The Orthodox Christian Triune God is real. This has been proven philosophically to be the most coherent worldview paradigm by Dyerian Teleological TAG and has been undefeated in debate for 10+ years. Call in to the X space if you disagree. (You) are about to presuppose logic btw.
The argument that only the Trinity makes sense via TAG is the only flaw, there's no reason to not accept Advaita Vedanta / Sufism type metaphysics and view reality as a graded illusion, this is more coherent and persuasive than Dyer / Pageau view and Dyer's arguments against it are strawmans.Other than that yes he's pretty much right about everything, can't find any other flaws on the big positions, at least when we contain to Christianity. Orthodoxy is clearly more sensible and more congruent to the ancient Church than Catholicism is, the fact that anyone even takes the other position atp is eye-rolling.
>>18658942Never heard of him.
Nothing changes about logic when you say "you presupposed it btw so you can't do anything" in addition to saying God(P) + 1 + 1 = 2. It does not attach itself significantly or meaningfully or change the functional content of your usage of logic. It's like saying "hey... everytime you do logic, you will step on invisible dogshit. It has to be like this because stepping on dogshit is the necessary precondition to logic. No I have no evidence for it no I can't show you or falsify it but logic is completely contingent on you stepping on invisible dogshit you can't do logic without this invisible woo poop in your future" So you can just ignore it and continue unjustified about things we cannot ultimately prove (such as axioms of logic). I talked to Darth Dawkins on Tiktok once. I attempted to understand his view but he is a huge dick, despite this he was the one who left the call first lol though he actually did compliment me for knowing some stuff. I have no desire to voicechat to a TAGbot ever again.
Nobody in real life takes Orthotrannies seriously
>>18659001>Advaita VedanataDoes not solve the one and the many>SufiThe Islamic dilemma still acts as system level defeater no matter how much they want to ignore it
>>18659008You can use the preconditions of intelligibility in your """system""" but (You) cannot account for them. If unjustified foundational commitments are fine, then TAGs foundational commitment to presuposse God can't be faulted for being foundational. And saying "nothing changes about logic" asserts invariance across all minds and at all times, which your own reasoning cannot license or justify. Sorry!
>t. muh Melkite Church has the right doctrine Wrong on all counts. The Filioque is Biblical
>>18658942put this nigga’s argument into a syllogism
>>18658942Logic is empirical not presupposed.
>>18659052Logic is operative in the procedure that would establish it. (You) cannot derive from experience the instrument you used to read the experience.Sorry!
>>18659061Incorrect. That I am having an experience is the foundation of epistemology. From there I can observe logic happening and conclude that logic is part of what I'm experiencing. This is all necessary to even begin making arguments for God.
Is this some kind of neo rationalism shit?
>>18659032>If unjustified foundational commitments are fine, then TAGs foundational commitment to presuposse God can't be faulted for being foundational. But I am faulting it. There is no justification for an arbitrary claim about the basis of reality, and I haven't made one. Only you have held onto a claim like that.Action A (Epistemic Necessity | Not a fault): Assuming an axiom because it is necessary for coherent thought or action, not its ultimate metaphysical ground.Action B (Ontological Overreach | Fault): Taking that necessary assumption and making a definitive, unjustified truth claim that it is the actual, ultimate basis of reality.Wittgenstein shows this specific error as treating a "hinge proposition" as a piece of knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality. >"The world has existed for more than five minutes" is a hinge proposition.x=x is demonstrably necessary to build a computer (making a logic gate output something that is simultaneously a 1 and a 0 will cause the machine to physically fail to function. Its justification is tied directly to its predictable, observable utility in the real world). TAG is an invisible dogshit.>saying "nothing changes about logic" asserts invariance across all minds and at all times>but real TAG logic has never been tried!Evidences?
>>18659070Low tier.You didn't observe logic. You observed thoughts and used logic to tell which ones followed which. To say "I observe logic happening" you must already be applying the distinction between valid and invalid to a sequence of thoughts and therefore a experience.How many logic particles did you observe in that sentence?If (You) mean that logic in itself is a condition of experience to have structure at all, then it therefore can't be a finding within experience, and that is therefore not empirical.Constitutive conditions aren't observations.Sorry!
>>18659133You aren't getting it but that's ok. I can prove I am correct. Go ahead and make your argument for God, you'll find that you cannot without employing logic.
He remains a complete clown
>>18659130Not the dyerbro btw>There is no justification for an arbitrary claim about the basis of realityDo you have a non-arbitrary justification for the claim that anything exists at all?>Action A (Epistemic Necessity | Not a fault): Assuming an axiom because it is necessary for coherent thought or action, not its ultimate metaphysical ground.>Action B (Ontological Overreach | Fault): Taking that necessary assumption and making a definitive, unjustified truth claim that it is the actual, ultimate basis of reality.This is just you acknowledging the sever discord in your worldview and presenting it as though it were an acceptable thing and without any basis whatsoever implying it is somehow fallacious not to have an incoherent, contradictory worldview. The mistake is that you put the cart before the horse; we have not moved from an epistemic necessity to an ontological conclusion, we have recognized the necessity of the ontological reality for the epistemic necessity to mean anything. 1. Why is this “necessary”? You say, “because it is necessary for coherent thought or action”. Ok, why is that necessary? Reality has some burden to make knowledge possible for you? You can’t even justify that you aren’t a brain in a jar in your worldview. 2. It isn’t the actual, objective basis of reality (whatever in particular you mean by that)? Ok, then your ‘axiom’ that is ‘necessary for coherent thought’, is false. If the world has not, in fact, in reality, existed for more than five minutes, then you do not know anything, and there is no distinction between knowledge and delusion. So much for that objection.(cont.)
>>18659130>x=x is demonstrably necessary to build a computer“demonstrably necessary to build a computer” and “a real, immaterial, universal, absolute law” are the same thing?>Its justification is tied directly to its predictable, observable utility in the real worldThis would imply the validity of the law of identity is contingent on the invention of the computer, which I think is an absurdity that does not require refutation.
>>18659130"I haven't made a claim about ultimate reality" is not available to (You). Saying logic is invariant across all minds and times, and that it isn't grounded in anything, that no ground is needed is making universal knowledge claims you do not have access to, or did you induct that universality with your own reasoning?I can concede that there distinction within TAG.However saying x=x is justified by a predictable observable utility like a computer, however this requires: that the world behaves consistently, that regularity holds across time and untested cases, that a physical failure counts as a negation. That's a claim about the structure of reality, not a hinge. You did B and called it A.And a demonstration of utility isn't a demonstration of truth, being pragmatically vindicated is exactly what a hinge can't have without becoming a knowledge claim.Sorry!
>>18659139Make your argument that logic is empirical. You'll find you can't without employing logic. If that's disqualifying, then yu've disqualified yourself first.One of the main drivers of TAG is that logic is a precondition of any kind of argument whatsoever, including one for God.. The question was never that can use logic. It was what accounts for logic's universality, invariance, and normativity. Since you are a slow boi I'll be nicer to (You) :^)
>>18659175*never that one can
>>18659175>Make your argument that logic is empirical. You'll find you can't without employing logicIncorrect because I am observing the existence of logic rather than deducing it. I observe objects in different places, events being ordered in time, etc. The principle of non-contradiction is trivially observable. >One of the main drivers of TAG is that logic is a precondition of any kind of argument whatsoever True, logic is a precondition for an argument but not an observation. I have an empirical basis for my use of logic but it sounds like you're just assuming it.>It was what accounts for logic's universality, invariance, and normativity.Then first prove that logic is universal and invariant.
>>18659192Again, not the Dyerbro>Incorrect because I am observing the existence of logic rather than deducing it. I observe objects in different places, events being ordered in time, etc. The principle of non-contradiction is trivially observable.This is a category error conflating the conformity of material objects to the laws of logic with the laws of logic themselves. To “observe logic” is an incoherency that I do not know what it means, given that “logic” is an abstract concept which by definition cannot be observed with the senses. This is precisely the same mistake as thinking you’ve located the number 1 in space because you have 1 water bottle. What you have observed is not 1, it’s just a water bottle. Second, this utterly fails as a proof of logic because 1. it makes them contingent, rather than necessary 2. you have not observed all things that exist, so as far as you are aware the logical patterns you describe are the mere product of random chance and there really is no logical pattern at all.>True, logic is a precondition for an argument but not an observation. I have an empirical basis for my use of logic but it sounds like you're just assuming This is real pseud stuff. Like when fedora tippers say things like “I don’t have beliefs, I just follow evidence”. The use of empirical evidence as the basis of an argument does not magically cause it to not be an argument. Observations without reasoning are the experience of a camera, and they are in and of themselves incapable of proving anything.>Then first prove that logic is universal and invariantYou still exist.
>>18659220>This is precisely the same mistake as thinking you’ve located the number 1 in space because you have 1 water bottle.You have in fact observed a singular thing. What is the problem? >1. it makes them contingent, rather than necessary So what? >2. you have not observed all things that exist, so as far as you are aware the logical patterns you describe are the mere product of random chance and there really is no logical pattern at all. This is an argument against universality, not against my observations. >You still exist. This is another example of me observing logic.
>>18658942Dyer uses presuppositionalism and epistemology as a magic hail mary everytime science man brings up science.
>>18659362Ok, so you’re trolling
>>18658942Apologists are pathological liars. The best of them can only tell half truths.
>>18658942>He remains unrefutedi already refuted him in one of the previous similar threads.>>18587933almost all people are retards with no discernment who couldnt call him out properly so let me summarize a killshot for his position at his own level (not even going to the many bible contradictions and internal critiques, look up Deconstruction Zone for that as an example):dyers position is essentially:1. in order to have a specific kind of existence/world, you need a specific type of god with specific attributes2. we have/live in that world3. therefore orthodox christian god, with those attributesthe killshot is actually pressing him to prove that these attributes are needed and that his god satisfies it. he cant prove it.he has to go to what he views as divine revelation to try to do so, but this never actually develops into him explaining anything and instead he then always tries to act as if he has 80 iq and suddenly forgot what an internal critique is, since he will then require you to give your own world view for comparison and will run away from an internal critique.essentially insinuating that as long as his story lore is deeper than yours while also being vaguely self-consistent (filled with "we dont know" when pressed and appealing to the flowing and wide/vague nature of the church tradition (some bishop somewhere surely has the right opinion so anyone/any amount of others being wrong is fine), then that means that his world view by default "wins" and must be true. but just because we dont know something doesnt mean that we are forced to accept the others position, we just might never actually come to know that thing given our limited human bodies and ability.
>>18659536Ok, so you're retarded
>>18659686 (cont)i dont particularly glorify any of these people, but they are useful to learn more about these topics easily:https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/Judeo-Conspiracy-Mix-2:2https://www.youtube.com/@DZDebates/videosi personally think, that even if the world is to essentially die in the coming decades/centuries, and to save it we need such an insane amount and depth of delusion within 'noble' lies, and to treat people as the cattle most of them are and want to be, then the world doesnt deserve to be saved anyway.
Tried listening to his shit but its all religiousbabble and motivated reasoning. Practically schizophrenic.
>>18659686This argument doesn't carry the weight that you think it does. TAG argues from metaphysical position, while you argue from a materialist evidentialist position. You can't critique him internally within his system, anymore than he can critique you in yours. >(not even going to the many bible contradictions and internal critiques, look up Deconstruction Zone for that as an exampleThere are no contradictions in the Bible. This is the opinion of the unread and the uneducated. The average person needs to take multiple university level classes in theology, near eastern studies, and historical linguistics to even grasp 1/4th of what is being communicated in the text; even 1 to 1 translations of words are often misinterpreted, because the definitions used in biblical language have a completely different meaning from any modern Western language equivalent. This is why, contrary to what the retarded protestants believe, it's necessary to have a professional clergy to interpret the texts and perform religious functions.
>>18659850>This argument doesn't carry the weight that you think it does. TAG argues from metaphysical position, while you argue from a materialist evidentialist position. You can't critique him internally within his system, anymore than he can critique you in yours.he cant prove his own position of X attributes needed for this world, my position doesnt even matter for that.>You can't critique him internally within his systemi can, its called an internal critique, and that was my point, that dyer runs away from this becaue he has to.>There are no contradictions in the Biblelets look at some basic oneswho incited David to take a census?2 Samuel 24:1 God incited David to take the census.1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan incited David.Matthew 1:1-16 gives jesus genealogy through joseph and identifies josephs father as jacobLuke 3:23–38 gives a different genealogy and identifies josephs father as helican't be both = contradiction
>>18659880>he cant prove his own position of X attributes needed for this world, my position doesnt even matter for that.Of course because it's a different system. >i can, its called an internal critique, You don't even believe in metaphysics so how can you possibly critique it? >lets look at some basic onesDo you even know what a contradiction is? These passages are a perfect example of complementary passages being misinterpreted as contradictory. The context of David's census is that God allowed Satan to tempt the king in order to punish Israel for its sins, for the same reason God allowed the Babylonians to sack Jerusalem and destroy the First Temple. Jospeh's parentage is due to the custom of Levirate marriage, his biological father was Jacob, when his mother was widowed, his father's brother Heli married her, and became his stepfather. This is also a perfect example of the necessity of having a professional clergy, and why historically, the apostolic priesthood was against the laity reading the bible by themselves.
>>18659015>Does not solve the one and the manyThe one and the many isn't a real problem. Nothing prevents us from accepting that reality is a graded illusion i.e. that individuality, morality, logic, etc. are real "on their level" but fade away or become unmanifested at higher levels. This is more logically coherent than the solution of Dyer and Pageau which is a danger to the transcendence of God. We also have examples of this in waking life where rules / conditions exist for toy situations and when they fall away the associated phenomena or manifestation disappears. The objection against Advaita Vedanta / Sufism type metaphysics is essentially just the strawman or word-concept fallacy of conflating "ultimately illusory" with "absolutely unreal", which are not identical ideas. St. Palamas threaded the needle perfectly and there's no need to attempt to clumsily add onto his system with stuff like this.
>>18659926>Of course because it's a different system.the system still has logic and arguments, saying "its a different system" doesnt give you a blank cheque to just say whatever you want.>You don't even believe in metaphysics so how can you possibly critique it? dyer acts like he has 80 iq to not know what an internal critique actually is, you on the other hand, dont seem to be acting.>The context of David's census is that God allowed Satan to tempt the king like many christians, even when given passages of your own god's word, you dont want to to read it and run from it>2 Samuel 24:1 "Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.">1 Chronicles 21:1 "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."these arent complements, both cant be true, this is a contradiction.
Refute what argument?Premises and conclusion, please
>>18659156>Do you have a non-arbitrary justification for the claim that anything exists at all?My experiencing of reality via embodied sense perception is not a deductive claim. It is the primordial, pre-reflective condition of existing. Auxillary to this primary experience are reasonable inferences, supported by empirically adequate and falsifiable evidence, that other minds similarly experience reality, and that the relational structures governing logic approximate consistency even in the absence of human observers (seen through historical and geological data).>we have not moved from an epistemic necessity to an ontological conclusion, we have recognized the necessity of the ontological reality for the epistemic necessity to mean anything.You cannot justify why your God is "necessary" because you are positing a disembodied abstraction as the ground of reality. "Grounding" only occurs through interaction of material relations.>1. Why is it “necessary"? EN depend on OR? You say, “because it is necessary for coherent thought or action”. Ok, why is that necessary? Reality has some burden to make knowledge possible for you?Reality is not something "other" than how its relations are revealed to embodied minds. There is no "view from nowhere." If our cognitive and perceptual apparatuses were different, the relations we map would change accordingly. The truth-value of these relations requires us to assume artificial limits (like mathematical infinity) as a functional hinge to approximate reality outside a formal system's strict boundaries. These are not fundamental, transcendent features of reality; they are the relational medium through which we navigate it.>You can’t even justify that you aren’t a brain in a jar in your worldview
Neither can you, but more importantly, the "brain in a vat" is an incoherent starting point. Consciousness and intentionality are not ghostly, detachable properties that can be scooped out of a body and placed in a jar. They are emergent, relational properties of an embodied agent dynamically interacting with an environment. You cannot coherently posit a "mind" to be deceived without the material network that constitutes it in the first place. Slapping the "G-word" onto this mystery doesn't solve it; you have hidden the mystery behind an untestable formal indicator.>It isn’t the actual, objective basis of reality (whatever in particular you mean by that)?Adding "objective" unnecessarily loads the phrase with possible interpretation such as that the basis of reality could exist independent of or external to the mind. There is no reason to qualify it this way. By "basis of reality," I mean that on the basis of which beings transform and interact. That is as ontologically "thin" and non-dogmatic as I can make it.>Your axiom that is necessary for coherent thought is falseBeing unable to verify an analytic true/false status of an axiom does not make it any less necessary for producing repeatable, reliable changes in the world. You are demanding analytic deducibility for reality, but the world is not a formal logical place. It is a synthetic network disclosed through action.>>18659172>“demonstrably necessary to build a computer” and “a real, immaterial, universal, absolute law” are the same thing? >This would imply the validity of the law of identity is contingent on the invention of the computer, which I think is an absurdity that does not require refutation.
You are mistaking immanence for contingency. I am not saying the law of identity was invented by computers. I am saying that x=x is not a transcendent, immaterial, absolute law governing matter from the outside (which TAG requires). Rather, it is a highly stable pattern of material interaction. The computer is simply a refined, technological artifact of that stable relation.Epistemically, the computer is one example among many of this stable relation. Ontologically, the law of identity has a permanent relational dependency with our ability to manipulate matter in this way. If future physics reveals that non-contradiction is local to specific cosmic circumstances, rather than bound-fully/finalistic-ly axiomatic, logic in spite of the change remains a sorting capacity for how matter relates, not a divine decree hovering above it. We can still identify, by pure semantics, the dependency identity would have with some material relation.>"I haven't made a claim about ultimate reality" is not available to (You). Saying logic is invariant across all minds and times, and that it isn't grounded in anything, that no ground is needed is making universal knowledge claims you do not have access to, or did you induct that universality with your own reasoning?It is inductively validated beyond a reasonable doubt concerning what is real and actionable. I do not need "universality" either transcendentally or non-nominalistically. I only need sufficient stability in the relational network of matter to sustain coherent action and prediction, which is exactly what we have.>However saying x=x is justified by a predictable observable utility like a computer, >however this requires: that the world behaves consistently, that regularity holds across time and untested cases, that a physical failure counts as a negation. That's a claim about the structure of reality, not a hinge. You did B and called it A.
>And a demonstration of utility isn't a demonstration of truth, being pragmatically vindicated is exactly what a hinge can't have without becoming a knowledge claim.This relies on a rigid, correspondence theory of truth which I reject. Demonstrating utility is a demonstration of truth where truth is understood as unconcealment.Practical, intentional engagement is the primary (with theoretical truth a secondary, and not perjorative) mechanism by which entities are drawn out of hiddenness and allowed to be understood. When one uses a hammer to drive a nail, one does not hold the hammer as a detached "object with properties" (the theoretical and less real). The hammer effectively becomes an extension of the arm and your will; it becomes "transparent". It is defined strictly by its reliable utility within a network of other relations (the nail, wood, or banister).The "truth" of the hammer is not a propositional statement about its metaphysical essence; its truth is disclosed in its predictable integration into a material network. Therefore, pragmatic vindication is not a corruption of a hinge; it is the only way the relational structure of reality is ever revealed to us. Words are only alive, and only have meaning when you are phenomenologically familiar with the gradient of activity infusing them, climbing more specificially with the logic used to compartmentalize it. TAG is unable to demonstrate this logic needing a detached ground beyond its own successful function. It is a fallenness of our actual lived reality of intention within matter.
Premises and conclusion, please
>>18659001>Orthodoxy is clearly more sensible and more congruent to the ancient Church than Catholicism is, the fact that anyone even takes the other position atp is eye-rolling.getting consistently raped by muslims and commies while blaming catholics for absolutely everything wrong with you doesn't sound like an early church thing
>>18658942He looks like Zack & Cody here.
>>18660044>>18660311Here you go.1. Only God can provide the ground for reason and ethics2. Reason and ethics exist3. Therefore God exists
>>18659001>Orthodoxy is clearly more sensible and more congruent to the ancient Church than Catholicism is, the fact that anyone even takes the other position atp is eye-rolling.You are misrepresenting the Catholic paradigm just like people frequently do with Protestants (not Evangelicals) when they parrot "your Church was founded by Martin Luther mine by Jesus bro".
Truth is a word in English languagenot some spooky feature of reality philosophers are so fucking retarded
TAG "proves" Deism at best. Jay will never ever debate Biblical criticism though.
>>18659032>>18659061>>18659133>>18659172>Sorry!Why are you a cunt?
>>18660341Meaning is use. You could say for example that memes are one relational channel where the meaning of words change (based, mid, cooking, skibidi), because irony affects someone both physically and emotionally. There is some relation created by the meme between the person who looks at it and the entity they believe showed it to them generating the affect upon your nervous system.
is this the thread where people who are afraid to die come to post today?
>>18660319I'm not entirely sure what it means to "ground" stuff like reason and ethicsCan you show me what it looks like?
>>18660432If you cannot infer from memory, you would go outside, and feel the solid, unmoving earth beneath your feet to get an idea of what the ground is. Now when you look at a construction zone, you observe a house being built. The house in the argument is a substitution/metaphor(once a metaphor is repeated, can become definitive) for reason and ethics, the ground a metaphor for "possibility", or the "cause" for them.Lived experience infusing meaning in another example I can think of can help explain why black music in America is so popular. Jewish money can only do so much. Survival in their hoods forged emotional bonds through constant confrontation with mortality in the inner city which carried a raw existential weight. So this immediacy charged their vocabulary with soulful urgency. And when expressed through music, this linguistic and emotional energy achieved an intuitive appeal that resonated directly with the primordial, pre-reflective (pre-ego) self of the sheltered and alienated whites (not to say which is better).
>>18658942Isn't this guy a young earth creationist who thinks dinosaurs are fake? lololLiterally muslim tier
>>18660510Could you please ground reason if God for me?
>>18659962It's painfully obvious that you've watched videos critiquing TAG without having any understanding of the principals and elements that can be used to criticize it both externally and internally, and you're just parroting these points made by people who are smarter than you. >these arent complements, both cant be true, this is a contradiction.You're showing your lack of literacy.
>>18660649>nuh huhconcession accepted.
>>18658942Bro Jay Dyer fell off hard, he should have stuck to his illluminati shit, it was excellent work, now he's become a joke though, can't debate in good faith for shit, I hope he repents and finds peace.
>>18660526Yes, he thinks the Earth is 6000 years old.
When you concept of these things, logic, love, numbers, etcare so fucking convoluted, that they won't work without god-magicit's probably your concept that is wrong
>>18660678You conceded your position the moment you admitted that you didn't comprehend the source material, but you're too dumb to realize that was a self-own>>18661309Fallacy of simplicity
>>18661495>You conceded your position the moment you admitted that you didn't comprehend the source material, but you're too dumb to realize that was a self-ownyour edaddy got btfod and you couldnt respond beyond an ad hominem, its ok lilbro, i accept your final concession.
>>18661498An ad hominem is only a fallacy if it's inaccurate, and mine was clearly on target. Stop using big words you don't understand, and accept your intellectual limitations.
>>18661504>An ad hominem is only a fallacy if it's inaccuratethanks for proving you literally dont know what an ad hominem is. beautiful.
>>18659850Who killed Goliath?
>>18659650>you have to be very skilled at pathological lying to turn goat fucker slop from the stone age into a super srs metaphysical systemAnything is possible with how flexible language is, no wonder they only wanted clergy reading it. Grok could’ve made a bible so much more convincing honestly
>>18661495Literally no reason to define terms in such a way that they need god-magic
Why should someone that leans nominalist be even remotely swayed by any of this?
