Reviewing the Debate between Fearless Truth & Jake Brancatella with: JayDyer on IP Channel

0:00Tax season has arrived and doing taxes without the right help can feel overwhelming. Into it, TurboTax is here now to guide you through it with confidence. Match with a TurboTax full-service expert who handles everything for you from start to finish. Your dedicated expert checks every single deduction and credit to help you get the best possible outcome so you can feel confident you're getting every dollar you deserve. And the best part? You'll see real-time updates on your expert's progress right on your phone while you live your life. Plus, you get unlimited expert help at no extra cost, even on nights and weekends during tax season. Visit TurboTax.com. Only available with TurboTax full-service experts, real-time updates only on iOS mobile app. Early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning, because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on Verbo and save over $120. Rise and shine! Ever savings $141, select home's only.

1:13Are you searching for a deeper understanding of your faith? Inspiring philosophy is your go-to resource for exploring the rich tapestry of Christian thought. From biblical archaeology to philosophy of mind, we dive into the topics that matter. Our content bridges faith and understanding, offering insights into God's existence and the reliability of the New Testament. Join a community where faith meets reason and discover the answers you've been seeking. Inspiring philosophy, where faith meets understanding. I'm sorry master, but I must go all out just this once. I don't like you Muhammad. Our boys, you've left me no choice.

2:27If you've got rap, if you've got rap, rarely corrand don't even match the text. Use the flex science. Now you're back in the wake, because can't remember your facts. Don't hit the same today. Got the Islamic dilemma, you can't solve that. Every answer you give me is the problem. Snap back, say the Bible's corrupt, but your own book cries. Bibles and laws, words they can't be revised. If a loss was, can't change, then you claim to fraud. You just argue yourself against the word of your God. In jail's secret book, that's your mystery prize, but the coherence of Christians should judge by it. Lies, don't think you're too poor, mute it like it's just a game, ruin the life, and trash the man's name, all that double talk. But when truth appears, you vanish from the chat like it hurts you is. You got a lot, this limb dies, God will cry when the facts are all right.

3:31We follow Jesus better, sure in your dream. We're cutting out his claims like you're cropping the meme. Crown off his heads, us crossing the bill. It's powerful to camera like you still is, can't. Jesus was a Muslim, cute little twist, free to find the words, so the facts don't exist. If labels could change, what the records prove, in the fear of what's a Yawafan. In Jewish state, true Muhammad in the song of Solomon, for you made your profit a fool. Sumbled up with Solomon and came the manifold, so I don't lie. It's limb dies, can't hide truth, can't spin those lies. Without lies, it's limb dies, God will cry when the facts are all right. Your preach perfect text with the proof ain't there. Half-swash, even your readers don't care. Call the Bible corrupt, but still hold it loud, hold it loud. Trying to find my hymn, it just depends your crowd. Song of Solomon, yeah, that's the flesh of flex. You just wrote your profit and the Solomon's bed, and the man of valves who came riding through. All night long, you say that's true.

4:32Jesus was a Muslim, the word plays dead by that logic. Pharaoh bowed his head, you twist, you spin, but you can't disguise, that every devil claimed, was built on lies. Without lies, without lies, without lies, I don't know where Jay is. And Mike is in the sky right now on a aerodynamic device called the plane. Aerodynamic device called the plane. So maybe Michael show up, maybe Jay will show up who really knows, but we got Nick from fearless truth here. I feel like it's like a bunch of weird static all over my face from the camera. I don't know why I see like static.

5:37I just assumed you have electricity powers or something like that. I got the magic touch some might say. All right. Well, Jay is ducking us. Jay is ducking. Call me. I'm running from the pole. Listen. Jay is supposed to come here and a nathmath. According to Jake, Jay is. Maybe that's why he's not showing up, Nick, because you're a dirty heritage. He doesn't want to nathmetize me. He doesn't want to. He doesn't want to do it. Crazy man. Well, we're here to do a debate review. We'll come eventually. Yeah. So hopefully we can just make do with what we got for now. Do you have timestamps that you want to go over? Plan's a little different now since Jay's not here. I just tell you when I want you to pause it. Okay, cool. Well, we already got one super chat. So I'm just going to go over that really, really quickly. Actually, I'm going to, you know what? I'm going to save that. Because the person that superchatted this wants me to just want probably once Jay Dyer to hear the bark bark thing.

6:42What the? You already know the story, Nick, right? Oh, thanks. Really? Mike, one time said in a stream like his intro, he's like, he said something and he was, you know, we need a better intro. And then the first thing that came to my mind was I yelled bark with me. If you're my puppies and it stuck ever since people. Oh, I have. Oh, no. So that's what's happening there. I'm going to pull up the debate here and. Yeah. If you don't watch the debate, yeah, man. You know what, and for, and for a good tree. And if you already watched the debate, like you, you can't get enough of it. All right. Well, where let's go to you want to go to your, like, oh, your opening statement. Jakes, do you want to go straight to the cross exam? Where do you want to go first? I mean, we can start out with the opening. So hopefully by the time the cross is here, Jay's here. You want to start to say one more time. Sorry, I got to strike.

7:44We can start off with the opening. So then hopefully by the time the cross exam starts, Jay will be here by then. Cool. Here we go. Let me see. Let me make sure I can make it a little bit bigger. Yeah, it's not coming bigger. Is there a, what are you sharing on specific here? I'll try to just see if I can share it. I like that. There we go. All right. So 10 minute opening statement from Nick. I'll start the timer on your first word. And then I'll give you that one minute queue. So whenever you're ready. Cool, cool. All right. Top of the debate, guys, is the Trinity illogical. I won't make this opening super long as I'm simply defending my position, showing what it is, et cetera. Let me go ahead on that. All right. So what does it mean for something to be illogical in the first place? Well, as standardly defined in classical logic, for something to be illogical or logically inconsistent, it means there is no model under which every member is true without it being a contradiction in the set.

8:46And that's just classically defined everywhere. You can read that at the SEP where really any site that has the definitions of classical logic on it. Now, given that definition, what my opponent is going to have to show is that the model that I give regarding the Trinity is logically inconsistent, and that it actually has an error within it that cannot be solved. A couple of things my opponent cannot do is if my opponent tries to argue about the actual properties of the person, such as what makes the person distinct or asking, how do we discern them? That would fall into error as logical consistency has to do with the model. It is not concerned with the metaphysics of what actually makes them distinct. If I can create a consistent model using first order logic and he agrees it is consistent. He is conceited to debate that it is logical. If it is metaphysically consistent is another topic. So all this means guys is there is a difference between the metaphysics of something and the logic of something. Now, the specific set of statements that are regarding in this is which we will try to model is going to be there exists an FS and HS,

9:50that there are three of these and that they are one G yet not each other. So this model is saying that the F is obviously going to stand for father, S, son, HS, Holy Spirit, etc. And these are one G. So they are one God yet they are not the same person. This model is not concerned with the properties of predicates themselves. So what are the properties of FS and HS is a relevant to the actual model, but are instead concerned with if the statement can lead to a consistent model itself. Before you get into the relative identity stuff for your opening statement, do you want to break that down a little bit for the audience for anybody that is seeing that last slide there and they are like, what the heck am I looking at? Yeah, so basically what a model, by the way, Jay text me back. He said he thought he was a 5 p.m. PST for some reason. What time is it now? Dude, I am so excited. That's not, I would be an hour from when we originally started. So. So if Jay will show up in 35 minutes.

10:56Yes. I guess not this events at the very time. Yes. We can we can we can we can he said IP said AST. Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic during the dishes, counting your steps. You know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chamba Casino. This Casino has all your favorite social Casino style games that you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now at chamba casino.com. That's chamba casino.com. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one, 20 billion is an

12:01insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year and each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call 24, 7365. Wow, Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm, thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Say what? Hold on. I'm going to look through. See, I knew IP and Jay messing everything up. There's a lot of while you look at that. We don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Well, Jay will see you in 35 minutes. We'll kill time with Sensei Nick telling us about the consularial statements and then

13:04all that. Yes. Okay. So basically when we're talking about models, so it's funny because when we I asked him what a model was and he didn't really know. It seemed like he thought a model was like a syllogism. But when we look at a what a model is, a model is just going to be like a specific formula or a specific order and statements in terms of like first order logic. And so what I gave him later in the debate was a specific set of statements using first order logic, given a model and I used a certain sort of predicates and it was logically consistent and it was using relative identity and it was using the Trinity statements. So the point is is when we're doing that, he has to show an inconsistency, but he couldn't even read it. So that was like the y'all will see that when you actually showed the syntax. Yeah. Yeah. We actually showed the syntax and yeah, it was it was bad. But yeah, I don't know, I mean, I pretty much knew from this opening statement.

14:09So I predicted everything he would do. One of the things I said like on the previous slide was, you know, hey, what he can't do is this. He can't start talking about the metaphysics of the thing, which means start talking about the properties of what makes the person just because it has nothing to do with first order logic. Well, first order logic, right, we know it's files on Holy Spirit. We can know what they are, what it's denoting. It doesn't talk about the properties of the thing. So yeah, it was very funny how we kind of called everything that he did. Yeah. It is interesting. We'll play this next part where you talk about relative identity and introducing it. This is the part that I think confuses so many people, not just like Christians, but I also think it just confuses Muslims and Unitarians in general and just based off of the objections they give to relative identity models, and that's coming from somebody that doesn't use relative identity. Yeah. You know, not that I don't agree with it, I just like I've told you Nick, I hate discussions

15:11about sortles and everything like that. So if I think I pass it, I'm going to yeah, it's funny. I'm also I don't know if you pin in the chat, but you might as well pin in the chat so anyone comes in here knows like J over here around eight. Yes, do you know anyone who comes in here? Yeah, let me see if I can he should be able to be here by the clock exam. So that would be good. Yeah, let me see if I can actually do that really quickly. You guys are going to still be able to witness J and automatize me today. Don't worry guys. Don't worry. He's still going to not eat even though me and Jay already spoke after the debate. He was like, Bray, you won this dude, don't know what he's talking about. He's going to advertise it or there is a pin. I don't know. I can't tell. I don't know. The chat will tell us chat. Let us know. But okay. We can keep going. Cool. So what are the properties of F S and HS is a relevant to the actual model. But are instead concerned with if the statement can lead to a consistent model itself. So how do we formulate this?

16:12Well, we formulate these statements using relative identity operator, meaning that the father, son of Holy Spirit are the same G, but they're not the same. That was funny. He's going to pause it here too. It's funny. He is. I was going to I was telling them this. I was going to actually include the formulation in this slide that I included later, but I was like, you know, I want to see like this guy talks all the time by he's, he's the metaposition man. He knows philosophy. I was like, so you know what? I'm going to wait to give the formalization until the cross exam. I want to see if he, but he could even read it. He even knows like what it's saying and lo and behold, he, but he saw, he took a sip of his coffee. He was like, what was this in your, was this in your original statement? It was so funny. Yeah. It. And here's the thing. I do want to be fair to Jake in this sense, like, there's two, there's a few things happening here. One is he, he did admit that he doesn't know how to read it and he didn't know what like he was looking at.

17:13So that, that part did seem pretty bad. That being said, I also just want to point out that like, it's not unreasonable for somebody that does know syntax, that does no first order logic to be like, we're in the middle of a debate. I'm not going to take the 10 to 15 minutes that I need to actually, you know, translate what I'm looking at and all that stuff. Yeah. But you, I mean, yeah, even that one, I tried to put it as simple as possible. Like when that Q and A, or when the, yeah, when the Q and A then asked me to read it, it took like 15 seconds, like, right, it's like, it's so, I tried to put it as simple as possible form. I didn't even try to make it easy. There was literally, I had a longer one I could have put, but I decided not to just condense it. Yeah. Yeah. I literally condensed it. I was like, I don't want to make it stupid. You're saying? Yeah. I try to make it easy. Okay. So this is the part. I think that trips people up. Do you want me to keep going? And then we can explain relative identities some more after your explanation here and in

18:17your opening? Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. We can do that. Yeah. One possible objection that my opponent might give is he might say this way of counting as ad hoc, although I don't believe it is, even if we granted this counting method as ad hoc, it would not prove the formulation to be logically inconsistent. As models do not care about ad hocness, rather, they care if the formulation actually works itself. Another possible objection is he might say that if we count another way, it would lead to a contradiction. This would again fail because even if that is true, as long as this model is consistent, we have met the criteria to be considered logical. To show a counter example in this, if a Christian were to tell a Muslim, God is merciful. So that means that G equals M or God equals mercy. That would be ill form, given that a Muslim commitment about what is means. Okay. So we can show there's multiple different models in which we can use to show that just saying that something is something or something that it equals another doesn't necessarily prove what type of diviner you're using there.

19:17And so we can formulate it such as this. And that's the end of the slide. Okay. So we can pause it here too. Right. All right. So when we're talking about this, right? We want to, you can put the slide back up so I can like explain it with what it's saying. Okay. So I gave a counter example here because one of the, one of the things is that a lot of these people assume that like the equal symbol normally is necessarily like absolute identity, meaning if two things are equal, they're absolutely identical. So I'm showing him that's not the case here. Like for example, if a Muslim says God is merciful or God equals mercy, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's absolutely identical to his mercy and that he's going to, you know, come out and, you know, have different, I mean, well, I guess Jake would say he has different ontologies. So I guess he might, but, but yeah, but most Muslims who actually know what they're talking about wouldn't say he has, you know, different ontologies for all his different names.

20:19And so that's kind of the entire point of trying to show exactly what this means. And he couldn't, you know, he couldn't be around this point. So help the audience understand maybe what relative identity is and how it's not ad hoc or how it's not like counterintuitive to the way we normally count or deal with things. Yeah. So relative identity is basically going over the fact that everything doesn't have specified truth conditions. So the specific instance that philosophers use is say, for example, you are like on the beach and you have like two two sandcastles, right? And you say, um, we have these two sandcastles, cool, cool. We have to say he's not LA 101, but say you have two sandcastles or two mounds of sand, right? And they say, oh, yeah, they're, you know, the same, the same size.

21:20We have the same, we made the same size sandcastle, but one sandcastle might have a different amount of, you know, grains of sand than the other. So, you know, when we're talking about this, that's everyday language. They don't have to have, we don't have to know the exact amount of grains of sand to know that they're, you know, different sizes of the same size. Same thing for mountains. If we say these two mountains are the same size, we don't have to know exactly the volume of the mountain, the size. That's how we talk in everyday language. And so that's what relative identity is doing is doing there. And so to reject that is basically rejecting like everyday language. Okay. Well, what's going to be like, I say, like over the phone, I give you one of my textbook examples. It's not textbook because it's an example that I give to help people understand that it's actually pretty common, but do you have a common example that just a normal person would be? What normal person's like, yeah, like I got, I got some sand here and I got some, you know what I'm saying? What is like a, what is a thing that a normal person would, would like use relative identity

22:25for? For this man, Jay's like make me laugh, dude, he's like docks on every act. I'm all of interest. And now turning right on red, hey, tell us your speed, Jay, how fast are you going right now? But not, I'll tell us what car you're into. Okay. But no, actually, I like the example you gave me earlier when we were on the phone. The good one is like, if you bubble wall is here from 2311 racing. You know it's slower than a pace car waiting at the car wash. That's when I fire up Chamba Casino. It turns those slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chamba, play now at ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. Sponsored by Chamba Casino. No purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest

23:28injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Billboard years recently that said 20 billion one, 20 million is an insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open or call centers always waiting to take your call. 24-7365. Wow. Dan Morgan. Morgan and Morgan and America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. If you have like the same shirt as someone, like if I was wearing that same shirt, I could say, yo, I got the same shirt. We're wearing the same shirt. Now it doesn't mean that we have like an absolute, there's only one shirt. And me and you both share that shirt.

24:29That's not what that means. That's not what that means. Yeah, it just means that, you know, hey, where there's something, some sort of similarity in which it looks the same, but it doesn't mean it's the same in every way. Yeah. And at least for me, the key point would be like, say you did have this shirt. And I looked at you and I said, oh, Nick, I got the same one, like that, when I'm saying it's the same one, that's one of the key points too, right? Like we actually are counting one shirt. Yeah. But there's two relative to the sortle. Yeah. So it's not a crazy thing that's like, I don't know where that's ad hoc, which, it'll be cool if we can get into this, because I explained to you some things over the phone today too. But it's not ad hoc. We use it pretty normally. It's pretty weird to me that a lot of people as I'm like watching these debates, and maybe you have more to say to it, since you actually, you usually have identity when

25:31you're defending the trendy. A lot of these people, a lot of people tend to object to it by just calling it ad hoc, not like grounded in reality or anything like that. What are your thoughts on that? Well, the first thing is, even, well, I don't think it's ad hoc at all, because we can show multiple instances in which this is always being used. But secondly, even if it was ad hoc, and this is what I talked about as well in my opening is even if it is ad hoc, it doesn't, logical models don't care about ad hocness, right? Ad hocness can be completely ad hoc, and all that means is that you might not have a specific reason why you count by this and count by another. It has nothing to do, though, with whether or not it's logical. Like ad hocness just has to do how much we use a thing. Yeah. Ad hocness, ad hocness at worst is going to just drastically lower the probability of your model. Yeah. Yeah. At that worst, and it just depends if you take that view, but I mean, it definitely has nothing to do with the logical problem of the Trinity, and that's kind of the funny part

26:37is like, you'll see, like, bro, in our cross-exam, I think we talked about the LBT for like maybe like two minutes, and then that was it. Bro, I'll be the first to find it with some of the rest of the places I was like, I was gaslighting myself, to be honest with you, because I was like, what the heck, man, like, what is this? What is this debate-turning? Bro. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, appeal to Jay, appeal to Beau Falsy, like, bro, and we're about to see this in the opening, but it's so funny, because I tell everybody this, this dude cannot, he literally cannot have a conversation about the Trinity or debate without mentioning Beau Branson or Jay's name. He can't do it. He did it five seconds into his opening, Anathmatonic exactly, Anathmatonic Jay as well. Brother. You're not, you Muslims are going to get tons of clips. We're anathmatizing each other today, all right? You know, God forbid, right? God forbid. Yeah, if you guys don't know in the comments, by the way, he's not being serious.

27:37Me and Jay are friends. It's completely true. I am willing to bet that the Unitarians in Muslims use of Branson is wrong. I've read Branson before. I have an intuition that Branson would want to correct, Jake, on how are you, Branson? You know what's funny too is I asked him in my cross exam for his, if he could give the formulation of his argument, and he quoted Beau, but Beau actually does give a formulation of relative identity and some other things, some other models, but he quoted the wrong thing. What he gave wasn't even a formulation, it was so bad. Man. Do you want me to keep going? Yeah, we'll get you out. We'll go to his opening because his opening was funny too. You want to skip forward to his opening? That's all right, right? Yeah. That's what's coming up here. All right.

28:37Is that the end of your opening statement then? Yes, sir. All right. Really quick and easy right to the point. All right. So whenever you have a slide, you want to share, Jake? Yes, I do. Let me see if this is going to work. Okay. I put it there. You see that? Perfect. Yes, I see that. Okay. So, all right. I got 10 minutes at your first words, whenever you're ready. Go ahead. Okay. All right. Let's begin with what I call the Muslim or what is best known as the logical problem of the Trinity. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba. Don't purchase necessary. BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CCNC. 21 plus sponsored by Jamba Casino. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

29:37Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Billboard years recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is an insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call 24, 7365. Wow. Dan Morgan. From Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Eastern orthodox scholar, Bo Granson, St. I can. The doctrine of the Trinity is central to mainstream Christianity.

30:40But in so far as it posits three persons, father, son and Holy Spirit, who are one God, it appears as inconsistent as the claim that one plus one plus one equals one, those quote. So the problem is exactly what Muslims and many others have said about the Trinity all along. The Trinity clearly seems like polytheism. Now Branson himself believes that he has solved the apparent problem, but at least he correctly identifies what the problem is. The great Trinitarian church father Gregory of Nissa States in a letter responding to another bishop about this problem. And I quote, in truth, the question you propound to us is no small one. Nor such that the small harm will follow it if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions. And either to say that there are three gods, which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd.

31:40Close quote. In other words, either the Trinity is true and there are three gods or the Trinity is false. Notice that Gregory explicitly states that this question is important and requires significant treatment. Gregory further elucidates the problem saying, and I quote, the argument in which you state is something like this, Peter James and John being in one human nature are called three men. And there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature if they are more than one by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If then in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the faith, though, though confessing the three persons and acknowledging no difference of his argument he gives about the three. First of all, it's funny because he's just quoting Gregory and Nissa, but he's not actually

32:42like giving any sort of formulation as to why he believes this thing to be the case. And so I think the entire point is that when we have like three people like James, John and Joe, for instance, right, you have three humans. Well, why do we believe those are three humans and not one? Well, it's because we have, first of all, prior metaphysical commitments about what we believe a human to be are, secondly, also we believe humans have potential and they have passive potential specifically. And so we believe that humans have the ability to be changed. They have the ability to be instantiated specifically. We don't believe God has the potential to be instantiated me and then we might have the same human nature, but we're not the same instance of that human nature. We're not absolutely identical in our human nature, right? We have different, different properties of that, right? One of our properties of the human nature is like our hair color, for instance. That's a property of the human nature, but we might have different hair color.

33:43And so with God, God doesn't have any properties that differ within the nature from one to another. And so he has no potential within that nature to be changed in any way, to be different. And so him using this is, again, it has nothing to do with why we believe the Trinity to be one God. Yeah. Do you want to address the whole, well, actually, does he bring it up in his rebuttal or in the opening where he does the whole like, well, you know, there's only one human nature, but we don't have, you know, one human because of that, do you want to wait on that? I don't remember if he, where he brings that up at besides this point. We'll wait on it. And we'll just wait till it comes up. It's either now or in here or in the rebuttals in my, in my, in my, in my, I actually really simple counter question that I've only had one Muslim actually answer, but we'll get to that when he brings it up. Yeah. And like Jay said, God has one energy and an energy, yeah, exactly because the, the fathers

34:46are very clear, such as St. John of Damascus, that we have one energy per nature, right? Which is why we say that God has one energy. This is why in the cross exam, Jake asked me the question of how many energies are there? We can't, we can't name how many energies there are. We don't, we don't know how many there are. We know there's one per nature, but can you count on your finger? How many there actually are in terms of how he acts, how he operates? No, of course you can't. So it's not on the LA one of what it might be a long a freeway, right? Yeah, so you can't count on our fingers, right? How, how many is, it's made like goof. You can't count on our fingers. It was the Eddie, it was the Eddie, we're all pulling up. Yeah, it's like to say that, to say that what God can do is limited to a certain amount that you can put on your finger. Well, that's just not the case. And so for him asking me that question is just a misunderstanding of exactly what he thinks

35:47to introduce to be. And not to mention, when we talk about the energies, it put it very clearly that there's things, there's energies that are called around the essence, right? And can we enumerate the energies around the essence? Well, no, we can name some of them, but we can enumerate them to the fullest extent. What am I going to say? Well, you, you correct me from wrong. As an EO, you're going to say, and J said this in a chat just a second ago, I think actually somewhere, that his energies are infinite. So asking the question, how many is just a bad question to ask in the first place? Because when you're asking that question, you're asking for a limit. But if you're saying that God's energies are infinite, you are in fact saying that there is no limit to the energies. So you're asking your question that just doesn't make sense of the precent position or the model itself. And also, because we have to explain what we're speaking about too, because we believe

36:49that his energies are both one, and they're also a multiplicity, right? Because there are one, in the sense that there's one per nature, and that each specific nature has energies proper to themselves. But then when we talk about the fact of things around his essence and his operations and actions, well, can you put a number on how many operations God can do? Oh, of course not. They're infinite. So yeah, you just can't do that. So it's a fallacious question. All right, let's keep going. Nature between them. We are in some sense at variance with our confession. When we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet for bid men to say, there are three gods. The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with. In other words, Peter, James, and John share the same human nature, and we still call this slide made me laugh in real time. I was like, what the gas slide in from Gregory, brother, what's?

37:50Sorry, I just, I really, he's equivocating in his slide. He says, share the same human nature because three humans share the same divine nature because three gods. No, that's, that's not the point. Because the point is the human nature is multiply instantiated. We don't believe the divine nature is particularly instantiated. Maybe this is the point where I need to bring up my, my counter question, right? There's so many ways to answer that, this whole point about, you know, if God is one being because of one nature, then why is it that like me, Nick, Jake, Mike, J. Dyer, we're not just one human because of one nature, and I normally just don't even validate that with the, the answer of the metaphysics. Instead, I'm just going to ask the counter question, which you already know is, do you think divinity is a multiply instantiable universal? Do you think God is a kind? And if you are going to say no, which I hope the Muslim would say no to that, then, well, there's your answer.

38:50We don't have a problem, right? If you say yes, that means that you think that polytheism is a logical possibility in the strict sense that like you actually think that there can be numerous, absolutely identical beings, Keke's divinity is going to be, like divinity is going to be at least if you're going to hold to like perfect being theism, right? Divinity is going to be the kind of thing that like if you have multiple instances of that, of such a thing, you're going to have tons of logical contradictions. So there's so many issues with this and this is why I only had one Muslim actually answer that question. Yeah. But this is the reason why I like the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, they all participate in the same actions, right? The Father doesn't do something of the Son's participation because they have the same energies. But now take humans, for example, while we have quote-unquote one nature, we, since we have different particular instantiations of that, we can have different actions.

39:52And so to say that God having one nature and humans having one nature is synonymous, would be to say that every action I do, San has to participate in, or every human has to participate in because we would have identical energies, but that's not the case because it's a different particular instantiation of that. So he said, what? He said, yes, Jake thinks energy is personal, does he actually, I mean, yeah, if he's enumerating it, it means three gods and he would think that because there's quote-unquote different energies, there'd be three gods. So it wouldn't make any sense, but we can keep going. Yeah, I'm just, okay. Because they are distinct from each other. Then why don't we call the three divine persons with the same nature, three gods? Notice that Gregory doesn't do any professional Christian apologetical gaslighting. Gregory fully admits that the problem is quote, very difficult to deal with. So anytime Nick or any other Christian apologists claims that this is an easy issue to deal with,

40:57we should remind them that they are claiming to be better than their greatest saints. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah. It's even better with Chamba by my side. Race to ChambaCasino.com, let's Chamba. Don't purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CTNCs. 21 Plus. Sponsored by Chamba Casino. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Billboard years recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is an insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?

41:58Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247-365. Wow. Dan Morgan. From Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Gregory responded to the problem saying, and I quote. So according to the more accurate expression, men would be said to be one, even though those who were exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. Thus, it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God, the error which exists in the above case. Close quote. In other words, to be consistent, we should say that there is only one man rather than admit that there are three gods in the Trinity. What how absurd is that? Modern Trinitarian scholar, Christian William Lane Craig, comments on this passage from

43:00Gregory saying. Oh, brings up a story. Gregory Lane by the way. Oh, thanks of the universe. Yeah. It's really interesting that he's going to a bunch of people. I just don't understand the movies trying to make here other than just like appealing to Craig because people know Craig. It's, I mean, more or less, I think he just like, well, I mean, a lot of his stuff is just an appeal to authority. Well, Bo says this. Well, even in, I'm pretty sure it was the debate review that Jay and Bo did on Jay's debate with him, Jake did the same thing to Jay where he tried to basically quote mine Bo and in that, in that debate review, Bo was like, bro, that's not what I'm saying. And so even Bo calls him out, like you're obviously misquoting me. And so he does that to everyone, he'll, he'll quote them, they'll be, oh, and they're saying this and like, no, no, that's not, that's not what he means. You're just making that up.

44:00And then he quotes Bo trying to look like it's a formulation and it's not a formulation. Like he just, it's crazy. Yeah, let's keep going. So as the primary reality, he advises that rather than speak of three gods, we all instead to speak of one man. But this answer solves nothing. Given that there are three hoopostasis or persons in the Godhead distinguished according to Gregory by the inter-Trenetarian relations, then there should be three gods, close quote. According to Craig, Gregory hasn't solved anything with his absurd claim that there is only one man. What about Branson? Branson freely admits and I quote, today we count F's by one logical subjects that are two, discernible from or at least not identical to one another and our F. That is, if X and Y differ in any way and are both F-ish, we, we count them as, we count them as two F's, close quote. This means that if the father and son are both fully God and are distinct from one another,

45:01which they are, then today they would count as two gods according to Branson. Branson says that we must count gods in the Trinity differently. We must count gods states and I quote, to say we count count by division is to say that the number of F's is given by how F's is or the F's are going to get forward to like when he started again. Carnable from or at least not identical to division. Branson states and I quote, to say we count by division sensibly and was accepted by everyone, close quote. In other words, there is only one God in the Trinity because the persons cannot be spatially divided from one another. However, Branson's historical claim that the ancients did not count by identity at all is laughable. Branson, Nick and all Trinitarians count the persons by identity, not division. I want to pause here because this was so funny, bro, because I literally, me and my friends were laughing about this, so I decided in this debate to use a different model and

46:04that was to use the relative identity operator instead of counting by division. I was like, you know what? I'm just going to use this because I want to show him that there's more than one model you can use and he's debated plenty of people on counting by division like Jay and Bo and it's, you know, he doesn't go anywhere with it, right? I mean, he doesn't. He literally just says, oh, it's ad hoc and he has no argument against it. I mean, he's relative identity. And so it's funny. I knew his whole slide presentation was going to be about me counting by David. He thought that's what I was going to bring and that's why he was caught off guard is because I didn't and he only knows how to defend like one view. And so when I brought a different way, he didn't know what to say. Okay. That makes sense because I was wondering, do you think so do you think he read this slide? And just wait, like do you think that you said your opening statement and went the relative identity row and then he just read his stuff on counting by division because that's just

47:08what he had planned. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because he was assuming that's what I was going to do while the whole time I was planning on doing something different again, because the entire point is I wanted to show that like there's multiple models that you can formulate to show the Trinity is logical counting by division is a perfectly good model that we talked about last time Jay showed him that Bo showed on that, et cetera. It's a perfectly good model. And then I wanted to show him relative identities also not to give us. So now he has two models he has been shown at least that has been used that can easily show that this is a quality formulation for Trinitarianism. And so, you know, he has at this point, I don't expect him to ever debate the Trinity again now because he are he will see in the cross exam, he openly admits that this is a model that is technically logical and consistent. Yeah. And Jay and Jay should be here within the next like five, 10 minutes, hopefully.

48:13So. Yes. We'll have him by the cross. Perfect timing. To acknowledge in our previous discussion, he claimed that he counted the persons in the Trinity by division. If that were the case, then there would only be one person in the Trinity because the persons cannot be separated by time or space. So the question becomes, what is the consistent non ad hoc principle by which Nick Branson or other Trinitarians determine when they count things by identity versus division? Since my debate with Jay Dyer, I haven't seen any good response to this question yet. The Eastern Orthodox and Nick in particular believe in the essence energy distinction. In short, they believe that God's attributes are not identical to God's essence or to each other. This alone isn't the problem. But when you combine this with the fact that they claim that each divine energy is fully God, then you have the LPT infinitely extended. If there are infinite. Wow. I'm positive there. That's fully God earth. Does that follow? How does it follow? Because there's infinite energies that the LPT is infinitely extended.

49:16It's like he assumes that the energies are ontologically distinct or something. It genuinely seems like he believes the energies are ontologically distinct. Just because he has multiple, like he doesn't know what the energies are. He literally doesn't. Oh, because the each divine energy is fully God, that means if no, all it means is that they have the same ontology as the essence, they have the same ontology as the person. So there's not a distinction there. It's so crazy to me, but he doesn't know what they are. Well, why don't you, while we're waiting on Jay, why don't you want to take some time to break that down a little bit? What is the EED, the essence energy distinction? What is essence, what is energy? What's happening? What's happening in this slide? So we say the essence, we merely speak about apophatically. And so we basically would make negative claims about the essence. It is not created, you know, things like that, it's negative claims. The energies is what we believe with, as Orthodox Christians, that we interact with. We believe when we're interacting with God's grace, it's through his energies that we're

50:17interacting with us. We believe that anytime God acts, it would be through the energies and this is seen in the New Testament. It's the Greek word energeta that it's very clearly used in the New Testament to be terming a action or an operation. And so again, since God has infinite operations and actions that he can do, he has infinite divine energies. He has these energies also called around the essence we call them. And it's going to be referring to things about him, right? You know, when we say things like God is, you know, God is love and whatnot. And so we look at this and we take his in here, that's embarrassing. Hey, you know, it's funny, Jake, he, he said that it was a heresy, but we've yet to see him give a cannon of any Palomite council that claims you to be anathematized because of this. So I can't wait for Jay to come on here and answer this question. We can say that super chat for him.

51:18Yeah, well, he'll be here soon. He should be here in the next like three to five minutes. But yes, he did, uh, well, we'll cover it later. I got to find it again. Um, I think I remember hit that he didn't actually show the full Palomite quote either. But I like, I like point is though, he's saying it, it is heresy to say what I said. And he does not have a cannon. He has not provided a cannon in any count. Matter of fact, we went back and forth on this on X, by the way, he was saying, Oh, you're dodging my question. I asked him in on X, I said, Hey, can you name me the cannon of the Palomite council in which anathematizes those who say what I said. And he responded, Oh, I'll get into it when I do my debate. No, because you don't have one. You don't have any sort of Palomite cannon that states this. He does lies. He doesn't actually read these. He has to go find it. It doesn't exist. All right, let's keep going.

52:21We'll get the superchets soon, but distinct from each other, then you have an infinite amount of gods rather than merely just three gods. It also demonstrates another in consistency, Nick and Eastern Orthodox count the persons and attributes in God by identity, but gods by division. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books time to celebrate with Chamba, jump in at chamba casino dot com. Let's chamba. No purchase necessary. BTW group. Boy, we're prohibited by law, CC and C, 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw billboard years recently that said 20 billion one, 20 billion is insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year.

53:24And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call 24, 7, 365. Wow. Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm, thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Another problem characteristic of Eastern Orthodox and Protestants as opposed to Catholics is the claim that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Gay, dire, Nick, and others typically reason that Muslims and Christians do not worship that same God because we do not share the same issues and I wanted to say about this slide too. It's funny regarding this slide and the other slides. I didn't even realize this until inspiring philosophy said something after. But I was like, you know the whole reason he brought this up and I kind of realized that

54:25when I when he mentioned the 99 ontologies, the whole reason he brought this up is because me making him say his God had 99 ontologies has been living in his head rent free. And so he wanted me so bad to say that the energies were different ontologies so that he could win up me and say, oh, you believe in infinite ontologies, but we don't believe that. And it didn't work. So buddy is sick. He's been living. He literally mentioned the 99 ontologies in the bit. It was so funny, bro. It's been living in his head rent free. I mean, he's sad now, he's very sad that he's over two to a layman like me and the Bates. And it's very unfortunate. Even Unitarian saying, I don't want to. I'd be sick to my stomach. So do you want me to keep playing this part and then we can you can explain what's happening here. Yeah. Yeah. Catholics usually appeal to the Fragrian sense reference distinction where two people can use different descriptions, but refer to the same entity. If incorrectly describing different properties to the same entity necessitates two distinct

55:27gods between Muslims and Christians, then by greater reason, two entities truly possessing different properties should necessitate necessitate two distinct gods in the case of the Trinity. In other words, if two entities not possessing identical attributes is sufficient for not being the same God in the Islamic versus Christian conceptions of God, then likewise, the Father and Son not possessing identical attributes should be sufficient for not being the same God. This forms a strong dilemma for Nick, either lacking identical attributes is sufficient for counting as two gods or it is not. If it is sufficient, then the Father and Son cannot be the same God. If it is not sufficient, then merely citing the distinction between the Muslim and Christian conceptions of God is insufficient for justifying the claim that they are two different gods. Nick and the ortho-brose must appeal to something else besides mere distinction. Last but not least, my final objection also relates to Nick's Trinitarian model regarding the essence energy distinction.

56:28In light of Nick, Jay, Dyer, and the Eastern Orthodox claiming that God is fully present in all of his energies, this results in the same absurdity paraded by Sam Shamoon, that there are such things as uncreated birds, clouds, fires, flesh and blood. Why? Well, because they claim that only God is worshiped, that the affinities or appearances of God in the Bible are worshiped. Therefore, the appearances of God in the Bible are uncreated and fully divine. No aspect of them is created at all, but God appears as a cloud, red, fire, bird, and wrestler in the Bible. This means that Nick affirms uncreated cl- Two things on this. Number one, he thinks, he actually thinks that when Jacob wrestled with God, he thinks that they actually had a wrestling match. He's never read the commentaries on this. He doesn't know that people like Augustine literally say, this is him wrestling with his own sin. He's wrestling with God because he's wrestling with his sin, but he wants to find God. He wants to follow God.

57:31So he doesn't read. He thinks he's actually wrestling much. So that's funny. Number one, number two, we worship clouds and birds. That was funny. First of all, it has nothing to do with the topic of the LPT, like nothing. First of all, do you think that we believe that when Moses, that when God appeared to Moses within the fire, do you think that Moses worshiped the fire or that he worshiped God who was the one manifesting in the fire? Probably God, right? And so again, this has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove anything. The only reason he's bringing this up is because he wants so bad for me to, for me to admit I have 99 ontologies like I made him do, but guess what? I'm not you, brother. I don't fall for that that easy like you. Do you want to explain any of the like theory of reference stuff that he covered or do

58:32you want to just do some super chats until Jay shows up here? We can do the super chats we want for now. All right. Well, I already explained it, so if people really want Jay to hear the bark, bark origin stories. All right, Mike is in the sky, rest in peace. Now you own IP, yes, Mike is not here because he's flying. He might be here a little later, but who knows? Jay doesn't join. I will save my Shahada J on no. And Jay got a little dilemma on his hands. Yeah, bro, that's bad. All right. I was laughing when Nick said, it's not your fallacy, can't wait to see his reaction to Jake's logic. Because he does this all the time. He's like, well, your buddy, Bo says your buddy, Jay says this, listen, if me and Jay

59:33disagree and me and Jay don't really disagree on like, I don't really don't know what me and Jay disagree on. But even if me and Jay disagree on does that make the chinity alive? They're cool. No. Like, why? Why are you because just like Jay said in the comments earlier, all Jake tries to do is just cause in fighting versus orthodox, but I don't think he realizes we're not like the Muslims. We don't sit there and fight with each other on TikTok and dox each other and hate each other. The Christians don't do that. We're not that we're not that stupid, bro. We don't fall for that. We're not at each other so easy like y'all do. Like if we actually have just like Nick, you and I have disagreements, but we'd like, you know, we talk about those things privately and we don't go at each other's throats over those things. That's so stupid. Like, it's just dumb, bro, I'm not going to laugh. I don't, I don't even know if I want to say what this is because I don't even know that. I'm trying to say, oh, it's making fun of Jay.

1:00:34I don't know what a bypock diva queen is, but okay. So Mike said he rejects classical logic. What does that actually mean? Surely the three laws are held by all logic systems. I've ran the people who say no. Give an answer. Mike's, wait, what do you mean Mike? Mike, I, I pee, Mike, my boss. He said that who rejects classical logic? He does. Oh, that Michael rejects classical logic. Yeah, he said he holds to, I don't remember what it is. I'll stop him ahead. Cause it depends. I don't know what kind of logic he holds to then. I don't like. He's saying, what does that actually mean? What depends what kind of logic he holds to be hold to the page of logic and the actual system that he's holding to. I just don't remember what Mike holds to off the top of my head because I mean, he said surely the three laws are held by all logical systems. The three laws don't aren't in all logical systems. Like, for example, a pair of consistent logic, the three laws of logic aren't necessarily

1:01:36applicable there. So it just depends. I don't know what a lot of his system, system, Michael's to them. Yeah, I just don't know what Mike holds to. So yeah, it's my brothers, please play Jay Dyer's Tom Cruise track. I don't know what the hopefully Joe is, I mean, hopefully Jay is not going to be insulted by the fact that I've never actually watched anything of it. I don't watch content. Wow. I don't watch content. Okay. Yeah, watch your stuff every day, man. Your old stuff. When he's to debates, we miss you on the debate scene. He doesn't do him as much for Jay is me and so he's doing the more important stuff now. He's doing geopolitics fair enough. I've wanted to see people press Muslims and ask if a law creates through his word. What is the nature of his word? Do they share a nature? Thoughts, Nick? If Allah creates through his word, what is the nature of his word? I mean, it depends.

1:02:36I think some Muslims hold a different views on that, but they would say like his word is going to be like him, just going to be himself like his creative power, but it depends on a Muslim though. So, you know, if you're if you're a Jake, you probably hold that it has a whole different ontology. I don't know. It's apparently distinctions equal a different ontology to him. Shouldn't be metaphysicist in not metaphysician, probably could be either. Yeah. I don't really think anybody's going to have a gripe with the unfortunately, Greg, I know it. I get the rhetorical goal, but I cannot wait for Jay to get here and cook. Thank you. Oh, funny, bro. Jake genuinely thinks that Jay is going to come up here and be like, Nick, you are wrong. How dare you say you did so bad? He doesn't like he really thinks that's going to happen. He's really hoping for he got his screen recording ready. It's kind of he's going to be highly disappointed when Jay comes.

1:03:42I assume relative identity is to say that while the father is God proper, the other two are God relatively in that they have the divine essence, but distinct type of set of properties from the father. No, not relative identity is and say the father is God proper in other two are relative. That's not. That's not a relative identity says what do you, how about you, do you want to correct? Yeah, relative, all relative identity is saying that they're identical in some way, but distinct in another. That's all they're saying. And they're one God because they're under the same sort of the father is an under a different sort or he is an under in a different way than the other two persons are that are under it in the same guy way. What is a sort of Nick, a sort of is just going to be a criteria for counting, right? It's a criteria in formal logic that's used for counting things and how we count them. And so it's going to be a place predicate for those things. So when we use, for example, we also have things called dummy sortles as well, which are

1:04:43used in different ways. This is one of the things a, a, what was a Q&A member mentioned. I think they were trying to make this a sort of yeah, yeah, yeah. But if you read Nicholas's Gryffin's book on relative identity, he calls redness a dummy sortle, dummy sortle is just basically a different way to use a sortle. It's just using a different sort of predicate. So yeah, that's all it is. They would be three God if they were separate. This is true. The thing that he's separate, but I guess he thinks that for some reason. Looking forward to part two, Taheed. Are you guys going to do it? Taheed today? I don't know. I mean, maybe if he finally learned some basic logic and reasoning, maybe he got to study some more. Though, listen, I was disappointed because like even after the first debate, I was disappointed because I thought Jake was going to know more than he did, but like he didn't

1:05:45know the difference between like real and formal distinction. He didn't know what the difference is between like an Eastern distinction and another distinction was like a Western real distinction. Like he didn't understand like basic things and logic and I was just kind of disappointed on that. And I feel like I probably should take my, take my debating to someone who maybe knows a little bit more about philosophy. I don't know who that is on the Muslim side, though, they don't really have like a lot. Yeah, I mean, this is where again, like people are going to accuse me of being like a secret Muslim or something. I want to be fair to Jake again, because there is, there is a lot to cover when you're trying to cover something as complex as the Trinity, right? Because like there, there, there is so many different kinds of distinctions. You're going to have to understand so many different types of theology, metaphysical systems, like logical systems, so on and so forth.

1:06:46Yeah, I want to like, that's just my attempt. That's my, I think that's my all-we're branched to Jake there like it is tough, it is tough. It's okay, Jake. It's okay, Jake. It's hard. We know. No, I'm not trying to be like that, bro. It ain't for all of us, bro, debate, debate, debate for everybody, huh? No, I, well, I'm not, I'm, bro, I'll be the first to admit, I'm a trash debater, I'm not a good debater. I'm like, I can write a paper, I can write a paper. Did you say for real, bro? It's not planned. Debate me right now. Debate me right now. Let's go. You might cook me, man. Probability theory. That's what we're into debate about, are you ready? I want to get cooked, man. I don't want that smoke. All right. Yeah, people are waiting for Jay still. Hurry up, Jack. You in the BNB? Yeah. Right. Nick destroyed Jake so bad. I heard Morocco is thinking about the, hey, hey, he said turn off YouTube permissions.

1:07:47He's here. Turn off permissions. What does that mean? I don't know. But he said he's here. He said he got turn off YouTube permissions though. I don't know what that means. Jay is here. God. He's coming. Turn off YouTube permissions. Maybe you're able to link or something. Yeah, send him the link again. Okay. I got you. Let me. Permissions on StreamYard. He says, I, I, uh, he has permission set to log in to StreamYard. So you have to turn those permissions off to where he doesn't, he doesn't have to log into StreamYard. He says you can turn them off. Okay. I don't know. I, uh, this is. Okay. Well, hopefully, Mike will respond then. Can't be that hard. Well, I'm not, uh, I'm not logged in as an admin. So. Well done.

1:08:47Jay is coming, guys, don't need no need to fear. I'll see if I can do that just in case, but let's see. Hey, it's Bubba Wallace from 2311 Racing. You know what it feels like forever? Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff. Good thing. I've got Jamba Casino with daily boost in social casino games on tap. This is a kind of fun that makes time fly. Why not turbo charge it down time? Play now at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba. Sponsored by Jamba Casino, no purchase necessary. BGW GroupFord, we're prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome.

1:09:48Um, I think I saw Billboard years recently that said, uh, 20 billion, one, 20 billion insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open or call centers always waiting to take your call 24, 7365. Wow. Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. It makes me log into YouTube and I'm on a browser, not log that. Yeah. So he's saying, let's, uh, I think I fixed it. Okay. He said he's thinking fixed it. I see if you can close it out and re go back in.

1:10:54We're dealing with some onks over here, sorry, chat, technology, any day for it, uh, let's see. It should should be fixed. I'll read another super chat while we wait. Thank you guys, Jake, one brain cell telephone, hey, by the way, you're kind of lagging a little bit. I am now. Yes. How? I don't know. It's not my fault. You can't, it's your fault to mom. Yeah, that's on me, my though. Ortho Joe, I would like to humbly ask Pope J. Dyer. If Pope J. Dyer would grant me an annulment, I wish to leave my Mormon spacewife for a funco pop. What am I reading? He's me, brother.

1:11:57All right, is Jay people to be missed you back to? But you're, I don't know what chai, it chai is a fan lagging for y'all too. It doesn't look like I'm like, I got the stream pulled up and I'm like not seeing any lagging as I'm. Well, it could be me. Maybe you're just lagging for me. It could be me. Are you in McDonald's right now? It could be. You got to get off them and ask a lot of nose. So it must be me as long as I'm not lagging. Yeah, it's your fault. Oh, there he is. Oh, my God. Finally. There he is. What's going on, bro? Hey, are we all? All right. Well, let's just get this out of the way first, you know, go ahead, give him, give Nick the spankings and all that stuff. What? That's what ties me. It's easy for you. I ain't spankin' no dudes as gay as hell. Yeah, well, everybody in the chat said that you are going to give him spankings and

1:12:59then automatize him. So we're just going to get that out of the way. Yeah, well, the way it works in orthodoxy is if you ever make a mistake or if you disagree with a person or if you get anything wrong, you're automatically asking me to get it. So sorry, you're done, dude. I'm all over with you, bro. You're close. You know how many may as well just do that while that's crazy, you know, it's your mid-sentence bro. That's crazy. All right. Well, do you guys just want to get straight into the cross-exam now that, uh, yeah, all right. And yeah, if you want to just pause anytime, just like, look, just like say it. Okay. Well, a couple of things I'd like to say before it goes any further because I think it's already been pointed out, you know, Jake tends to want to sort of pit people against one another. And I mean, I get the rhetorical strategy there, but it really has nothing to do with the subject matter that's being debated. So I like that in this debate, Nick kept bringing it back to the topic at hand.

1:14:05Weanling Craig's ideas, yes, the energies, you know, what does that have to do with whether or not what Nick argued was a consistent presentation. So I've seen the first section of the debate. I'm not seeing where it goes. And then I would just a couple of areas of disagreement, but I want to say before I mentioned that that I don't think this is not what makes a person a heretic in the orthodox church. Heresy is when you're obstinately knowingly going against the orthodox or clerical teaching. And in 2018 as an example, like I thought that Christ was soon to fall in human nature. So I was ignorant and I was incorrect in that position. And I had some clergy reach out and show me from, you know, many of the church fathers that that was incorrect. So I had to, you know, basically to say, I got that wrong, it's not a big deal, right? So I think maybe in the Islamic conception, if you've got something wrong, it's sort of like de facto shirk or something like that. So they sort of default to to thinking that, but we don't think that just because somebody disagrees or they got a theological position wrong or something like that.

1:15:08And I'm not trying to go at Nick at all and just saying that it doesn't work that way. So it's like, oh, because Jake made a video of the dire anatomatizes Nick, which I would say though that I don't agree with Augustine's interpretation of Jacob's wrestling with the angel because prior to Augustine, most of the church fathers interpreted that the affinies asked the person of Christ. And one thing that's important to note there is that the affinies are a bit of a mystery. So for example, St. Aaronnaeus, if you read Bishop Aaronnaeus' work on St. Aaronnaeus, when he talks about that the affinies, he speculates that the deified flesh of Christ in the resurrection because it becomes eternal. It's outside of time and space. It can also function kind of back in the garden. I think that could work as a model for some of the the affinies. For example, perhaps in Ezekiel 1 or Ezekiel 10, when you have one like the Son of Man appearing

1:16:10who's described as the face of God, the glory of God. But there's other passages where we have references to the aphanic presentations or manifestations that that doesn't seem to work with. For example, Leviticus 9, it talks about the glory of the Lord appearing to all of Israel. And it says, the fire came out before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering. And I think if we look at the way Paul and Hebrews describes God, he says, our God is a consuming fire. And I don't think there's any created fire. In fact, if you read the debate that Palomas has with Barlium, the idea that there is a created element to the the affinies is, he tends to argue against that. Again, you could perhaps have the opinion that Bishop Aaronnaeus has from St. Aaronnaeus that may be in some of these the affinies is the physical, resurrected flesh of Christ that's appearing even in the garden or something like that. But there's also situations where it doesn't seem to be the case. There's several the affinies in numbers, there's a couple of places, again, in Leviticus,

1:17:11where it seems like the fire is called God, the cloud is called God, the cloud is referenced in the New Testament, for example, as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And the glory cloud that's over Mary is an energetic manifestation like the dove and like the tongues of fire at Pentecost. And when, for example, the icon counsel, when it decided that you could only present the Holy Spirit in his energetic manifestation of dove or fire, it is not saying that the Holy Spirit is created fire. It's not saying the Holy Spirit is a dove or a bird, it's saying that it's a manifestation like that. Because we don't equate God to any created thing. These are sort of analogous terms that describe the energy. So even the word fire or the word light, we only know those things from the created light of Genesis 1 compared to the uncreated light of John 1 or the uncreated fire of God or the energy of God, the light of God. Those are all kind of synonymous things.

1:18:12It's just the divine energy and manifestation itself versus how it appears in time and space, which I don't think is created. Now, the problem there is often times people say, well, but wait a minute. How can you have a form in time and space, right? And again, you could go with the Bishop Aaron ASX, example, excuse me, Bishop Aaron ASX, St. Aaron ASX, example, or we could just simply say that this is the way Paloma Sargeus on Barlin brings it up is that it's a situation where God transcends the logical antinomies that there's not a limitation on what God can do in time and space because it's really no different than the Kenosis of Philippians 2 where the second person that God had will fully limits himself in time and space. So I think that the toolkit that Orthodoxy has, we have these metaphysical distinctions that allow for the difference between nature, person, will, energy, and the created effect, but also the level of mode, right?

1:19:12And the mode in which God appears is different from the thing in itself. So the energies come to us through the mode of the persons that act, but energies are not proper to person, that would be the monophysic position or the appolinarian position that Winley Craig has. Energy is a proper to nature, and that's why God's nature is one, and thus there's one energy, as John Damascus says in chapter 1, but also later on in chapter 1 he says that there are many energies God because there are many works of God. So I think everything that we've talked about so far in this discussion, I totally agree with. My only qualm would just be with the fact that when Augustine says that Jacob is wrestling with his sin, that is true. That's a spiritual interpretation of the passage, which is perfectly fine in our layered exegesis, but it's also the case that there is a real interacting that's going on. And for example, if we were to spiritualize that passage, we would have very other crucial passages saying judges, judges six, for example, where it says that when the angel of the Lord appeared, it says he stood next to Gideon and he turned his Yahweh, turned his face

1:20:18to Gideon. So Yahweh has a face, right? In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel 10, the son of man, one like the son of God, one who is the glory of God, the appearance of God's glory, et cetera, all these descriptors are in some way the ability for God to be in time and space. It is a coming and a going, but there's nothing about that that makes God a creature any more than the second person the God had being born in a stable, right, in Palestine and not in China, right? He's willfully limiting some of his. Hey, it's Mama Wallace from 2311 Racing. You know what feels like forever? Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff. Good thing I've got Jamba Casino with daily boost in social casino games on tap. This is a kind of fun that makes time fly. Why not turbocharged your downtime? Play now at JambaCasino.com, let's jump up.

1:21:18Sponsored by Jamba Casino, no purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plots, terms and conditions apply. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Bill Board of yours recently that said 20 billion, one, 20 billion is an insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows, so the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open, our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247-365. Wow. Dan Morgan.

1:22:18From Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com. We're an office near you. Attributes and powers to condescent to us. And if you read St. Cyril or a lot of the Eastern fathers, they oftentimes speak of the incarnation as this canosis that is a powerful mystery. Now, I'm not just appealing to mystery to say it's irrational or something like that. I don't think that the Trinity or the incarnation or the energies are irrational. They're super outrational and that's why they are prior to any of the medical, physical systems that we might appeal to, whether it's Aristotelian metaphysics or whether it's paraconsystem logic or classical logic, all of those things are only going to be limited in the way that they can describe or picture the mode in which God exists. So that's all I want to say. But there is, by the way, one last quote I'll say just to be really quick here, sort of rambling. Polymos is helpful because he says that the only way that there could have been an appearing

1:23:23that the Israelites could have seen and he says even their physical eyes were able to see the divine energies, the uncreated reality of God. And you can think about this in the Old Testament with the Leviticus 9 passage or the transfiguration. It's essentially the same problem in either passage in either chapter, right, Matthew 17 or Leviticus 9. How could you have created beings seeing the uncreated energy of God? Because we all agree that no one has seen the divine essence, I guess, in the last year of Roman Catholic. And Professor Manserides has a great book called Deification of Man that the Algae of Gregory Polymos is a very short 100 page book. I recommend it as well as everybody should read the debate between Barley and my orthodox is only 100 pages as well because all of these topics come up there including the affinities, including whether God's works are infinite. And he says, Polymos finds no difficulty in giving the appropriate answer. Man is incapable of experiencing uncreated light through his powers of perception. So by our natural power, you cannot see God, you cannot see the uncreated energies. However, man is capable through a deification that occurs so that he can perceive it not

1:24:31just in the news, but even with the physical eyes. And this is, I think, an explanation for some of these Old Testament, the affinities. This light, Polymos, has sometimes also been seen by the eye of the body, not with mere created sensory power, but they see it after having been transformed by the Holy Spirit. For in the age to be, this same body will endure forever, gazing upon the divine light, but it will have become spiritual as Saint Paul says. So even in the Old Testament, even when the patriarchs are seeing these manifestations, SMS has a very similar situation where he says the only way that in the Old Testament Abraham could see the triad or see the sun was because he had a deified perception that allowed him to see it. So it's still by grace, we're not saying that it's by human nature or anything like that. The only way to see God is if God gives you the uncreated eyes, the uncreated grace to see God. So go ahead. So with that being said, then, you should pull up Jake Supershot and then we'll have

1:25:35Jay answer questions. Let's say that's the perfect time to do it. We'll have Jay answer the question on the record. We'll say wrong one, Dan Lever is crazy. No, it's my wife. Because people in the chat are like, Jay, for your context, I don't tell people what tradition I fall in line with, but because I'm Greek, most people see them orthodox. I'm not going to confirm or do that. We can talk off stream if you want to. So my wife was just telling everybody, I'm Greek. So for the record, are you anathematizing me today and I'm a heretic? So again, no. I mean, in the orthodox church, we don't say that even if we disagree or even if we necessarily got, if you get something wrong or I got something wrong, that's not what makes a person a heretic. That's not what rings about anathema. Anathema is a pronunciation by a counselor or by a synod or you could reason that, I mean,

1:26:36even if a person, for example, persisted in teaching Aryanism, eventually they would fall under the anathema. But I think, again, this is something that Jake didn't understand when I was on the Inspiring Philosophy's channel some couple of years ago where we talked about Justin Martyr. The church has a tendency to be pretty forgiving even in theological errors amongst the church fathers. And we don't believe they're infallible. So the question then is, well, how do we know when there's an error that's enough to put you outside the church or an error that's excusable? Well, thankfully we have these guideposts of anathema as an excommunication. So for example, if you can trust somebody like a like a gustan with origin, origin was condemned in his own day by saints that lived contemporary with him. And origin did not receive correction to reject his positions and was subsequently excommunicated by multiple ecumenical councils. So origin was persistent and is obviously a heretic.

1:27:37A gustan says in book Three of On The Trinity, I can't re-greak. I submit this to the universal Catholic church, not to the Pope, by the way, to be judged to see if these things are correct. And if I've said anything wrong, he says the Catholic church is free to reject any of my opinions. That's the attitude of a humble saint versus a person who persists in arrogance. So that's something that I think Jake doesn't understand about orthodoxy functions with errors amongst the church fathers. He wants it to be kind of an all or nothing Protestants style situation. But I do believe that the fire that appears is an uncreated fire. Is it a material heresy to believe the fire was a created effect? I have to be honest and say that I think it's the fourth Palomite Synod when it rejects the teaching of one of the Thomas who wanted to say that they were created effects. By the fourth Palomite Synod, it would be incorrect to say that. It doesn't make you a heretic unless you willingly and knowingly persists in that. Amen.

1:28:38So not a heretic. That's crazy. I thought I was going to get spank on this live, but apparently not. But cool. All right. We didn't cross exam. Because Jake doesn't want to be gay. That's the only thing saving you right now. Exactly. He doesn't want to be gay. That's the only reason why he doesn't want to spank me. That's it. Crazy, man. All right. You guys ready to get into the cross exam? We'll do it. All right. I think this is where it starts. Let's see. Okay. Is this the cross exam? No, it's not that. I don't know. I think this is. I think we're on the first or logic. Okay. Uncreated birds. Or tell them, because this is a way from the person's in a divine consistency within the model and within the claims. It's not very. That is. Well, we can, yeah, we'll go with, yeah, it's a little crap. Yeah. I guess. Is this the cross exam. Yeah. Let's go straight to the cross exam. Well, where does the rebuttal start? Cuz you're. Syntax here, but it's just like into a formalization to a formalization here that I used My first question was what's an identity operator? So keep going back a little bit deduces that one thing is equal to another

1:29:4130 seconds to cross examine Jake 15 minutes Ready when you are I will start on your first word You're muted and you guys can just tell me what to stop whenever you want hold on My bad, I'm not here. Can you hear me? Yep, there you go. Jake, what is an identity operator in first or logic? What does that have to do with my argument? Because I'm giving you a formalization and formalization uses an identity operator. So I'm asking do you know what it is? I have no idea what it is. Okay, an identity operator in first or logic is basically the symbol that deduces that one thing is equal to another. Are you familiar with that? Okay, one thing being equal to another and do you think that identity operators in first or logic are limited to absolute identity? I don't know what you mean by the question. So when we use the equal symbol in first or logic, is it limited to absolute identity or can we use other types of identity?

1:30:48It depends on what system it is. It depends on who is using the equal sign. It can be interpreted differently. So it can be used differently? Correct, yeah. Okay, great. So I want to show you a formalization here that I used. This formalization is going to deduce why we believe that it is one god. And I'll go ahead and share my screen here. All right, I'll get that up. Okay, yeah, all right, I'm ready. All right, it's on the screen. Okay, there you go. All right, so I put this into a formalization using first or logic. And I was curious if you could find a logical inconsistency with this. Now he's just going to try to find out. Was this part of your original presentation? No, when I said I was going to formulate it, this is what it's about. Okay, so this was not. Yeah, so if you're, if you're, if you're merely talking about real quick, real quick, real quick, as part of it looks appears to not be on the screen. And there Nick, it looks like the, where the F equals, there's an underscore.

1:31:49Did you want to say anything on the formalization here, Nick, real quick? Well, I think it's funny that he's about to, when we look at it, he's about to call it wrong. But later on in the debate, we find out he doesn't even know how to read it. And if you didn't know how to read it, that's totally fine. I don't expect everyone to understand how to read this, but also don't say it's wrong if you don't even know how to read it in the first place. So if you just now learn what an identity operator was, 30 seconds ago, you also probably shouldn't be saying it's wrong. Yeah, so can we translate that this for everybody then? Yeah, so you're basically saying the father is not the saying that's what the not through the equals mean is not the same person as the son. And then the little one that goes like this is an and saying and the father's not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And the son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And the son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. And the person the father and the person of the son and the person of the Holy Spirit are the same God. And the father is the same God as the Holy Spirit. That's what it equals is is the same God as the Holy Spirit.

1:32:50We're now on the second line. And the son is the same God as the Holy Spirit and God the father God the son and God the Holy Spirit are one God because they're under one G. That's all that's saying is all it's just formulating the fact that we believe that they're distinct persons, but one God in a way in which first order logic is using it. Yeah. And to be clear for everybody here, this is okay. What you're doing here because you are using relative identity here. How to have fun anytime anywhere. Step one, go to chamba casino dot com. Chamba casino dot com. Got it. Step two, collect your welcome bonus. Come to pop a welcome bonus. Step three, play hundreds of casino style games for free. That's a lot of games all for free. Step four, unleash your excitement. Chamba casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chamba life. Visit chamba casino dot com. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

1:33:50Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Billboard years recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone do in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call 24, 7365. Wow. Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan and America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Yes. It is you, you are counting identity according to the sort or sortle.

1:34:51Right. God. Right. Okay. I just wanted to clear that up because I know for a fact that people were confused about. I figured we should clear that up. Yeah. Probably someone asked me in the Q&A and I explained it as well. So people are still saying hieroglyph. Yeah. That's what that's what it looked like to Jay. He thought it was hard. Let's fix that a little bit. Yeah. It's okay. It's. You can see right there. It's just a G. That's all it is. Okay. All right. Yeah. Continue your time. Go ahead. Yeah. So if the question is and this is what seems to be the hang up. The or what your approach is the entire time. If you think that and I'm just grabbing the book here because it's relevant to what I'm going to say now. If you think that nearly providing a logical structure on paper in which the Trinity can fit in. And be in and be consistent within that structure itself. Then sure I fully grant that.

1:35:51Already. Already over. Yeah. Literally at this point, the debate is over. Like he's openly admitting in this formal system, the Trinity is logical. I want more than to talk about. Yeah. So push back if you think I'm wrong here. I think you need a two concessions. One being that this is consistent under relative identity into that either he's going to concede to relative identity. Or concede that this is a possible construal or something like that. Now all he needs to do is accept this is possible. He didn't even have to. Yeah. Yeah. If he's admitted that it's that this is consistent, then he's giving up that the Trinity is a logical. Yep. Yeah. The logical there's no system in which. Yeah. Say it's consistent. He does try later on to argue against relative identity, but I. The only way that I think he tried to do that is by calling it at hawk. Yeah. Being at hawk has nothing to do with whether or not something is like because again, it's not at hawk.

1:36:54But even if it was at hawk and has nothing to do with whether or not a logical system is consistent. So it's just, I mean, just his misunderstanding of what logic is. Yeah. I could come up with a system that is at hawk and some of the people who talk about paracosism logic will come up with all kinds of while crazy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And I think this is where he was getting the hang up in the debate is he was trying to say, okay, well, is this specific. Is the Trinity like, is it true? Right. Like we could just say that is it true? Well, the debate wasn't about whether or not it's true. If it's whether or not it's true, obviously we're going to start going to the church fathers and we're going to start using divine revelation. But that's not the case. The case is whether or not we can ever make a formulation. Exactly. That's what this was. I think pretty devastating. There was a similar situation to in the boat of brands, boat brands and discussion about the Unomian premise that he had with with Dr. Branson when they got to the table the logic table.

1:37:54Because Jake kept wanting to make it somehow necessarily inconsistent for there to be the son to be God and the father to be God. And the spirit to be God, whether to be one God. And once Dr. Branson showed from the logic table that there's nothing inconsistent with that because you can have. You can have something as part of a class of things that it doesn't have all the same properties of the members of the class, right. And if you show that, then it's not logically inconsistent. And so Jake keeps not understanding that there's metaphysical things out there in the world. But there's and then there's types of logic and logical systems argumentation that doesn't necessarily imply an immediate metaphysical stance. So it's called it's like a metaphysical quietism that some systems of logic or arguments have. And they don't necessitate the ontological conclusions. And that's what he's not understanding.

1:38:54He's wanting and needing it to be all of this ontological stuff. But if you wanted to do that, then like, like Nick said, he needed to make it the premise of the base should have been is the Trinity true, not is it logically inconsistent. Yeah, because the whole point was he thinks the LPT can make it so in which there's no way we can say that Trinity's one God. If we're actually being consistent yet, that's not the case. And so he fumbled very badly and we'll see over the next like couple of minutes. I'll continue asking him the same question. And he just can't come up with a proper answer and understanding of it. Yeah, really quick. I'm seeing people in the chat asking what the underscore is neck correct me from wrong. The underscore before the G is just marking the sortle. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, it's not necessarily marking a sortle because it's also under the term person and person wouldn't be a sortle there. Yeah. Yeah. The first line. Father's not the same person.

1:39:54He wouldn't be a sortle. It's basically just marking a term in which they're they're all under that they're either the same as or not the same as that's all it's doing. Gotcha. Okay, let's keep going. I mean, I'll give an example Peter Van Inwagen in this text here goes into quite a bit of detail regarding relative identity. And he formulates the Trinity and his particular model and understanding in what he calls relative identity logic. So, yes, if you're using a relative relative identity logical structure in a similar way that Peter Van Inwagen is, then it can be self consistent, but that has nothing to do with my argument. So you agree, though, the model I gave is indeed logic this or the Trinity the model that I gave is indeed logically consistent. No. Okay, so can you tell me an inconsistency? I think the.

1:40:56I mean, he literally just completely contradicts himself. It's oh, yeah, it is self consistent, but nah, it's not a lot of what? I think what he's trying to say there is no, it's not because relative identity is something he doesn't hold to. It doesn't even matter. That has nothing to do. No, I know it doesn't. This is why this is why I was telling you on our call to him like, I can't tell what's happening here, but like I want to give Jake the benefit of that and just say he's not being a good communicator here. I just think he just doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm the honest. Okay, well, I'm going to I'm going to choose to be nice. The problem that you're not understanding is merely because you can put the model into a specific logical structure that you hold to. And it can be consistent within that that therefore it's logical in the general sense.

1:41:56No, all that has to show is not illogical. In other words, if he concedes that in that system, it's consistent and not illogical, then all of that that he just said is irrelevant. So I mean, that was the premise of the debate with him literally for something to be logically consistent. Yeah, exactly. That's that's that's what the debate is and that hang up is the point is is that if you are using a logical structure or a logical system like. Van and wagon does in the book right where he uses relative identity logic and this is what he describes it as. Then yes, it can be a consistent within its own paradigm. However, I do not ascribe to that paradigm. I do not believe. His his lack of subscription to the paradigm is that's called a psychological report in debate. And that's irrelevant to the topic of debate.

1:42:57Yeah, that's cool. But so what is that? Whether it's. Yeah. That reminded me of debating new atheist back in 2011, 2012. Exactly. That's not described this model. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's you cannot. The logical. This is how Matt Dylan he still argues he still says I don't find this convincing. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. What does that prove? Let me know if you want to jump to a different timestamp or anything to Nick. Okay. I'm just going to keep going. Or I guess like a minute because we're going to keep talking about this for like the next minute or two. He just not really going to and he's going to keep contradicting himself model that I gave logically consistent. Yes or no? Yeah. I just told you how we define it. So are you accepting any logical system whatsoever? We're talking about class. That's why I said, according to class, we're talking about classical logic right now. So according to classical logic, I gave you the definition of logical consistency.

1:43:57So can you answer the question now? Is this. I am answering the question. I am answering the question. I'm saying. Just. I'm not asking about different models. So just. Yes or no? It's relevant. It's. It's consistent in the same way that JCBL's contradictory crisis is consistent. Okay. I'm asking, is it consistent according to the definite the classical definition of logically consistent? Only in the sense in which you use the term logic in such a general way to include all of these different. Formulations of logic, which I don't accept. We're only using one. We're using first order logic. Yes. And you're using relative identity logic, aren't there? There's no such thing as relative identity logic. Relative. Yeah. You can pause it there too. Type of I. Relative identity is not its own section of logic. Relative identity is under classical logic. It's you. It's just all it's doing is changing the identity operator. And so he's mistaken again to say that it's.

1:44:59A completely different type of logic like this doesn't make any sense. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah. It's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumpacaceno.com. Let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CTNC's. 21 plus. Sponsored by Chumba Casino. I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome. I think I saw Billboard years recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is insane number. Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan?

1:45:59What would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. It's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24, 7365. Wow. Dan Morgan. From Morgan and Morgan and America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you. Yeah. Well, so maybe this might be a good place for the to help the audience out too. Because many people are going to argue that like if you hold to some sort of relative identity, you are going outside of the confines of classical logic, or you might be rejecting Leibniz law, for instance. Yeah. That's again, that would just be a misunderstanding of logic. You can use Leibniz law with things other than absolute. I get Leibniz law does not necessarily have to use absolute identity. We can say two things are identical using relative identity. And that they're absolutely. And then a equals be in this sense in every way, right? It doesn't necessarily necessitate in all other ways that they're also identical.

1:47:00Because Leibniz law never states that within this law that the identity operator is absolute identity. It's not. It's not the case at all. All right, let's keep going. Identity operator within first sort of logic. So again. You're using your. You're. You're. You're relativizing identity. Correct. We're using the relative identity operator. It's not a tone type of logic is being identity is being relativized. I don't accept relative identity. That's the point. Great. Whether or not you accept the relative identity, I'm not asking whether you accept it. I'm asking if there is a contradiction according to this view or if we use the Trinity in this formulation, would that be logical? And I already I already responded. When you say would you say would that be logical? I have a comment here. Yeah, what's up? Relative identity is not identity relativized. This is kind of a basic. He's missing. He's doing a word concept fallacy. So for example, like.

1:48:01It's it's like classes of things, right? Or things having a different. Set of cells or something over time. Like that's not relativizing the identity. It's just saying that the identity is relative amongst the class of things that it might share properties, but it also might have. Might not have other properties that that class of things has. That's not relativizing the identity. So he doesn't understand what that means. Yeah. And I'm already seeing some objections in the chat that like. I briefly brought up earlier. Maybe you guys just want to take the time to address them now. Right. Somebody saying, for instance. That is modifying. Like it's law. So it's not like it's law. Or rather like a very dumb comment to make. Because if you're saying that it's modifying liveness law, you're presupposing that liveness law is automatically used with absolute identity. Yeah, it's not. And so no, nobody said nobody says that. Lime is never said that. Nobody says that. So. Yeah, it's just very, very misinformed to say that.

1:49:03All right. Do you want me to keep going from here? Nick, we're fast forward again. Let's go. You can keep going from here. So wait a minute. Just a second. Okay. So this is a. Jake's logical paradigm. And according to the logical paradigm that is the standard amongst logicians and philosophers, the answer would be no. I'm not asking according to your paradigm, I'm asking. According to me. I do have a question on this. Okay. Because I hear this line all the time. Is there actually like consensus. Or what's considered light like. An orthodox view of logic. In identity amongst philosophers. Or is this just like a cheaper, torical point. Like, do you guys know by identity? I don't think there's one of identity. I mean, I'd say most I mean with nox use classical logic, but I mean orthodox theology predates modern analytical philosophy. So it's not gonna have a lot of the same fleshed out Ideas and that's why I know we were not on the subject of counting by identity or counting by division, but like That's common in the ancient world different things were counted in different ways because they were different types of things

1:50:07Right, so like you can't count something abstract or what's called a second-order imposition Which is just to say something kind of Conceptual like a law of logic or a set of things that's not physical. You can't count that as a half right like You can't say half the law of logic, right? So for those kinds of things they required counting by identity But for other types of things like in the mundane world like it makes a lot of sense why people would have counted by division right like I have a bagel. I split it with my Jewish friend We've counted by division now one bagel has become two right and then went and so when even Al-Gazali he counts by division the church fathers and the ecumenical councils when they talk about the divine essence One and undivided. They're counting by by division But other things are counted by identity and that's not inconsistent and he kept calling it ad hoc and even at the beginning of this debate when I was listening on in the car He still calls it that's an ad hoc way of counting No people in the ancient world counted both ways not ad hoc

1:51:10It more so has to do with the types of things being counted and whether it's functional to count them that in this way or the other way and so If we're talking about a thing that has unity and multiplicity ironically His own a law would have to be counted both by Deficient and by identity so the 99 ontologies that he talks about would have to be counted by identity Versus all as essence being one and undivided. So he doesn't really understand that it's the same metaphysical problem. It's just different It's different Things in question whether it's on taught whether it's the attributes or whether it's the person's the same metaphysical problem at work here So the fact that as you translated into a formal system here Which he's admitted is consistent. He's still not understanding that it's just talking about classes of things like it's saying that one thing can be Set off against another thing in a class of thing and have a relative identity that's the same

1:52:13But also not the same in other respects. It's not that complicated. I don't know why he's I think he's just sort of going off into other Deflections to get away from the fact that he realized oh, I might have messed up in the conceited of the debate Yeah, yeah Yeah, and Jay believes Jews are the chosen people still confirmed. All right, let's keep going All right, a paradigm of classical editions when they define logical consistency Is it is this model I gave a logically consistent according to that definition? Oh, man, I think you're missing the point when you keep using the word logical and logic according to classical Logicians, I'm saying to you that my interpretation of that is not an all-encompassing Buffet of whatever you want to input. I don't accept Relative identity or relative ising identity as a genuine aspect I'm not asking if you accept it. I'm not asking that. I'm not asking if you use it in your words It's not what I'm asking. Okay, what I'm asking is and if you want to deny the definition that I gave that I gave a source for as well

1:53:19For that So I'm not asking about your logic what you take from etc I'm asking using the relative identity operator and the formulation I gave According to the definition that classical editions used is it logically consistent? No, yes or no? No, okay, he knows like Jay said he knows he messed up so he changes his answer at first He said it was now. He says it's not he can't make up his mind What's up with his new set looking like a vape shop, dude. Yeah, I'm about to order a damn You know apricot Sir up from my vape in there and can Jake give me some halal vape Jake The name of the shop Oh, man the hookah oh boy Anyway, all right. Well, where do you want to go from here?

1:54:22We're almost down there. I think okay free with it that there mean there must be a contradiction within this So if you could put it back up on the screen and I would like Jake to show the inconsistency here again You're I don't know if I'm talking beyond you or you're not understanding me when you keep asking if it's logically consistent It means according to what logical system I just don't want to logic According to what logical system and if you're asking me and if you're asking me Is it consistent in a in a logical system which accepts Identity being relativized then the answer is yes If it's in a system if it's in a system that does not accept Identity being relativized or take that as a genuine standard then the answer is no Okay, that's classical logic except relative identity as a part of them a specific model that can be used

1:55:23Uh, that's that's debated. I have Branson for example himself Seems to think that it doesn't Okay, so do you believe it does? No, or you just saying you don't know No, okay, why do you believe that? As I said because I'm appealing to others who are experts in the field are saying that know the How you define classical logic or classical identity is going to be understood and a specific way that does not have Identity being relativized Do you even know how to read this can you put it back on the screen? Do you know before we get to that point I Am I missing something with this response there Nick because I feel like he just said a bunch of nothing right there Well, yeah, all he's all he's trying to say is that he believes relative identity isn't classical logic So I'm not even using classical logic also. I don't even know both says that I haven't personally I don't look at this if he does say that because I don't I've never seen that because yeah bow in his dissertation has an entire section on relative identity

1:56:30Yeah, he does is and and I never read anywhere in there him say it's not I'm looking to see if he says uh Yeah, I mean he literally formulates relative identity in there using first sort of logic So I don't see then how he's gonna turn around say it's not classical logic Well, why are you trying to find that Jay? We'll go to this part. I guess I felt really bad for Jake here man Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chamba casino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me And you know what they were doing they were also playing chamba casino everybody's loving having fun with it Chamba casinos home the hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime anywhere So sign up now at chamba casino.com to claim your free welcome bonus. It's chamba casino.com and live the chamba life sponsored by chamba casino No purchase necessary vgw group void for prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply I I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man

1:57:32Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 million is an insane number Yeah 20 billion recovered It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year and each year we get bigger and batter and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on awesome So how does someone doing contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident probably the easiest way is dialing pound law That's pound five two nine from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 7 365 wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm Thanks for coming by the show thanks for having me visit for the people calm for an office near you Not to read this like do you know what I'm saying here? Good you are you out of your mind You're not you're not it's not okay. It's totally not you're not you're not listening to what I'm saying at all

1:58:35Okay, I understand I'm asking question. Do you know how to read this? No, do not So all right, but you could have just said that from the jump bro. Okay None of us has anything to do none of this has anything to do with what I'm saying But it doesn't bro. It does because I told you that okay, what is a model in classical logic? What is a model? Model is a set of premises that are being used to describe a particular doctrine I brought never I don't know. No, that's no I've never a model is a specific set of premises. It's used to describe. Is he trying to say a model equals a syllogist? I don't that's what it sounds like he's trying to say. I'm not sure very weird Yeah, so why don't you why don't you answer that the question for for people like Yeah, a model is basically going to be a set of what it's going to be like predicates like we're using here So it's going to be a certain System that we're using in which we can deduce that there is a conclusion that can be considered logical

1:59:38It can be considered consistent. That's what I'm using here I'm giving a model using first order logic in which we're describing something that is going to be It has nothing to do with premises and it has nothing to do with a I don't know the metaphysical the metaphysical properties of a thing that lead to that sort of conclusion like I don't know where he's getting his definition from here Yeah There's really interesting literature even on model Model theory in general as it pertains to first order logic. Yo Nick actually. I'm going to send you this book It's an old one. It's called model theory I think you'll like it. So remind me later. Okay, let's keep going. Oh, no, no, that's not okay. Oh my gosh Okay, that's not what it is. Okay, what we're talking about when we understand What it is it's a specific domain that is being used. Okay, it's a specific domain We can use a identity operator is using different logical symbols etc This is what I'm giving you the reason why I ask you that question. You're still content

2:00:40No, the content is the things like the identity operator What is the content? What is the meaning behind them? The predicates. Okay, first order logic Is not understanding that That there's you don't have to have a metaphysical entailment, right? You can still argue that it's logically consistent Based on it doesn't have to be the Trinity, right? It could be anything that fits with Uh, within a class of things, right? So he needs to just simply show that that's inconsistent It's exactly a move that happened in the Branson debate with the logic table where he kept assuming that there's all these metaphysical ontological entailments with Anybody who says that you know the Sun is God and the Father is God and there's only you know There's only then there's more than one God like he's saying that you have to accept the Unami and premise that The all this metaphysical baggage and it's like no just by logic itself

2:01:41There's nothing inconsistent with something having some properties amongst a class of things that it shares and other properties That it doesn't have amongst that class you can't show that that's inconsistent That's why he didn't understand and didn't prove his point in the Branson debate And it's like a very similar move this being made here because like he just keeps stating What isn't actually addressing the inconsistency? And so now he realizes he's got to go into saying well, I don't accept your system of logic Okay, but that again is not proving that a model of the Trinity is inconsistent Yep, absolutely Behind the predicates and that's basically no, okay, you don't deal with the confidence behind the predicates You know the predicates themselves, okay? So again the reason why I ask you what a model is because according to my definition of largely consistent Is and and again the one I gave SCP is that it is there is one model which is what I gave you just now that there is one model in which you can give that is largely consistent

2:02:44So again, I want to make it very clear and ask one more time I don't care about any other model. I'm asking according to first or logic and classical logic I'm asking specifically would this Trinity model be logical? No Okay, so then again according definition that said that there has to be some sort of contradiction within the model itself That it would prove that it is illogical so can you doesn't have to be a contradiction within the model itself What it is is it's contradicting the standard logical framework that's used You're appealing to SCP Stanford encyclopedia philosophy If you look at their entry on identity, it defines classical identity as obeying livenance's law which you are not obeying Wait, wait, wait, you think relative identity goes against liven's law? Tyler Reddick here from 2311 racing victory lane Yeah, it's even better with chamba by my side race to chamba casino.com. Let's chamba

2:03:46No purchase necessary VTW group voidware prohibited by law ct and c's 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino I I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan Which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 million is an insane number Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law That's pound five two nine from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 seven three sixty five Wow, Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me

2:04:49Visit for the people dot com for an office near you Yes, it does. Okay, so you think the identity operator and live as law is necessarily absolute identity Live and it says law. Yes, it is absolute identity Oh, can you not say that a is equal to be in a one sense and in that cruise that they're identical in that sense entirely Okay, do you want me to actually bring you up the source from stanford and psychopedia to show you what it actually says that says that that the identity Rob operator is necessarily absolutely identity tells you that it tells you that classical identity Is understood as obeying livenitz's law I agree This is classical identity is part of the classical logical framework So if you're not obeying livenitz's law in terms of absolute identity Then you are not obeying and part of the classical logical structure Okay, can you show me a source that necessity? So in dr. Branson's paper on page 25 and 26

2:05:50He gives two different Versions of relative identity argumentation for the Trinity He says there's pure and there's impure And in the second Version impure He he says a there's nothing that necessitates that you have to have Uh a classical identity claim for example, he says the at the last paragraph So long as in this formulation he's saying x is the same god as y doesn't entail a classical identity claim between x and some other term We are safe and it doesn't seem that it would on the raybrower account, which is the the second version of it which which he calls impure relative identity so that would disprove what Jake claimed earlier Yeah, and that's what we're using obvious is impure I don't think relative identity uh most people went and I hold in relative identity believe in impure because The difference between pure and impure relative identity is just pure relative identity theorist believe that

2:06:53It's going to be you relative identity is using every case. It's the only kind of identity to use impure believe okay It can be used but other types of identity can also be used That's what most are doing He says on the raybrower argument the divine nature is definitely not classical classically identical to the person So we need to go in some more detail Uh, he says that essentially it's consistent. Yep. Amen. Amen Jake miss quoting bow once again just like he did near debate Let's know Well, he might have just read the first part and thought that oh They're just using pure relative identity Yeah, just read read a quarter of it like sense The taste that livin is law uses absolute identity as the identity operator I can show you here. I don't know how you just show me why when you didn't even know and I you didn't even know an identity operator Operator was 10 minutes ago. I don't know how you're going to show that good if you want me to show it to you one minute My own time so I don't waste your time, but I can show you exactly where the Stanford encyclopedia entry

2:07:54explicitly states What classical identity is how it's defined and what domain it falls under and yours does not follow that So I just ask one more question Classical identity. It's okay. I just ask one more question. Okay. Uh, what is the formalization of statements such the infant rule determines three gods You actually have a formalization of your statements Yeah, I gave it in my opening statement here If I pull it up here second So we can wait for him to do it not just ask him one question about that I assume this would be the last question So once he pulls that up, I'll ask him one question about it and then we can Yeah, so last thing I'm doing Today we count F's by one logical subjects that are two discernible from we're at least not identical to one another And our F that is if X and Y differ in any way and are both F-ish we count them as two F's So if you plug the father and son for as an example just as two for simplicity sake the father and son

2:08:55Are logical subjects that are Disturbed from each other more questions. Let's just pull that up. Not not identical to each other are both F meaning are both God and they differ Are both F-ish so we count them as two F's we count them as two gods. We're a time. Oh, yeah, I asked more I want to stop there if asked that's not a formulation. What he just gave is not a formulation. Okay, I'll let me hear I'll share my screen just real fast because because Bo actually does give Formulations for relative identity in his paper um Here's like one example where he gives the formulation of impure right here you guys might not be able to see it But you're gonna zoom in on this. Yeah, I'll just give the reference but oh wait, can I actually I can't I think I zoom in here Yeah, it's controlling screwing me. Oh free It might not let me okay, let me just a Christian minecraft server dude Just kidding. It's okay. Okay, so you guys can see right here. He does get over to the right a little bit or

2:09:59Like it doesn't let me. I'll thank for some reason. Oh wait, there you go Okay, so he does give a formulation here is impure. He does give a formulation and his dissertation But the issue is Jake doesn't know what a formulation is and so what he just gave was not his formulation This is his formulation, but he doesn't know what a formulation is so that's like Yeah, yeah, yeah, so he now I know he wouldn't answer this. I wanted to ask him what the inference rule was because brat Was there was no inference rule because it wasn't a formulation All right, do we want to do his cross-example you now or do you want to it? Is this where he brings up all the essence energy stuff with you Essence energy the birds all that We'll do this. We don't we don't have to go over the closings and all that because that'll fight We're already two hours, but so we'll do his Crosses that up on to asking this. What does he doesn't have to answer though? Okay, I was gonna ask you what's the inference rule for that. Yeah, it's his time

2:11:01Okay, so All right, so now we're gonna throw it over to Jake for his 15-minute cross-examination. I will start the timer on your first word Jake whenever you're ready Okay, one second Let me just I'm just removing this Gotcha Okay, Nick by what relation do you count gods in the Trinity? Are you asking how we formulate it such that it's one god? Are you asking how we determine it like in our epistemology? No, I'm asking you how do you count gods in the Trinity? Sure, if you're asking how we formulate it It's gonna be using the relative identity operator Okay, so what makes it such that there's only one god in the Trinity? Yeah, given that in our set of statements, there's only gonna be one sort of One sort of and what is that one sort of the sort was gonna be stand for god Okay, and what are the criteria to fulfill that sort of Yeah, a sort of itself doesn't have any underlying criteria more than just what it is itself, right?

2:12:03That sort of is just gonna be a standard counting It's gonna be in place of accounting method. So I want to pause here because it's a good part too doesn't say so This is we kind of talked about this earlier as well, but he's assuming that Sortles and these predicates in first orthologic have underlying metaphysical content that we have and so we We were using this right we can say that okay F. Yeah, we know it stands for the father But now what about the father we know or what about the father we provide It has nothing to do with that and he's assuming that there it doesn't make any sense What the thing is itself How do you know what it is? Yeah, we don't we don't say what it is. We simply say it's god It's standing in place for what we formalize. So we say we know it's god We don't know exactly what our attributes of this god is there's a good example of And this like if anybody thinks this is kind of confusing like I remember father de conductor and I as has a good example where it's like if you think about

2:13:06When you're doing a logic or argumentation and you talk about possible worlds right and you say is this You know logically inconsistent in any possible world You're not actually Logically you're not saying that ontologically there are all these other worlds right you just saying that there's no possible world Where this could be logically consistent or could work It does not necessitate that there's all these other multi-verses right So Jake seems to not understand when you say something like In the set this is consistent It doesn't necessitate all of the theological metaphysical baggage that he wants to to add to it Yeah Yeah, hey No, I think you said what you said that well. There's nothing to add on there Behind it Yeah, the content behind it is going to have to do with the epistemology so we have content behind it But it's going to have to do with the epistemology of the things the metaphysics not of the law. What is the content? Yeah, I mean, I'll answer the question, but it has nothing to do with the logic of the Trinity

2:14:08Behind is obviously going to be what we believe the Christian god to be So this is so I mean again, this is like I'm glad that the debate went in this direction, but also it's like I'm guessing that the rest of the debates going to be about whether or not he has to debate the logical consistency or whether or not Because he's already exceeded. It's it's not inconsistent Yeah, yeah, I know I'm not trying to just be repeating myself, but it's like All is this all he does the rest of the time Nick so pretty much yes He goes into that and then he also goes into He talks to start talking about you know the created birds and this uncreated birds and stuff like that He mentions you. He's like, you know how Jay believes in uncreated birds and stuff like that. Why didn't he make a premise? Is it true? Tyler Reddick here from 2311 racing victory lane Yeah, it's even better with chamba by my side race to chamba casino.com. Let's chamba. Don't purchase necessary VTW group boy, we're prohibited by law CT and C's 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino

2:15:10I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good man Tell us who you are and what you do I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard years recently that said 20 billion one 20 billion is an insane number Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year and each year we get bigger and batter and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on Awesome. So how does someone doing contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident probably the easiest way is Diling pound law that's pound five two nine from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 seven three sixty five wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me visit for the people.com for an office near you I don't know that's why it's like he doesn't understand

2:16:12There's a difference between arguing the metaphysical truth of the thing versus arguing if it's logical Consistency exactly. I mean, it's bad. Yeah, that's all he does And I even said that If you watch my own get Nick to contradict himself Yeah, and if you watch my opening I literally put that in my opening because I knew he was going to do that in my opening I said what he can't do and under that I said argue about the metaphysics or the difference in properties And he did exactly what I predicted because he doesn't know what he's talking about It's like the difference between the question um is a equal a Consistent versus what type of a thing is a equae Right, it's a category. It's like two different questions. Yeah, very bad What do you mean who I'm defining it in the statement who defines what the Christian God is and the Power dime in which one is the same God and the other isn't Again, this has nothing to do with the topic, but to me the orthodox you are the doc's church. Yep

2:17:15Okay, so how do they know what it is? How do they define it? Divine revelation Divine revelation. Okay, where does divine revelation tell you the criteria for counting as the same sort of God or not We don't we use the formalization of statements for that So it doesn't tell you there's no wow What you're really positive Well, divine revelation doesn't tell you whether to use a relative identity when you're counting or what type Like no duh My bad God didn't provide us with a specific counting method. Oh, that's a feature not a bug. Oh Wow, at least by my view. I think that's a feature not a bug. Yeah Here is and what everybody needs to see is Nick is putting Symbols on a page and saying these symbols are consistent with its own system But there's no actual content wait that okay that phrase He doesn't have to show the content

2:18:16Right, but that phrase is also really important Because I see Muslims echoing the same phrase which is This model of the Trinity is consistent within its own system But the system is relative identity But that's not a Trinitarian system Yeah, like there is a rhetorical There's a rhetorical Well, it could be a Trinitarian system And that's the point Yeah, what I mean by what I mean by what I'm saying there jays it's not a system invented for the Trinity It's not like a system. That's all I'm trying to say it's it So it's Trinitarian in the sense that it's compatible with the Trinity and Trinitarian models But it's not a it's not a system that's Necessarily Trinitarian like you could hold to relative identity and not be a Trinitarian for instance. That's all trying to say Yeah But

2:19:19Yeah, yeah exactly Yeah, that has nothing to do with the model of the Trinity the content has to do with the metaphysics which we can provide But again, it has nothing to do with the top of it. Okay, so what what are the it's not about the metaphysics It's about Well, that's the metaphysics, so that's not the question of the consistency, so he just contradicted and built He doesn't understand difference between what how we how we talk about metaphysics and logic. He doesn't understand it It's kind of the core of this whole debate. It's a category mistake which It's understandable because I think a lot of and I'm not being just out of hand rude towards Jay But I think a lot of people like it's like a more of a sophomore kind of mistake that you would make in philosophy Where you would think that there's a necessary ontological entailment with a logical system. Well, that's not the case In fact, there's Boolean logic is intentionally developed To not have any ontological commitments

2:20:22You're saying that they're one god because they are one sort of what is that one sort of Yeah, the one sort of again if we want to get into metaphysics is going to be the the people that have the omniproperties Okay, so having the having the omniproperties is sufficient for counting as one god Yeah, that's what we define as one god is going to be the being that has the omniproperties And that those are all essential properties. So sharing the same essential properties is sufficient for counting as one god Specifically the omniproperties. Yeah Okay, so what's the difference between that and the case of human beings Peter James and John when it comes to the example that I gave from Gregoriedness That human beings are potentially instanced while gods are not potentially instance because god has no potential under divine simplicity You cut out you cut out on on my on my end. Can you repeat the last 10 seconds? Yes, it's okay Because humans are potentially instanced while god is not so we would believe that humans are particulars while gods are not particulars

2:21:27Okay, and what establishes that gods are potentially not potentially instance, but humans are Yeah, the fact that we believe god is pure act and he has no potential because potential would lead to change meaning that he's not perfect Uh, what does it mean for god to not have to have to be pure act and not change? Do you mean in any sense? No, I mean specifically passive potential Okay, so do you believe that god acts in succession and does different things at different times Wouldn't say it's acting succession, but I would say he has active potential What do you mean he doesn't uh, did he okay? Let me ask you this way do his energies have a beginning and time Uh, if you mean that they temporally manifest. Yeah, but it's not a beginning to them itself It's not a beginning to them themselves. So his energies Only have a beginning and manifesting, but the energy itself doesn't have a beginning correct And what's your justification for that according to the orthodox church

2:22:29That the energies are eternal according to St. Gregory Polymos Uh, well, why does he say that some of them are not eternal? Like what which ones are eternal? Okay, let me ask it this way According to Gregory Polymos are all of the on uh, energies eternal Yeah, eternal in their ontology. Yes, not in their manifestation Okay, so why does Gregory say the exact opposite? Oh, where does he say that their ontology is created? Okay, so you don't know your own churches Please Gregory say that Yo apparently Polymos believes the ontology of God is right. It's created. That's insane I mean, but that's just I like I don't I don't even know how you can read that You're talking about in book three of the triads, which is the passage where he says that there are different energies And he says that some of those energies manifest in time and come and go Yeah, but that doesn't entail that God undergoes change any more than Jesus in a sense of uh

2:23:30Like limiting himself in the canosis that he underwent change because he will willingly became man And was born in one location and not another location like It's it's a both-and and not-and-either-or So you can you see this a lot in Muslim debates because they want to say that well if the second verse that God had came down And became incarnate then he necessarily underwent change But there's nothing that requires that a being who has free will who Willingly limits and chooses not to exercise all of his capacities There's nothing about that the necessitates change So when we say that God is pure act We're speaking that in a sense the divine essence is pure act contrasted to created things And we're not saying in a caliphatic way the divine essence is pure actuality because then there could never be any Mode of being that one person enters into that the father or the spirit doesn't enter into so it's Kind of fatically or apophatically the case the divine essence is not acted upon doesn't undergo change etc

2:24:30But the energies do do different things because God does different things in different actions So that's why there is For capacity or first actuality in God as I think Bradshaw argues and Pino says the same thing in the footnotes in his dissertation there is Real free will and God the real there is first actuality or capacity Because God has free will and he can choose to create a world with Aquinas or world without Aquinas He doesn't have to actualize everything That he could do or does do and again the cano the canoesus passage proves that because he willingly Underwent a humbling to become man and thus for example when he's man He's not destroying the world. He's not creating the world. So God does different things and I think the capitulation acceptance of divine simplicity in this way

2:25:30Makes a lot more sense than the Roman Catholic which is he's trying to pit us Me and you against each other and other orthodox against each other When he knows that this is a somewhat of a difficult debated issue between Exactly what's going on with the theophonies and the third triad where Palomas Says that there's a manifestation that comes and goes and he's trying to just simply say that Will that necessitates the God and underwent change It doesn't necessitate the God underwent change because the divine essence remains unchanged all this properties are still there Just like when the sun became incarnate and became Limited to be in one place in a mode of being man He's still on the present but in the mode of being human He's in one place in a special mode in a special way that he's not in Bethesda He's not in Copernia. He's in Jerusalem. He's in Bethlehem, right Is he still on the present? Yes, but see what they want to do is make it an either or to where well wait a minute if he's

2:26:32in some Location that he's not in in another location in some sense then he's now lost on the presence No, it's a both ant he's still on the present just like John says when he became flesh and walked around amongst us In John one he says but he was still in the bosom of the father He's still being eternally generated even though he's walking around in a special mode of being in one place And not in another place. So this is something I think that Is again, it's a it's a it's a mystery and most of the church fathers whether it's Cyril or whether it's Maximus or whether it's Alamos they discuss the fact that the off and he's are it is Ryan C crest here. There was a recent Social media trend which consisted of flying on a plane with no music no movies no entertainment But a better trend would be going to chumbacacino.com It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket Chumbacacino has over a hundred online casino style games all absolutely free It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane

2:27:33So grab your free welcome bonus now at chumbacacino.com sponsored by chumbacacino By law 21 plus terms and conditions apply I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi, Dan. Hey. How's it going today? It's going good, man Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan Which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 million is an insane number Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year and each year we get bigger and better and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law That's pound 529 from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 7 365

2:28:34Wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan and America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show Thanks for having me visit for the people dot com for an office near you Mysterious as is the incarnation But we need a theology and a metaphysics and a toolkit that allows for the possibility of one hypostasis to enter into a mode of being That the other two don't and if God is just a sort of simple monad or if it's this a la that has no relation to the creative order It did not that makes any sense All right, and he would say well, I don't care because I don't need all ought to be incarnate Oh really? Well, then what is the Quran that's created in relationship to the uncreated Quran? How is there an uncreated Quran next to a law thus he gets into all those problems that Salafi Islam has Yep exactly it's he's trying to give arguments But they actually work against him and that's the whole issue and I think again like I said I think this whole time He's literally just trying to Kind of come back when I made him say his god as 99 ontologies And he really wants me to admit that I have more than one two in mind

2:29:34That's it. No, that's a great point. I forgot that that's that was your other debate with him, right? Yes. Yes So he wants to come back and get you to say That the energies and the manifestations are these 99 uncreated birds and yeah, tongue with fire You know He's trying to get his get back man I just don't understand where he's trying to go now. That makes sense I didn't even get it in the moment and his final philosophy called me after he's like I think he's trying to do that I was like because he actually ends up mentioning it at the end He ends up mentioning his 99 ontologies at the end. I was like, mm-hmm. Okay, that makes it You can go ahead then all right cool. Tell you what that is. I would love to see where he's actually Created which is what's that's hard. I would love to see where he says the ontology the energy is created. Please Okay, so I'm gonna read that quote in just a section Second, do you believe that anything that has a beginning and time is created? If you're talking about its manifestation. No, it's not necessarily created if you're talking about its ontology and yes

2:30:39Any this the statement anything that has a beginning and time is created is that true or false? Are you talking about ontology or are you talking about manifestation? I'm making a general statement. Listen again. It's not anything that has to be anything that has a beginning and time Is created. What's really interesting here is he was trying to like slam metaphysics Into your formulation during the debate the whole entire time But now that you made a metaphysical distinction He doesn't want to deal with it Yeah I'm trying to figure out how whether or not if something is in time It's created has to do with it's a change logical, but you know He should have made the premise of the debate All the energies Yeah, he should have Yeah, I don't know why he didn't do it that way but Never know is that a true statement or a false statement? Not if you're just talking about manifestation. No So it's a false statement so there could be things you're regarding manifestation as well then yes, it's false

2:31:40There could be things that have a beginning and time which are uncreated. If you're just talking about when it manifests then yes I'm not talking about I'm talking about a general statement. There has nothing to do. You can fill in whatever you want Are you asking about it? It's ontology or it's manifestation. Which one? I'm asking in general is anything that has a beginning and time Uncreated again About manifestation it can have a beginning or cannot if you're talking about it's ontology. No It's ontology cannot be created But again nothing this has to do with the Trinity being launched, but this is crazy It actually does because you're making the claim and this is what you don't understand You're making the claim that your system is consistent. I'm going into the details of your system They're doing it as much as I told on a second. I'm asking the question now as soon as we start to do so You start fumbling you don't even know that there are uncreated energies that have a beginning and time you said all of them are eternal waiting on you show me the quote of him saying

2:32:45It's ontology has a beginning still waiting on you haven't told if I could you don't have it? Well, I will I will show that yeah We're later, but it's never gonna happen here is that here is the third try that he's talking about and One example that Palomas does give when he's debating with Barley um is The power of creating right so the power of creating God has that from all eternity But to actualize that power to create which he freely did Did have a beginning and time and when Palomas was arguing with Barley and he says that work ceased And that's why we say in the beginning that God rested right so one answer to the Jx question could be the action of creating the world Uh, that's an uncreated power from an uncreated God or uncreated source But it's an action in time and space. There's nothing That there's nothing about God acting in time and space That in any way compromises the properties of the divine essence Any more than the Sun being in Bethesda and not in Capernaum somehow compromises omniscience

2:33:48Both of those things can be true at the same time So what he would need to show is that somehow that that's impossible So he would have to have like I'm what he's trying to do is to have a metaphysics that Nothing Like that can come to be in time and space basically God can't be or act in time and space because any action would be eternal So the the offanese would then have to be created because they come and go God can't come and go But whenever this comes up whether it's Barley and Marley anybody else The Fathers typically do say that God transcends the logical Antenomies and he's above the laws of logic He's above the metaphysics of what the created order and structure has because he set them in place So no, he's not bound by those things Yep Anyway, I don't mean to derail it, but no, no, it's all right. It was good There are however energies of God Which have a beginning and an end as all saints will confirm Our opponent meaning Nick thinks that everything which has a beginning is created

2:34:53This is why he has stated that the only reality only one reality is unoriginate What is necessary? It's about beyond knowledge Now you haven't even asked the question He finished you asked me to read the code now. I'm reading the book. I didn't get a citation for it Essence of God adding that what is not the essence derives from a created nature So now I'm going to ask you this first of all first of all, it's not nissa. It's Gregory Pala Moss It's Gregory Pala Yeah, yeah, he was upset in the third try He just misinterpreting the triad like crazy I think probably let me finish Let's look at every question It's Gregory Pala Moss the triads now do you believe that the energies are uncreated realities Yes, they're uncreated realities which begin manifesting within time Okay, how many uncreated realities are there in God?

2:35:54Yeah, we don't have a specific we don't make a specific number to it Is there one or more than one and ontology there's one Okay, and each they're in ontology there one Absolutely in reality how many are there? An ontology in reality there one would be reality so are there I don't know of any ontologies that aren't in reality Yeah, the unreal ontological argument because it groups us which where he's not real anyway Realities within God not if you're talking about ontology, no What else was what what else would be different between reality and ontology yeah, you could be talking about the effect of them or their conception no I'm talking about the actual entity itself Okay, so the entity is going to regarding ontology so there's one Okay, so there's only one there's only one uncreated reality in God. Yes, an ontology yes Okay, so why does Gregory Pala Moss say exactly the opposite he says Our opponent thinks that everything which has a beginning is created

2:36:57This is why he the opponent has stated that only one reality is unoriginate the essence of God Adding that what is not this essence derives from a created nature Yeah, how does that refute my view because he's talking about the actual reality of the thing in terms of its effect He's talking about the energy Is he talking about the ontology of it? Yes, he says the reality there's only he says his opponent thinks that there's only one reality Is the only thing in reality about God the ontology That's what I just asked you what is the difference between ontology and reality in this conversation because he can also manifest and it's a manifestation can be distinct from the reality itself No, okay another quote from Pala Moss as Basil the great says and I quote is it not ridiculous to say that the creative power is in essence Similarly that providence is an essence and foreknowledge Simply taking every essence as energy and the divine maxima says goodness and all that the word implies all life

2:38:02Absolutely all immortality and all the attributes that Essentially to God our works of God and do not have a temporal beginning non-being that is to say is not anterior to virtue nor to any of the realities mentioned above even though the beans which participate in them began to exist in time None of these things none of these things is the essence of God neither of the uncreated goodness nor the unoriginate eternal life all these exist So now I'm asking you man He says explicitly that these are uncreated realities and uncreated things how many uncreated realities and things are there within God again An ontology one and manifestation multiple what does reality mean? It's not ontology You think no reality isn't only ontology wait was manifestation not in reality

2:39:06Is manifestation not in reality? This is so pathetic you really don't Manifestation not reality really bad and I thought mr. 99 ontologies look at this It acid a vital let's move on one comment. I mean ontology is a it's kind of a generic term in metaphysics It can refer to a lot of different things I mean specifically has to do with being but I mean you also There's flexibility with these terms. So I mean it might have been a little better for the debate to be maybe more precise But in the palamites synods they do specify that each of the energies is a is a distinct reality And so I would have Tell a reddick here from 2311 racing game nights fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot chalk Breathe Re-chalk still aiming while they figure it out. I fire up chumpa casino I can spin anywhere anytime and there's always a new social casino game every week spins happen way faster than that shot Play now at chumba casino dot com. Let's chumba sponsored by chumba casino no purchase necessary

2:40:11vgw group voidware prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi, Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good man Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 billion is insane number Yeah 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law It's pound five two nine from your cell phone. We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 7 365 Wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show

2:41:11Thanks for having me visit for the people dot com for an office near you I would have just said to Jake, you know, yeah sure God's energy is one, but it's also many so what's the problem with that Yeah, yeah, cuz then he's saying like The way that the way he's using ontology is the only thing that exists in reality like If God creates something right and then obviously the thing he creates isn't him himself like the world as I mean Like the world doesn't actually exist in reality like it doesn't doesn't really follow But we must are arguing against Barley him. He's arguing that The there are these distinctions in God that have to be the case for example in 150 chapters if you look at 98 to 103 He says that you can't say like what like Jake was quoting basil You can't say that four knowledge and eternal glory are the same energy They have to be really different because four knowledge only relates to or providence only relates to the created order Eternal glory is always the case whether God had created or not. So there's a

2:42:16Reductio that Paul Moss does and in 98 to 103 where he says that this reductio proves that you can't equate the energies So but the energies are still one in that there's one being in one God acting in those energies manifesting or Becoming actualized in the mode of the three persons right That are bringing that to to to reality or bringing that into into actuality Uh, but they are different realities and that's something that the I forget it whether it's the first or the second columnite synod makes it really clear Yeah Yeah, but you can see him bringing up nine in ontologies. Yeah, he's Very insecure But so but here's the thing like starting a side all this even if Jake got you to admit that there's infinite ontologies in God Why would that be a problem in our system When his whole argument has been that it's inconsistent to have a being with real distinctions

2:43:21Uh, when he's gotten 99 ontologies. So it's it's like he wants to pin us He wants to be exempted from the problem that he's presenting for our system. That's what I'm trying to say Yeah, it's a problem for him But Jake you just argued a minute ago that you don't accept the other paradigm Okay, why why should we accept the Islamic paradigm if we're all within our own paradigms You're gonna have to show that within our paradigm. This is somehow inconsistent Absolutely It's crazy Since you didn't solve the LPT and didn't solve the essence energy distinction problem Do you believe in uncreated first and uncreated we really never even talk I don't even know if we really ever it's always about the LPT for real He never really actually gave Like a formalization of the LPT right No, he didn't like at all like he literally just said oh how do you count and I explained it He never gave argument. Well also he would need to show why

2:44:23counting by Identity and counting by division Can't be done at the same time for different types of things like he he just said that's ad hoc Okay, but even like you said earlier even it was ad hoc if it's consistent you have to show that it's inconsistent Yep, exactly I think here soon he's gonna start going on the uncreated birds will find it Yeah Yeah, this part Man, what does God do with LPT, but Do you believe in uncreated birds I don't believe in uncreated birds that has nothing to do with its object Okay, so when the Holy Spirit appeared and descended in bodily form as a dove Was that a created dove or an uncreated like a dove it doesn't say he was a dove What was he a dove or not? No, he descended like a dove. Did he appear as a dove? It doesn't say how he appeared. It just says how he just

2:45:25No, he didn't he totally miscoordered it This comes up in the icon council where they say The only appropriate Images that you can use the Holy Spirit in iconography after the coming of the Messiah is Tongues of fire or as a dove It doesn't mean that they and they explicitly say but the Holy Spirit is not a dove or a bird Because it's a symbol that represents in the icons His his manifestation So it's an energetic manifestation proper to the person of the spirit. It's not a dove. It's not an incarnation So he's thinking of it like the Holy Spirit is incarnating like a dog as a dove like Jesus incarnate That God incarnates as a man and that's not the Orthodox teaching Do you think you just went to an Orthodox church one day and saw the iconography seeing the Holy Spirit being portrayed as a dove In the churches and was like yeah, okay. This is what he always believe

2:46:28Probably but also he used to be in our discord and when he came to the discord He was right there. I think just to get kind of reconnaissance And so he probably remembers a lot of stuff that we talked about back in 2018 19 in the discord and You know when people talked about The Holy Spirit's energetic manifestation. He probably thought that. Oh, well, that means Holy Spirit's appearing as a bird But definitely does not know energetic manifestation it is for sure He didn't appear as a dove. It's a yes or no It doesn't say whether he did or not. All it says is how he descended It got appear as a fire in the Old Testament He appeared within a fire not as the fire itself. It says he was within the fire Was the fire created or uncreated I would assume that the fire was created Don't have any fire with fire was created. Okay No, we talked about that but the good thing I said there. I just assume it's created. I I know it's yeah, there's no like Because there was no thing like obviously in the text itself

2:47:28It's gonna say whether or not it's created within that verse itself But it's fine if it's uncreated. There's no issue with that like it literally doesn't change anything about his argument So that's the good one. I don't know terrible The angel which wrestled with Jacob was the son in the pre-partisan. Oh, yes I believe the angel the Lord was the son Okay, and was the angel of the Lord who physically wrestled with Jacob and was doing wrestling moves Was that entity created or uncreated? Yeah, an angel is a form of office So the entity would be referring to Jesus and he was uncreated the angel is my office But what he appeared as was that appearance was that uncreated or created? Yeah, appearances how he appears is a manifestation of the uncreated Was that manifestation created or uncreated? Yeah, the manifestation itself was uncreated But manifestation itself was created. I see. Yeah This part was funny, bro. We talked about this. I literally just said the same thing twice on opposite

2:48:34I clarified what I meant right after but this part was how they they clipped this part so much, bro I said the manifestation was created the manifestation is uncreated, right? I just said the same thing twice on accident. It was so funny They they clipped that part and then they you know I know that clips running wild. Yeah, it was so funny, bro Repeat that again The manifestation itself who appeared within it is uncreated So who appeared within it is uncreated the manifestation itself is created Okay, so the manifestation itself was created. So there was something created with respect to the wrestling of the angel Yes, meaning that the manifestation was not eternal man. You're going to be in trouble with J. Dyer He's going to have to teach him his knowledge J. Dyer fall asleep. One minute one minute J. Dyer fall asleep again This man swear is he swear is J is going to advertise me now I think I think the next part is

2:49:36Where he either brings up J. We covered that earlier. Yeah, the next part I think he either brings up Where you mentioned something about the fire No, yeah, I think that's the next part he brings up a keep playing it because he talks about J. Dyer's now now We're going to get to what about the fire At Pentecost was that created or uncreated it doesn't say What do you believe? I don't have a specifically it doesn't say it doesn't say so you don't you don't know if it's created or uncreated Doesn't say why would I make an assertion one way or the other? Okay, so you don't know Yeah, because it doesn't say We're talking about what if you actually read if you actually read orthodox theology you would know that they say that it's uncreated Oh, like who? Yeah, so let's go back to the He just the last question I wrote a orthodox theology. That's why when I asked him who said it He'd probably never even read and just going from me because he yeah the video that he made he

2:50:38Play clips from me. Yeah, but but the the oftenies are I think they are uncreated. Yeah, he just Again, that's it. That's why I say it's a J. Dyer policy because instead of actually quoting like where J. It's his sources He says J said it like Questions worship the same God Nope Is that because they have distinct attributes or properties because your God has 99 ontologies in mind doesn't okay So having a different property makes them count as a distinct God Yeah, having different ontologies Okay, so why when those father and son have different ontologies one is begotten any other isn't That's okay. I don't want to fall on this The father and the son don't This is Ambiguity right like they don't have a different ontology Yeah, he said why is it when the father and the son have a different ontite he thinks yeah because the son is begotten That means the son is a different ontology and the father that was a big wonder Oh, this this was the you know me in premise debate. He still doesn't understand that when he debated book about Branson because he thinks that

2:51:42If the son came from the father he cannot be in the same class of beings as God like the father Because he's he doesn't have the the the the predicate of being ungenerate or unoriginate but Dr. Branson shows in that logic table like Tyler reddick here from 2311 racing victory lane Yeah, it's even better with chamba by my side race to chamba casino.com. Let's chamba. No purchase necessary VTW group boy we're prohibited by law ctnc's 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino Oh I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm. That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 million is an insane number Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22

2:52:4523 after this year and each year we get bigger and better and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Awesome So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's pound five two nine from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 247 365 Wow, Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show Thanks for having me visit for the people calm for an office near you For example, you can be a carnivore You can be an omnivore Right and you're in the same class of meat eaters But an omnivore eats more things than a carnivore But they're both in the same class of meat eaters And so that's a logical way to show that just because the sun lacks the property of being On originate it doesn't follow from that that he can't logically be in the class of God

2:53:47And that's uh that was the logic table problem that dr. Branson presented to book to Jake in the debate And Jake just kept saying but no there has to be the on you cannot be God if you are generated and it's like But why and he says godness says godness says that this is the unominable primitive premise godness says that it's being on Okay, how do you demonstrate that though? In other words, you would need to demonstrate the Unomin premise first before you argue that You have to be that that to be God requires being on origin And he says because it's logically inconsistent and that's why dr. Branson presented the logic table and said okay An omnivore eats all things including meat A carnivore eats only meat They're both amongst the class of beings that eat meat Even though an omnivore eats more than the carnivore It's that simple and he couldn't get that and he still doesn't get it because it's exact same problem Where he's saying this to you. Yep

2:54:47hasn't learned it all Why don't you have a different time? We're talking about you Oh Tired and done at this point. We're at time. We're at time You can ask but Nick is not obligated to ask or to answer but go ahead So just finishing the question is then why doesn't the father and son who have distinct properties and therefore distinct Why do they not count as two gods? The same way you didn't answer my question about what the inference rule was I'll decline to answer yours. Oh, let's go and answer my question about inference rule and then I answered that one Okay, all right. We're going to go to the problem. Yeah, there's so much ambiguity with the terminologies using it because it's like do they have different ontologies And it's like well again the word god is a generic term. So if you think that god picks out only Uh, an ungenerated unoriginant essence, which is the you know me premise Then okay, then you have a argue you would have a point but that's the thing in question, right?

2:55:51Whether the Trinity is logically inconsistent Not whether you know me and premise is true Yeah Yeah, he demonstrated he really didn't know a lot about anything in this debate and it was very unfortunate I was hoping he would bring a formal argument we could discuss it but You know, guess not. Guess he's just not not that kind of guy, man Any final thoughts about the debate Nick. I mean, I think you did a good job um I mean the fact that even unitarians are signing with me probably shows something I mean, that's normal unitarians are very Muslim-sided. So It's kind of embarrassing. Yeah, that is true. That is true. If I'm in my experience recently Let's get into some super chats and then um If you guys have anything you want to bring up in the meantime, too, just let me know Um, where are we? There we go One-way apologetics. By the way guys sub-to-one-way apologetics. This is the front of the channel Nick dominated this debate and made Jake look like his son in the cross-examination Nick finishes Jake's career

2:56:52Where did Nick go? Okay Um, a mind has a will thought in knowledge, but no one says that a mind is a conglomerate of three parts Unless you're a physicalist who denies the mind as its own entity. There's only one ontological object Judy, anything you want to say to that? Well, I mean this sounds like a unitarian type of argument that somehow from Properties of a created mind. It must be that must be the case for an uncreated mind So you would need to demonstrate how we know that because we see that as a property or a feature created minds that That necessarily has to be the case for the divine mind All right, the unknown properties of the nature are distinct from the properties of the energies the energetic props are analogous to the natural props I don't know what he's referring to. Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the context is here

2:57:54Sorry I'm not so much ambiguity in the The world here to know what is what he's saying The christian god is I'm the present in whom we live and move and have our being the god of Islam is a hypothetical deity There somewhere exactly like a polytheistic god, but only one of them Yeah, I mean like if you're a solopy Um, you believe that there's a guy in space that you can take a rocket too, so All right, umar lighthouse was talking about you on tiktok Is this about me or Nick? Oh, I think it's about me if you he's like He's a some weird dude. It's like everyone's every Muslim sidekick on tiktok. He's like Tries to be the main show, but no one actually takes him seriously So I think he just post random stuff about me to try to get views strange. Yeah Uh, michael's this some sort of three system logic. I've heard some say that there are different systems of logic So contradiction just can exist. I mean like yeah, I mean like you could be a dilapheist

2:59:01Uh, Jay diars coming to anathematize and see Jay this is I'm dying. I wasn't making it up People are saying that you're going to come to anathematize and spank Nick Oh So can I make this little chart here? Can you make that visible just because yeah, let me see I think this is really helpful if you took because this is like they constantly rely on this argument and If you notice, right? So under the class of things called quote god You have and obviously I'm not excluding the Holy Spirit. I'm just making a simple example here, right? The Father's on originate and he generates the Sun the Sun lacks the property of being called Being on originate but that doesn't fall it doesn't follow that he can't be under the class of things called god Think about this in terms of the way Nick formulated this logically, right? So we're not getting into the ontology. We're just saying logically speaking classes of things Right, just like a meat eater as a class can include an omnivore which eats all things including me

3:00:06And a carnivore that eats only meat, right? They're all under the class of meat eaters even though carnivore lacks the property of eating all of the other things that the omnivore eats It doesn't follow logically from this That they're no longer in the same class of meat eaters and any more than logically it follows that because the Sun is Generated he cannot be in the same class of beings called quote god That and all you need is that to show Uh the half of Jake's argumentation that he keeps repeating since the burnt branch of debate is just simply a non-sequitur You've inspired me to keep subscribing. Thank you, Mr. Gabe Um Glad you guys are bringing up a person of color like Jay the African-American community is under percent of this field Hey, man, brother I was born in Romania to a Christian family

3:01:07panty coastal That's a song on my channel. He's quoting my song I need to hear that song now Jay. You should hear that when that was pretty funny Can I just find it on your channel? Oh, yes, called panty-costal. Okay, let's check it up JD why do you identify as I'm gonna have to watch your channel now Jay. I don't I don't like consume content at all You know a youtuber anything like that. So don't take offense to the fact that I'm not familiar with the the j It's like a fever dream watch and you don't you're too scared to get into the JD question forget the jq question You don't want to get in the JD question Oh Great see on IP stream. You should join their streams or often If my boss Mike is happy with that. I would love to have you more often to Jay Yeah, Mike and I've always had good conversations. I'm always down for it

3:02:07Um, I will ask again. I would like to humbly ask if Pope Jay Dyer would grant me an annulment I wish to leave my Mormon space wife for Funko pop This is all from the songs on my channel. So I have a whole bunch of playlists called cringe core Uh, and these they're all just quoting the songs from from my playlist So we got a we get a Mormon song. We got a black dish of song. We was king song. Oh, all that kind of stuff. Crazy Okay, I'm gonna have to look into this now That probably explains. There we go. Jay was on a black diva queen time I was late dude. I'm on bapag son I'll would ask the bifox dance for okay What a person a person of color. How dare you not know that? Oh I'm hella racist. We're not knowing that You didn't even know that dude unbelievable. I'm so racist in my bed One of the funniest things in this she was then not knowing any of the Jay Dyer lore man I don't yeah, but I'll familiarize myself. I will listen to Jay Dyer while I write my script tomorrow. I guess

3:03:12Just listen to the songs you'll have fun with those Okay, Mormons. Jay was panty-costal Hey, it's mobile Wallace from 2311 racing. You know what feels like forever Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff Good thing. I've got jumbo casino with daily boost and social casino games on tap This is a kind of fun that makes time fly Why not turbocharged your downtime play now at jumbo casino.com. Let's jump up Sponsored by chumbo casino. No purchase necessary VGW group for it. We're prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good, man Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboarded yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 million is insane number. Yeah 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year

3:04:19And each year we get bigger and batter and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on Awesome. So how does someone do in contact with Morgan Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law That's pound five two nine from your cell phone We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 seven three sixty five Wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan and America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show Thanks for having me visit for the people's comm for an office near you Uh, we was king song And then there's a whole bunch of there's a hobbit song What am I one of my one of my really good friends like in in person Like to listen to your until you a lot. So I'll just have him acquaint me. It's in you the good the hits. Yeah J. I was going to call the police for the way you destroyed captain crunch great debate You deserved a very hitful person. I genuinely laughed out loud when I heard Harriet Tubman bro like genuinely laughed out loud That was probably one of the greatest source citations in a debate I've ever heard

3:05:24So when asked for all excited Harriet Tubman. Yes And her family and her family as the oral tradition to prove the black Hebrew is really a cult theology Yes Had to lie replay it. I like the bird really to say that That's all right. That's like still processing. Yeah, I know watch it. Just watch it. It's funny And by the way The I thought so like an hour and a half in it was just completely not just totally ridiculous I thought the debate was pretty much over and then somebody asked a super chat about The the son of God whether he's Uncreator created and This captain crack rock is an area and so he believes that Jesus was created Uh, and then we had this great exchange towards the very end where He was I was like well does he so if I I'm a father and I have a son and he has the same nature and he agreed to all that and I said Does the son have the same nature as his father and he says yes, and I said is the father's nature uncreated yes

3:06:28Is the son uncreated and then he froze? So there's an action there's a whole excellent part uh at the very end because a lot of people shut it off I feel like an hour and a half, but there was some some gems towards the end of the debate too man I'm gonna I'm gonna be binging some J. Dyer I guess this week. There you go Yo Nick asked J if he'll sub What I assume he's talking about sub to him No sub to you or maybe I don't know of the me yeah, I don't know sub to everyone chat I think I had yeah, I think I have uh I followed Nick on x and tiktok I'm not sure about all I'm on youtube or not But I was sure I'm not sure There's a lot people that I have I don't follow on uh on youtube not not to be rude. I just I just don't know Yeah, I'm not subscribing now, buddy Look at that. I just followed you. So look at that. There we go. Follow. We're so back. Let's follow you dude I see them notifications off. Make sure to turn them on. We like them

3:07:31J did a good job against captain um, I can't say his last name But finally asking for historical evidence of Hebrews relates rather than endlessly debating scripture with theology and all cap was That's wild man. I can't wait to see this Um Nick, what is your background and how did you learn these concepts? Oh, yeah, I went to various team university jdire university I used to watch a lot of his videos and uh, yeah, man. I'm a I'm a proud student Learned everything everything wrong. I say comes from j everything right comes from the books. I read there we go um Favorski and at an IS say that the energies and the essence are ontologically different distinct is this true So again, the word ontologically distinct that's a It's a little elastic term, right? So The Palomite synods define the distinction to be the same level of distinction as between the persons

3:08:33So this is an argument that Palomas himself submit himself makes So yes, there are different realities and whether you want to fit that into some later scholastic thing I think that's a futile effort. I think we only need to use the types of distinctions that The the Patriotic era used they're good enough So it basal says the distinction between nature and person or the distinction between the energies or between the person themselves Is the same level of distinction. That's good enough now one way to solidify this in your understanding is if you read the little hunter page debate between Palomas and the Marley Amite the debate progresses from The status of the distinction to participation And that's the best way to cash this debate out because at the end of the day What matters is what are we participating in in terms of uncreated reality and created energy and Basically, he tends the Barley Amite by saying well, look we all agree. We don't participate in the divine essence

3:09:33We can't partake of that So what are we partake enough? It can't be another creature because then we would be Aryans. This is the argument Palomas makes So the uncreated energies have to be different than the essence and able to be participated in but they're not the essence, right? So Again, this ends up being the entire 80 hundred pages debate between Palomas and the Marley Amite so that will answer people's questions But a lot of times when the Roman Catholics ask this like none of these people ever read It's not even a long of a book. It's 80 pages. I don't know why none of these people And I'm saying this even about people that are friends like I told Tim Gordon to read that six years ago I've told every Roman William Albrecht in the Roman Catholics. I've ever interacted with scam chemo like they never they just won't read it. They don't care So you're not gonna do the reading. I can't help you Jaymy my friend just spammed me with a bunch of links to a different there you go a bunch of videos of yours

3:10:34I'm about to retire from all this anyway. Nick you can come into Being a apologist you may have internet apologetic Throne I'm joking because I'm going to become a musician. So I'm going full-time cringe core. So let's go I y'all see I got the keys. He gave me the keys now. All right, and y'all remember what the keys mean according to Catholic Exactly, by the way, according to Nick went to study the other day the key So there's only one key apparently My bad. It's one key. It's not keys. It's just the key. Yes. Yes If Jake's reasoning for why Jesus is called the word of a law and the Quran is correct then why isn't Adam called the same thing? I don't know what this is. I remember something like when I debated Jake There was some argument about Allah's hands And that just means that he made Adam and so I never really understood what he was trying to argue like Because he's supposed to say Allah has those uncreated

3:11:36Yeah An uncreative foot and all this stuff and it's like bobo and what is that he says it's a foot befitting Allah Is that this foot by the way bro? It's showing his actual feet bro Why you're so yellow? You did to sit because I'm walking on nasty as Airbnb core You assumed that this way. Wait, do you not have like Calist feet Nick? What are you doing? How do you know this is? This is the uncreated foot dude. This isn't Right. Yeah With his short shorts. I thought bro had underwear on So we're free on Jake I'm not for free. They gotta pay for that. No, I'm more involved. Okay, is it me? Ballers What Jake's not three, isn't he? All right, what? Can't hear you. Jake's at three. Yeah. Yeah Yes, so yeah, so he believes that Allah has a body and a heat that For example, I don't know if we if we've gotten this in the debate, but Ibn Tamiya has this argument that

3:12:39Allah has to have uncreated laughter because it's more perfect to laugh and not to laugh And since Allah's perfect, he has to have eternal laughter Yes, Aaron Yeah, I Why is it more perfect to laugh than to not laugh like that? I've always thought that argument was funny I'm pretty sure I actually seen some saints that say like Jesus never laughed or like something like that Something very interesting about Jesus not smiling or something. I read something about it like a year ago I like hmm interesting Jake needs to retire the metaphysician title now You know My super black color has arrived listen and watch when black queen is speaking there you go I am okay, well you can you can blur that out apologize No, no, you're good, bro No, I was I was joking. I'm joking being a fuck dude

3:13:43Because you said I wanted to sneak in Jay's Airbnb y'all know y'all can no longer do that now I mean, there's whole channels of guns like Oh, that's true. I guess yeah, 11 million subscribers of guns We're just gonna we're gonna go We're just gonna move on and hope I and just hope that we don't get knocked that's all Can relative identity be denied in an imperfect in a print and in a perfect wait gosh This is throwing me in in a imperfect world. It's the bad grammar. That's killing me. Sorry If Jake ever put an honest effort into understanding the Trinity he would leave Islam seeking to understand the Trinity in Islam Led me from Mormonism to real Christianity. I think Jake wants his virgins more than the truth I don't know I hope Jake comes becomes a Christian First thing to do is to monster argument that allows the god of the Old Testament. They to see people saying it's the same god

3:14:50Yeah, yeah, I mean the god of the Old Testament has a temple It's like I've never understood how Islam just ignores all of this like giant sections of the Torah deal with the temple and the letter drop So so massive port like massive portions of the Torah corrupt And then when you ask them how do you know which correct like what parts are corrupt and not corrupt it does what Karan says Hey, it's Cole Swindale after I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal I usually take five before jumping into the next track And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time some folks grab coffee. I hit a quick good looks Next thing you know the break is just as fun as land down the track a better break makes for a better take Need a break less chumbo no purchase necessary bgw group void were prohibited by law 21 plus TNC supply sponsored by chumba casino I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod say hi Dan. Hey, how's it going today? It's going good man

3:15:54Tell us who you are and what you do. I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan Morgan Which is America's largest injury law firm? That's pretty awesome Um, I think I saw billboard of yours recently that said that 20 billion one 20 billion is insane number Yeah 20 billion recovered. It's actually I think somewhere north probably closer to 22 23 after this year And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on Awesome. So how does someone do in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident? Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law That's pound five two nine from your cell phone. We are always open our call centers always waiting to take your call 24 7 365 Wow Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show. Thanks for having me Visit for the people dot com for an office near you. Yep. Okay. So yeah, I recently made a video about this Jay where because Muslims nowadays will say that

3:16:55the Basically, they'll do general confirmation Conscious that it's that whole thing And I basically made a an argument showing that even if you grant that They it's epistemically impossible to verify Whether or not Muhammad was a real profit at the time of Muhammad so Islam is false Even if the Islamic dilemma is false So I can't believe Nick thinks I'm in my underwear. I'm wearing polo shorts No, listen earlier you like lift it up your leg and it was like up to halfway through your thigh and all we could see was that And I like I was like bros dude's wearing underwear bro It looked like yeah, I immediately came in from the stream and hopped on here You think I just like I immediately walked in and just It's probably like I'm in the air being be let me stream naked Jamie wait for me after the stream Sorry irrelevant to the stream, but any book recommendation arguing for the philosophical necessity of God's goodness Been having some doubts regarding deism and this could help

3:17:55I don't know about you guys, but you I don't even think you need a book for this If you just have omnipotence It I think that's going to entail omniscience omnipotence and omniscience together are going to entail Omnipinevalence and I can make a short video on that if you want to but I don't know what you guys think on that topic I think it seems like it would um, but I don't know about a specific book on that Yeah, the short argument I have for it if you're interested is basically like I work off a thesis called motivational internalism So like the basic idea is like we make a value would have judgments based off of the things that we know But we have powers and liabilities we have weaknesses of the will stuff like that But we still generally are going to make decisions based off what we think is good But because we have weaknesses because we have liabilities Um, and corruption to know at a effects of sin stuff like that We will make bad judgments, but we're still what chase after those things Now you have a being that's omniscient and omnipotent

3:18:56Um, that being is not going to have any weaknesses That being is going to have the access to all the things that are good and what it's not good And that's just going to entail based off motivational internalism Which is a really uncontroversial thesis in my opinion That God is just going to necessarily be omnipotent that's the short version. I don't know what you think about that argument, but Yeah Jake the mood of physician is owned for and debates on the Trinity kind of embarrassing for Islam's best double bro Muslims don't think God would limit himself out of love to heal the riff between us and him because they are servants to meant to submit to a law said Yeah, and that's actually really interesting because one of my go-to examples is um, I used to be a firefighter J And one of the examples I always give is like I always ask people like do you think it's a good thing for like my lieutenant To come into a fire with me or get on scene with me

3:19:59The person that's like So that's supposedly supposed to be leading me and stuff like that and people would be like no he'd be a bad leader if he didn't go boots on the ground with you right And so you're extracting this really intuitive principle and then you ask the question so Good God exemplify such a moral principle and then they all said the same now It's really weird Um I'm good. You know no go ahead. Sorry. No, it's fine. Uh Muslims don't think God would limit himself out of love to heal the riff between us because Yeah, I mean you can tell that The Formulation of Islam is really just the mindset of a medieval Arab slave owner, right and they've transferred that to God You're just the slave of a law And you know, there's a couple of places where Paul says he's a bond slave and a bond servant So that imagery is not totally divorced from scripture But we're also made sons. We're not just slaves were made sons

3:21:03So it's interesting to me that Paul uses Hagar and he says that the Jews By extension islam in the Orthodox prayer books even in the 1800s in russia Muslims were called the Hagarines Hagarites So there's this interesting association between slavery and that religion Paul calls unbelieving Jews slaves and yet for what we have in our religion is to become sons And why is that well because we are by grace what the son of God is by nature So we are adopted as sons and we're made fully inheritors of the promise and in those religions. That's completely absent Usain Bolt runs like a cheetah he's saying equals cheetah I think he just used an absolute identity. Yeah, yeah Thank you for the gifted membership

3:22:04Trent Horn cooked Jay for acting on christ like It's okay for trying to do a boy. Anyone else does it. Yeah, but I mean Trent acts Trent basically did the exact same thing And By the way, Trent doesn't call out other Roman Catholics that did 10 times worse things in anybody else the Orthodox world has done Right, so like voice of reason doesn't call them out countless Roman Catholic PDF priests and bishops not gonna call them out But if you if somebody like Andrew Wilson said the f-word got to make a 10-minute video Yeah I don't know the drama there, but Trent recently made a video that included me and I don't even know if he Realized what my argument was but Anyway, Jay and Nick you guys don't believe in a for the okway would proceeding necessarily mean created or is there a way to wrap my head around it No, I mean, we believe the spirit proceeds from the father. That doesn't mean that He's created proceeding doesn't necessarily mean creating

3:23:07Yeah, the energies also proceed hence energetic procession and the energies are not created Yeah He follows this up with yes, I am stupid Are we all good question? We're all stupid is ok And with the meaning of the song you wrote um, I'm assuming you're talking about the metalcore song not without lies Um, it's a acoustic song I wrote a while back about how much I despise secular humanism and how it's destroying us So if you like listen to the lyrics like you'll hear some of the lyrics are like we um We sold our soul we we was it again, it's We we traded the truth for dopamine. We sold our souls to silver screens Right, it's it's all about How secular humanism and the pushing away of christ In our culture as basically made us a bunch of drones who are seeking dopamine and to fill this void

3:24:07And we have meaningless lives and all this other stuff. So if you want that out that's your hint Listen to the lyrics more in depth as you listen to the song because I think you actually think it's pretty cool Um, yeah demolition ranch mentioned When did we mention that? I don't know. I don't know. Okay. Um, how would you explain the Trinity's younger kids my eight-year-old nephew has a lot of questions about it um, I have young kids my oldest is six and um I honestly just said there's like this one b there's one being that we call god And there are three persons And I don't know my son's happy with that. So I I guess it depends on the questions. What about you guys? I'm I never try these lines with kid. So I mean either it's a socially good question It all depends on what how the kids like asking like my six-year-old asked about the incarnation the other day

3:25:09And the analogy I gave him I don't know why this is here But like Basically, I'm like hey my son. I imagine this ball is the divine essence and this Switch controller strap is a human prop like the human essence Any and I'm like if I put this on top of this am I changing the godness? He's like no And I'm like right. So this is kind of like how you can understand the incarnation and you it's like it's not perfect, right But it gets minimally the point across to Kids where it's going to satisfy them and you just kind of help them by asking them more questions about what they're asking about that's my advice Okay, I was basically asking don't we count everything by relative identity essentially I don't know. I mean that would be only if you heard it hold the pure relative identity Which again most people don't who hold a relative identity. I definitely know I hold the empire

3:26:11Which means we can we can also count by other ways. So yeah, and I don't think that we count everything by relative identity All right, that's all the superchets Cool any last words guys I'll get another all right. Thanks for coming on um Everybody subbed to fearless truth Jay, I'm pretty sure you have way more followers than we do Uh Are we every goes check out Jay Dyer too? I guess to go check out Jay what the heck man. Yeah Well, everybody know we are we on are we on uh you're Oh, Jay maybe You're out like double more than him. Yeah, you got 400. I got that goes to show that I don't pay attention to social media or anything like Jay, aren't you almost a 200k too? Yeah, I'm right at one money Celebration string coming soon. All right, so wait, how much do you need for Like 2000 more

3:27:12I'm at 197 I think you know 98 okay, all right, we got to eat 116 people watching right now, so There's a lot haters Okay, hate sub And hate watch I expect you to do this go do it for both fearless truth and Jay Dyer guys Um Thanks for joining again. Absolutely. Yes closes out very God bless. Yeah, we're out late Not you're good bro God bless guys You made it to the end of this video, which means this message matters to you If you want to see more content like this reaching people for christ, you can help make it happen Your support makes these videos possible click the link below and donate today And if you want to go even deeper consider joining our patreon community You'll get early access to videos behind the scenes content and a place to connect with others passionate about this mission

3:28:14Here's the truth you could literally be adored by everyone and then come home and still get completely ignored by your own cat It's classic cat behavior But new Shiba premium puree is a lickable treat that changes all that their protein rich made with bone broth and have the smooth creamy texture Cats go crazy for especially when it's hand fed Yeah, it's more than a treat. It's a fast pass to favorite human status So feed your cat Shiba and go from totally ignored to truly adored in just 12 days guaranteed or your money back Learn more at Shiba.com Tyler Reddick here from 2311 racing The rush of racing nothing beats it, but Shampa casino comes close Chumba's got fast spins fun games daily bonuses and all the action you can handle Now that's all right ready to hit the throttle get in the driver's seat and head to chumba casino.com Let's chumba sponsored by chumba casino no purchase necessary vgw group void where prohibited by law 21 plus turns and conditions apply