever paradigm you have.
Speaker A
Yeah, sure. I don't want to argue with somebody who you just admitted your paradigms. Why would I argue with you?
Speaker A
Yeah. I've I've adopted I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm. I'll I'll argue from whatever standpoint you want, from whatever paradigm you want. I just want to have a conversation about the Felio Quay based off of your paradigm.
Speaker A
I don't accept arguments about it. Let's say if I was debating, let me explain why I don't do this. The reason I don't do this is because if I'm debating an atheist and they throw a bunch of quote
Speaker A
facts at me and a bunch of quote data at me and their interpretation of this or that fact, it's an unfruitful debate and exercise because the real point of contention is not the interpretation of this or that text or this or that data.
Speaker A
Just like it's not a question of interpreting this or that church father. It doesn't really is irrelevant if we have completely different paradigms from the starting point. And the fact that we have common church fathers has nothing to do with whether we have the same
Speaker A
paradigms, right? Because I read them from a totally different vantage point than a tomist lens. Just like Dionius, Orthodox read Dianius from a very different lens than the toistic lens of reading Dionius. So why am I going to
Speaker A
you can't solve this debate by just citing Dianius. When I debated Eric Abara, I made the same point. We have two totally different paradigms. And Eric says, "Why don't you just let me stack up all the paper quotes because I
Speaker A
have a paradigm level argument and if I have one contradiction that negates all of your paper quote mines? They're all canceled out." That's the strength of a killshot paradigm level argument. That's what I do. So you can either address
Speaker A
that or we can just keep talking past each other. So So Jay, ju just to clarify, I can't quote the fathers on the Felioquay because it's not in line with your paradigm. You're literally arguing the way an atheist does. So, you won't
Speaker A
listen to the science facts. You won't listen to the science facts. You don't believe the science. It's the same argument.
Speaker A
Well, I I understand that you you want to take this down to the paradigm level.
Speaker A
I understand that that's what you're trying to do because in the discussion, it already got to that. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker A
But I'm already saying for the sake of this conversation, I am granting your exact worldview. Whatever you want it to be, I will grant that. Obviously, I still hold toisism personally. You grant my worldview then why would I accept a
Speaker A
debate with a worldview that you admit doesn't work? I'm not again this isn't a debate about my worldview built on foundations. I mean does it have the foundation of being built on the parapet you can't I already told you I'm granting you I
Speaker A
already told you for the sake of the conversation I'm granting that we're not doing that grant first well so you you can't defend your first principles again. I already said I'm granting for the sake of this conversation because I
Speaker A
don't want to have a paradigm discussion. I want to talk about the filioquay. Dude, are you stupid? Why would you grant that if your argument is built on that?
Speaker A
I never said it was built on that. All of your system is built on your first principles.
Speaker A
I literally told you I was willing to argue from the fathers alone, not using any toistic ideas. Literally just talking from the fathers exist, you idiot. That doesn't exist.
Speaker A
What do you mean that doesn't exist? have a paradigm. There is no arguing as if the church fathers are theory neutral. I'm arguing they're theorad.
Speaker A
Yeah. Okay. And obviously I can take up your paradigm. It will be an internal critique showing that the fathers that you think agree with you critique.
Speaker A
I'm saying I am I'm saying that I am Jay that I'm willing to take on your worldview to show you through internal critique that the fathers that you think affirm your theology actually disagree with you. That's what we could do here
Speaker A
if you'd like. Well, then you Well, then why aren't you debating Dr. Bo Branson who has an entire dissertation on this?
Speaker A
Why? Because he doesn't have an open debate call. Sure he does. That does he have one right now?
Speaker A
He's debating Well, not right now. No, but he's debated multiple people. So your your answer is just go debate someone else because I don't want to talk about the fathers.
Speaker A
No, you don't want to address the fundamental conflict between our system and toism. And I just you just admitted that you don't have to justify your first principles. Why should I accept your tois interpretation if you can't address your first principles?
Speaker A
Jay, you keep on bringing up toism. I'm telling you that I'm granting for the sake of this debate.
Speaker A
Yeah, I brought it up. I already told you multiple times. For the sake of this debate, we can throw toism out the window. I just want to talk about the fathers. I want to talk about logic. We can't talk about the fathers.
Speaker A
We if it's a paradigm level debate, you can't just go to the church fathers.
Speaker A
That's my point. You have the wrong paradigm and the wrong starting point. Okay, tell me the starting point. We'll go from there. This is how internal critiques work. I'm going you to tell me why I'm supposed to accept your first principle, which is
Speaker A
the parapotetic ax. I already told you for the sake of this conversation, we we can So you can't pro are you admitting you can't prove your first principles? I don't want you to do it for the sake of
Speaker A
argument. Are you just admitting that you can't prove your first principles for for the sake? Yeah, for the sake of this conversation I I'm an idiot. I don't understand the first principles.
Speaker A
Sure, that's totally fine with me. That's totally fine with me. And just like that, I got kicked off.
Speaker A
And he won't have a conversation. He will not have a conversation with somebody who actually wants to talk about the filioquay. He just always immediately runs back. Well, I don't affirm toism, so therefore tomism is false. Just And then I get kicked as
Speaker A
soon as I say, hey, I don't even need to hold the tomism. I can hold to anything else. I'll just have a conversation about the fathers or have a conversation about logic. And then immediately he just kicks me right as soon as I point
Speaker A
out the flaw in that thinking. Like I'm like, "Hey Jay, I will take on your worldview. I will literally have a conversation using your paradigm." And he's like, "Well, no, cuz I don't accept your paradigm." It's like, Jay, that's
Speaker A
not how conversations work. Um, and that was that was honestly a little bit hard to sit through for me. like I I was literally the entire time just saying Jay Jay Jay please talk to me about the filioquay please talk to me about the
Speaker A
fathers please talk to me about this logical argument and as soon as he realized that I had a valid point you can go back as soon as I start bringing up you know um the principle by which the sun is begotten as soon as I accuse
Speaker A
him of being uh semi-aran for not affirming that the sun has the fullness of the power and as soon as I answer his objection regarding the prrenipium quotim moon as soon as I answer that he says well I don't acceptm so Therefore,
Speaker A
it's wrong. Jay, that's not how debates work, man. Um I I I'm honestly disappointed. I was I was hoping that uh you know, maybe we could do some sort of you know uh formal debate in the future, but but it seems like you aren't willing
Speaker A
to have a good faith discussion. Um like that that was that was ridiculous. You I think everybody who who saw that could very clearly affirm that you did not know how to answer my questions. You did not know how to answer my points and so
Speaker A
you just ran away. Um and that was very disappointing. So, thank you everyone for watching this absolute nothing burger of a debate.
Topics:FilioqueJay DyerThomismCappadocian fathersTrinitytheophanyepistemologyEastern OrthodoxyCatholic theologylive stream debate
