@bugburgerdoordash I did a lot psychedelics for years, I definitely understand the pull towards monism and pantheism for sure. That's where I was for almost 10 years before I got into orthodoxy. I was very into Integral theory and Ken Wilbers work. You might really like some Integral theory. I hope you find what you're looking for my dude, God bless ☦️
@@Fortheloveoforthodoxing I didn't come up to anyone saying "no gods exist" some nutcases parroted small hat invented fairy tales to me and told me to disprove it lol.
people always give Jay a hard time about cutting others off, but you can tell in almost every case he truly already knows where they're going and just wants to expedite the process of debunking what they're about to say lol. most of these debates could be ten minutes long but the opposition always digs their heels in. which I guess is good because even if the individual in the debate refuses to understand, so many viewers clearly see the truth and convert. thanks for uploading
Perfectly said. Good to see someone in a RU-vid comment section with a brain lol. God bless☦️ Edit: many people in this comment section have brains lol. Love the see the ortho gang speaking facts😎
@@Wilantonjakov no, Ybarra kept trying to repackage or play dumb to what Jay was actually saying the first 3-4 times Jay made an argument. I’m nowhere near a quarter as knowledgeable as Jay but even I could see what errors Erick was making. Like to constantly jump from the first of equals or anything about Peter to indefectibility, infallibility, or any other Catholic papal dogma. Telling how Ybarra wouldn’t touch on Frank.
Why should "i'm just a bio mechanical machine bro" deserve rights? His ideology literally reduces him to an animal that should be ruled over by something more intelligent then him because he's a dumb animal that doesn't know any better.
@@chaddad1488 if your IQ was doubled you would be completely lost trying to grasp any of this debate buddy. 1488? Lol, so you're some cucked white guy who is terrified of black dudes? What a clown
@@chaddad1488 lol Adam green?!? You can’t be serious my guy. Green is one of the worst debaters out there. I’ve seen him on the Crucible a few times and all he talks about are Jews 😂 as a debate opponent hes below mid, he’s entirely bad faith just based on the fact that he rarely can get beyond the first phase of a formal debate.
@@Fortheloveoforthodoxing Right, let's talk about the people in charge doing all this bad stuff but you'd rather say that's a bad thing that he focuses on that, shiII detected.
@@Fortheloveoforthodoxing You cowards are too scared to address how chrisitianity has small hat roots and how they run the west, run run run little boys.
The people accusing Jay of playing word games (in regards to universal claims) or this being a matter of semantics, don't seem to understand basic logic. Jay's argument of JF not understanding what universal claims are, was not refuted once in this entire debate. Saying "There is no universal truth" is identical to saying "It is universally true that there is no universal truth". It IS a universal truth claim, thus the position is logically incoherent. It doesn't matter how much people dislike Jay for bringing this up again and again. If you disagree with Jay, formulate better arguments. JF's attempts of refuting this were completely incoherent. He was arguing that his claim of there not being universal truth, is somehow only true in a localized sense and yet STILL universally applicable - which makes it a universal truth claim. How does anyone find that convincing??
Because not all truth claims are universal. You could claim to like choccy ice cream, and that would be subjective. However the claim, “there is no truth” is a claim about all truth, which makes it a universal truth claim that refutes itself. This is JFs position. I suspect it’s a type of metaphysical “suicide net” he’s constructed to shield him from facing moral judgment about fucking retards.
He's not saying "all truths claims", he's saying a claim like "there is no universal truth" is a universal truth claim. Do you understand the difference? @@Fray2221
People can be sure that there is no god, there's no morality and that there is no universal truth and yet still be certain that all of that is universally true. Because no good argument was presented for the truth of those claims. There's no problem with that.
@@TheWayoftheSith Again, you are just reiterating the same confusion: Saying "there is no universal truth" is a claim about universal truth. When you say that "there is no universal truth", ask yourself: Is that statement itself universally true? If it is, it nullifies itself, and if it is not, there is a universal truth. If you cannot wrap your mind around how that is logically contradictory and self-refuting after everything Jay or I said, I cannot further help you.
Hi everybody, this is the same Arrocoda who asked the question about the "Gods being the minds primitive justication for unknown phenomena" I am now a theist, thanks Jay.
Dw, I was literally near totally uneducated & illiterate 5 years ago & eventually over the past 10 months of spending time listening to Jay (& others) I can explain the arguments he's making to people I meet irl fairly easy in a concise way. If you were like me & learning everything from the ground up it's going to take you focusing on the branches of philosophy Jay utilizes in his argumentation singularly (it's going to be at the expense of everything else) for a period of like 3 months. Hope you get to a point where it doesn't seem to be perceived as "word salad" as some ignorant people have called it lol, good luck mate.
@@calcifiedinnerbaldur Word salad and sophistry completely encapsulates Jay perfectly, oh and he's scared of debating if Christianity is a psy-op by the J's who compiled and wrote the bible.
@@chaddad1488 Dumbing it down to word salad shows the reddit tier mentality you have. Think hes scared? Cool. Set up the debate and debate Jay. He even does open forum and live chats. See what happens. You wont.
@@joe5959 He already said he refuses to debate this subject and anyone who comes at him like this like Adam Green or etc. it's ok that you're not aware, I forgive you.
@@hroard You guys don't even know or care that this religion comes from small hats who are the most evil to ever exist...You worship THEIR God you know?
The only way JF could try to espace the inevitable was to say he, as a monkey like being, is not capable making universal claims, WHILE MAKING AN UNIVERSAL CLAIM. Asinine. Huge L for JF on this one. He wants to be taken seriously while saying he is basically incapable of making truth statements, thus don't take him seriously. Just incoherent babble.
Very well matched debate; completely explosive without descending into a dumpster fire still very useful ..amazing /huge thanks to all parties involved
Jay wins at 37:00 after JF states that no such universal system of "axioms", making a universal claim. JF does not engage in this point or refute it, and the rest of the debate is this point trying to be repeated over and over until both get mad and fed up.
How can anyone make a universal claim if you don't know the entire universe? The idea of a "universal claim" assumes you already have universal knowledge. It seems like any claim we make will be based on our immediate experience which is obviously not "Universal knowledge". Let me ask you this: How do you know a claim is Universal?
@@KidKommentary is it always the case we can't make universal claims? is it always the case we must make claims based on our "immediate experience"? yes -> that is a universal claim no -> then there are cases where universals are used i know a claim is universal because it is impossible for the contrary to be true as in the above syllogism
@@epicgamerman420 I don’t think you understand I’m critiquing the entire concept of a universal claim. I think it’s a malformed concept from the start. It presupposes we have access to universal knowledge. Really I’m basically just saying “this is the best we got”. Like whenever you ask “do we always make claims based on our immediate experience?” I’d say this is nonsensical because can you give me an example of a claim that is not based on immediate experience? How can you make a claim while also not experiencing?
@@epicgamerman420 Try to do it dumbass lmfao, try right now make a claim without experiencing I'll literally give you my entire bank account if you can do it 😂
Its clearly that JF may offer a psychological explanation for his belief, but since he fails to provide the basis for this belief in truth, he leaves the whole building on quicksand and offers no solid defense against Irrationality, multiple times demonstrated in this debate just go for example 01:57:34 or 02:22:35 and See clearly its not that he is not convinced its he wont to be convinced and that is not an Argument
@chaddad1488 The problem is JF actually can't ascertain truth within his worldview. The evolutionary process isn't geared towards what is true. Only what is expedient and what is left after selection.
Around the 1:36:00 mark, it’s worth addressing Warski’s issue and idea of God. As for the basic deistic conception he gives, it would be absurd for an impersonal force or energy (which, if we press upon this use, is absurd as energies must have an essence they derive from) or emotionally distant deity to give any sort of complexity at all to the universe we see. If that were the case, in such as the emotionally distant creator, why do we see any sort of moral obligations or value of humans of we’re just some science project? Not an objection to atheists, obviously, but this deist expression. Plus, how can you reason to such a force or being if we have no direct experience of them? It’s similar to the issue with ADS, except this is even more impossible since that deity has essentially severed all ties. I think Russel’s great pumpkin analogy is just as damaging to this, if not more so, than natural theology. To his question about his grandma’s death, look at all the people in the Bible and in church history who didn’t get what they want and yet still held faith. It’s basically the theme of Church teachings, faith isn’t given or earned when everything is going your way, that’s easy. Faith is when things are hard or very uncomfortable. Any of these anecdotes like Warski’s are just personal problems being masqueraded as arguments. Finally, in his rant, why is it sensory experience that is paramount? Some atheists even deny that since personal testimony can be corrupt. They’re both (JF and Warski) operating on empiricist grounds that boil it down to we can’t see God, so faith is blind. Every strain of Christianity I’m aware of doesn’t believe faith means that and there own misunderstanding of Christianity not only shows why they’re unbelievers but why they’re so difficult to talk to. Because no one has really challenged either, they’re set in stone what God means, what faith means, what the purpose of prayer is, et ceterra and nothing will ever really break that since they lack humility.
@@bigboss-qv7peto me he seems odd cause he was reading all these irrelevant comments in the chat like “Jays Trolling” and “Kick JF”. What’s the point in reading this out loud.
Notice Jay at 1:52:06. Very interesting. First he ridicules the argument, trying to make it sound funny. Not an argument, not even dealing with JF's argument. Then he says JF is "asking him to deny his worldview", allthough Jay previously said he is able/willing to deal with hypotethicals (which any honest philosopher should, of course). Then tells JF this is the "most bizarre argument" blablabla, which is of course a non-argument and completely irrelevant. Then says JF "has no evidence of this thing"; which means he's either missing JF's point (even if it WERE merely a hypotethical, which JF argues it's not, it doesn't matter), or Jay is trying to obfuscate, which is what he does AGAIN AND AGAIN when he's met with actual opposition. Jay is very smart, very knowledgable and often funny. But he is not interested IN THE SLIGHTEST to change his mind, he keeps being rude and clever every time he's truly pushed.
Interesting point, missed the sincerity of the question. Nevertheless, I don't think it holds. As JF then argues something very interesting: "that if a computer was out there out of the random arrangement of matter and was to perform calculations that if a human was to look at would judge are logical, it would prove that something can exist that processes logic without god" Let's reformulate the question. The computer is - per definition - more than just a very complex, RANDOM material arrangement, but a very complex, NON-RANDOM arrangement that performs logical processing. But what constitutes this NON-RANDOMNESS? According to Jay, those are the eternal, transcendental structures of god. According to JF it constitutes that you find a random arrangement of matters that IF humans would observe it, it would be similarly complex as a Shakespeare novel and similarly filled with intelligible structure as a Shakespeare novel, but it just occurred out of randomness and instead of processing a story, is processing numbers. Kind of crazy argument to be honest. ^^
For Christians, reality cannot exist without God. How can you play into that hypothetical? If you step outside of that frame, you don't know if you can know anything, if numbers or logic exist, if there is patters in reality at all, etc. The TAG is an argument of necessity. I don't think Jay was being dishonest there, JF wasn't understanding the nature of Jay's argument. Think about it this way: Change "God" in that interaction with "logic". Can you conceive a universe without logic where a machine can do math? If there is not logic, math is not even possible, let alone a machine. In Jay's argument, God is even more fundamental than logic.
JF: Basically, I am monke. If that delusion is not the biggest self-won atheist do I don't know what is. Even Newton wrote atheism is such an absurd and indefensible position that few people in his time considered it. Yes atheists, your granddady of science was a theist (as pretty much all the great minds of the time).
@@giraffe23 did I say he was a Christian? I know he was an alchemist and a heretic but still he was a theist. It doesn't matter what his views are as long as he believed in a supernatural or metaphysical force/entity that's not empirically verifiable. That's what atheists screech about constantly, do they not? "Show me scientific evidence for big daddy in the sky" bs.
@@giraffe23 my point was alluding to a much greater problem within the philosophy of science and epistemology. Namely that empiricists also hold unprovable beliefs and presuppositions and skeptics like Hume demonstrated that. What atheists are asking for is retarded, because such observations are impossible. They pertain to the metaphysical world which is outside the scope of the scientific method and are not quantifiable. What they can do is critique the theist worldview as a whole (like internal critique) and ask for a justification of the claims made. As for Newton, I thought the case of him and other scientific idols being superstitious and theistic and not the Royal Society-sanctioned image of the cool headed materialist atheists seemed ironic.
@@giraffe23 I'll skip the ad homs and get to the argument. "Atheism is not the denial of metaphysics. Even hardcore physicalists are adopting the metaphysical position that every existing thing is physical." Yes they do, but that position is contradictory to their worldview, that's the problem. They're borrowing a concept from another worldview that's not justified in their own. How so? Most of them will argue all knowledge is empirical and derived from sense data (which is a self-contradicting claim). Meaning that if you can't verify something via the senses it's not knowledge at all, hence the "if God exists, show me material evidence" idiocy. They're also often rank materialist which destroys the possibility of metaphysics altogether. You insist on my argument being a genetic fallacy (basically strawmaning my argument). I'm not saying "Newton was like that, therefore all scientists after him are deluded". I told you my dig at Newton was just to point out the irony and the fact modern science has its roots in alchemy and occult practices and many of the "magical" metaphysical assumptions it was built on still remain but are not challenged, because scientists care little about philosophy. Thanks for explaining TAG to me - couldn't figure it out without your patronizing summary. And you finish off with confirmation bias. Can you count how many fallacies you made in just that comment?
Wait a minute. Didnt JF say a host to "shut the f up" in this debate? JF insulted a host. JF holds? "It was a joke" - yeah, right, i dont think so, his frustration erupted in that moment. What narcotics do u take? I want some! They are apparently really strong to have this kind of hallucination. And i think any sane person would be flustered listening for so long so much nonsesne from JF. 1.Local universal? 2.Arranged by a bunch of flesh? 3.self refuting determinism? 4.we create laws, not discover them?
@@grzegorzbyczkowski1418 jf uses so many words with no justification and reveals his egoism by saying "i dont need to explain why i say x i just do and im a monke because Science says so" He relies so much on being a scientist to give his words any credibility but he's an imbecile
You misunderstand the argument. And he gave not only there several examples. However, you seem not to understand that to claim something different, total solipsism, inherently leads to contradictions and absurd conclusions.
@@MiauZi69 I'm not a solipsist that was random. But hey bud, if it was easy for you get his highfalutin sophistry you'd give the argument, but since it was sophistry you can be quiet. I like how you unironically didn't address what I said as jay didn't either lol you're just being a smug prick like him who deserves a smack for believing in yahweh the J god. Shame on you, debate how christianity comes from small hats. too scared like Jay-boy here.
@@chaddad1488Look up Gödel's incompleteness theorem. The entire field of math must look outside itself to justify itself. Apply it to what Jay said. The theorem is simply a mathematical spin on this argument. Also, you are a disgrace to your race and your ancestors. You larp with the 1488 name but have you even read the Kampf?
All of the things Jay points to that to him have to be explained by a god: Thinking you exist, understanding yourself as a self and others as selfs, that you can be a monist, the fact that you have presuppositions, the lived experience of these states, this can all be explained evolutionarily. You can't say god is the cause of these things because you haven't ruled out a material copying process that reads and writes. At the same time you can't rule out god, but at least JF agrees with this as he said in the beginning.
@@antichrist2558 Lmao watch the debate again man I shouldn't have to explain the insanity of material reductionist thinking and moral relativism to you
@@majorian4897 why is it insane? youve outsourced all your thinking to somebody and cant demonstrate a comprehension of the worldview you identify with. the entire debate on "foundationalism" is a meaningless non sequitur. everything as it works in science and through relativism stands without consideration for its foundation or philosophical uniformity. if needed one can have a personally meaningful secular uniform philosophical system and have it reign by a matter of spreading it or having power and using it. it can act arbitrarily and subjectively, but it doesnt matter at all as is evidenced by history that "truth" comes form power. you can obsess over the "insanity" of materialism and moral relativism but it doesnt matter if your "theory" has no predictive power(christianity doesnt) and has no "foundation" in political power.
@@antichrist2558 TLDR God is dead I am now the Nietzschean Ubermensch your secular slave morality is a larp stolen from a dead religion. I will strive to become the God Emperor of Man I will purge and purify the human race until a eugenic ethno-state is established backed by the scientific data provided by IQ and racial crime rates. I will have underage sex slaves and have people sacrificed before idols since I am all powerful and those around me are mere biomechanical robots that cannot have rights since that presupposes a transcendental argument which cannot exist since I am an empiricist therefore it seems logical to me that they should be used and thrown away as such for my mere enjoyment
Oh my god JF seemed so nice at the beginning. He starts falling back on the stupidest contradictory arguments. Admits that he doesn’t think there’s a self then freaks out and tells an innocent bystander to shut the f up. Yikes. And people say jay is mean
@@semyaza555 They are both rude and mean, and unwilling to have an honest conversation. Both are apologists of their own positions and communities which masquerades as dialogue. Jay has a lot of issues but can avoid them through rhetoric, talking over, expressions and else. So can JF. It's a waste of time
The argument at 1:49:00 is so dumb and JF isn't understanding. Math, logic, etc. are always in existence. They didn't come into being when we could process them and they don't evolve. So why are they here and what can explain their existence? We could wipe out everyone's knowledge of the world and we'd be right back to where we are given time. The more order there is within existence the more it proves a creator. If we just evolved from a big bang event of atoms and molecules evolving over time, then why is there Male and Female? Genes? Food? Cycles of life? Too much order comes from a random event of chaos and if evolution was a thing, why did we evolve to make giving birth harder and the need to eat and survive off the land? Evolution is something that should make it easier and easier over time to survive.
This is assuming the environments also evolve the same way species do. Environments are constantly fluctuating outside of the species control, so its more that the species adapts to the fluctuating environment. This implies that the basis for why the species evolves is something chaotic and fluctuating, which means the idea that "evolution should make it easier and easier over time to survive" is nonsensical, there is no "progress" in that sense.
Really? How do you know you got the right christianity, according to all of you, MOST of you are following it wrong and will go to hell lol. Did Jay prove yahweh the j***ish god here? The sandbox psy-op religion foisted upon Rome by small hats through Theodosian Law.
@@chaddad1488???? Orthodox or Catholic are the only options Protestantism has J origins. Look up E Michael Jones and Matthew Raphael Johnson. They are not afraid to out the J Protestantism is a disease and is what brought us modernity Orientals/Alexandian communion is technically valid but they're small in number and have stagnated
2:00:00 Everyone remember that this is the exact moment that started the schism and evential break up of Warski and JF. Legendary moment, I still remember listening to it live at work. "Those were the _days..._ " -Robert Baratheon
JF: X = NOT X. Jay: So, X is True, Not X is False AND X is False, Not X is True. JF: Yes Jay: So, X is not meaningful, because X = NOT X implies that X is simultaneously true and false, which is a contradiction. In standard boolean logic, a boolean variable can only have one of two values: true or false, but not both at the same time. JF: True. Jay: So, you're not making an argument? JF: Jay: An argument is a series of statements or propositions put forward as evidence or reasons to support a particular conclusion or claim. It's a structured and rational presentation of ideas designed to persuade others that a particular point of view or assertion is valid or true. JF: I don't accept that. Jay: Since you used "I" which presupposes identity of self/awareness, then you, JF, are making an argument? JF: No. Jay: If you're not making an argument, yet I am, I win the argument. JF: No. Jay: Explain, why? JF: X = NOT X. I'm not familiar with JF, but his structure is completely incoherent. This is silly.
You don't understand the argument ... If JF really would state that he has no awareness of the world, why debate him? He already lost in a debate about the world. And how could a statement like "I am a sentient creature" - out of necessity - not entail the presupposition of the self and identity. @@giraffe23
I just started watching Jay a few months ago and have been binging his stuff, I can confidently say that I have yet to see him lose a single debate. "There are no universal truths." is a universal truth claim in and of itself, therefor making the statement a contradiction, how do people not get this?
Saying it is a universal truth claim that there is no universal truth claim is completely circular logic and misses the point of language. It’s like concluding that because people call a model of an alligator an alligator it is the same as a biological alligator. Even if we accept your premise that saying that there is no universal truth is a universal truth that doesn’t mean the reality that statement is meaning to point towards is true, the only really universality that statement refers to is its non existence, it’s like saying you can not declare Allah does not exist because that is a statement that invokes its existence.
1:57:32 WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT A SECOND JF! EARLIER U SAID UR NOT A MATHEMATICAL REALIST. NOW U ASK IF ATOMS EXIST INDEPENDETLY OF HUMAN PERCEPTION. SO THE TERM ATOMS EXISTS INDEPENDETLY FROM HUMAN PERCEPTION BUT MATH, LOGIC, ETHICS DONT?!
I think math and logic are things that only exist if there's moral agents to know what it is. How could we even know if this universe had logic if we weren't here to observe it? Seems pretty obvious that there's no morality if there are no moral agents. Math would essentially be a non-sequitur if there was no intelligent beings to invent it or learn it.
If JF is just claiming that his claim is just subjective about their being no truth, then all on has to do to refute it is to say that it is their subjective local claim that JF is actually saying there is universal truth. He wouldn’t be able to claim that you’re wrong, as he’d have to negate his own arguments about claims only being subjective and local.
So according to you, he should be self-contradicting himself. "He [JF] is saying that he doesn't have any beliefs that he's certain of." - except this one ofc, he is certain that he is uncertain If you think the reply to my / Jays reply: "No I am not certain." Its an outright contradiction. Especially practically, as the utterance itself, the act of speaking presupposes the truthfulness of the uttered statement. Nice advice. @@giraffe23
What we value personally is not universal. This is a IS statement, not a OUGHT statement. Its a description and not a prescription. This is Hume's law. That is not a self-detonating statement because I'm not the one making the claim that universal morals, values, or preferences exist. Objective facts exist, as far as I'm able to are sound and valid for myself, but that doesn't mean that objective values exist. Of course there are right or wrong ways of achieving our goals, but that doesn't mean that our goals are right, moral, or universally preferable.
@@tb8820 Would you have been able to type this comment without science working? STEMlords & Business majors rule the world, dudes LARPing as Aristotle are a dying breed literally no one cares.
I've never heard so many circular arguments as I have by Jay Dyer. Every path leads him to "God must exist". Most of what he is calling metaphysics is just him misunderstanding so many things about the universe.
@JO That's correct, nothing can really be 100% proven. But we accept certain truths without evidence, like that an external universe exists and you're not just a "brain in a vat". The result of this is that all logic is circular.
@@Prolute Incorrect + brain issue. can you 100% prove that nothing can be 100% proven? yes= contradiction and infinite regress, no=your point falls apart. at a certain level you have to accept circularity hence why it's unavoidable and can be/must be used to predicate truth at a paradigm level
