Transcendental Argument for GOD Part 3 - Jay Dyer Destroys atheism Livestream Clip

Añadido: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]I'm an atheist, and unlike most atheists, I will grant you that it is almost definitely morally superior to not be an atheist, to be uh I'll I'll say Orthodox cuz I'm talking to you, but uh some type of religion in most and I would say since I'm in a Western country, that would be a Christian religion, ideally, but my problem is that I was I was not raised in the church, and I basically developed on uh atheism due to just a lack of anything else.

[00:00:38]How is it I don't think it is possible to convince somebody who is in that situation and also is a logical person who relies on rational arguments to come to conclusions.

[00:00:54]Basically, what I'm saying is I don't have a lot of faith points with to just take somebody's word for it that there is a God, that there Jesus Christ is that God, and all the other things that go along with that.

[00:01:06]Um how can it Do you believe it is possible to convince somebody like that?

[00:01:13]Or do you think that uh it is simply not um for these type of people?

[00:01:23]Uh yeah, those are good questions. I would say that first and foremost, uh no, I do think that there is logical demonstrable proof for the Christian God. I think the transcendental argument is a valid, sound, logical argument. Um I think that the argument it's is itself about the status of logic and reason itself.

[00:01:47]So, no, I would not ask a person to believe Christianity just simply on uh hearsay or because somebody claimed to have had XYZ experience.

[00:01:56]Uh I mean it's not necessarily wrong to believe on the basis of hearsay because I mean somebody could as the examples I gave earlier, you could believe in something true for bad reasons. So plenty of Christians are convinced of Christianity for bad reasons. I mean we see that with the the classical arguments. I mean they're bad arguments but they do work at times to convince people for the wrong reasons. However, um when it comes to the truth or falsity of the positions themselves, I mean that's a separate issue even from bad arguments about the position. So I would say and that would be the fallacy fallacy, right? Just because something's badly argued doesn't mean that it's necessarily true or false. So >> And the same There's the same with atheists. A lot of atheists become that because of emotional reasons.

[00:02:38]>> Sure.

[00:02:40]Well, the my first response would be uh no, actually I would make a logical rational argument for Christianity and for the Christian God and the argument would be that logic and reason themselves are impossible without the Christian God. So that's the transcendental argument in short. So when you say things like uh and I'll let you have the floor in a moment. When you say things like that it's morally superior perhaps uh to have sort of Christianish values um but that logic and reason is kind of the domain of atheism or science is what what at least what it sound like you're saying. I would say no, I think to the contrary. I don't think that atheists can give an account for a justification for logic and reason at all.

[00:03:26]Um my account for reason would be that my brain is essentially a sophisticated computer that has arrived at these abilities that are useful for the environment that uh I'm evolved to be in and intelligence and reason and mathematical spatial relations all that are part of that.

[00:03:51]So uh let's back up here. So, um are you saying that the spatial relations and the things that you perceive in the world are only in your brain, or are they actually metaphysically existing realities out there in the world?

[00:04:06]I would I would assume that the world is actually real and that we're not all in a matrix, but I I wouldn't say that I can prove that to be the case. I just project nihilism a priori.

[00:04:20]Right. Um but you mentioned a series of things in this description. You mentioned the brain, {quote} {unquote}.

[00:04:26]You mentioned um that it's {quote} sophisticated, which suggests uh a levels of complexity as opposed to things that are non-complex or simple.

[00:04:34]You mentioned that it had progressed in the sense of evolving. You mentioned um objects in the external world, which again kind of presupposes a lot of metaphysical categories, like an external world, which you mentioned there. Um you mentioned the ability to perceive objects, uh which suggests that there's uh identity over time in objects, that words have meaning, that there is objective truth value in propositions.

[00:04:58]And so, what I'm getting at here is not just to spit out a bunch of uh of phrases or arguments, but that all of those things kind of require a structure to epistemology and to metaphysics. Would you agree or would you not?

[00:05:16]I would say that you can So, yes, they must physically exist, all these objects that are being perceived.

[00:05:23]And then all the categories that relate to those things or describe those things, I would say those could be invented by uh intelligent observers.

[00:05:36]Okay, so you So, you think that numbers, logical laws, uh the external world, time and space are merely invented by us.

[00:05:48]I would say that they are descriptions for patterns that exist in nature. Oh, so wait a minute. So, exist, that's metaphysics.

[00:05:59]Granted. Okay.

[00:06:02]Go ahead.

[00:06:04]So, somebody didn't just arbitrarily decide numbers and or if if somebody made that based on no external observations or reality, then other people would not go along with it. Um but we all agree that two things are two things and three things are three things and um all and that a cat is a little bit like a dog and less like a cactus. Okay. So, so if we all agreed that numbers were the opposites of themselves or that would that actually objectively change the numbers that the the principles that are being reflected?

[00:06:43]>> Okay. Well, I thought you just said that it was because we all agreed on it.

[00:06:49]It's not because we agree on it. We agree on it because it is self-evidently true.

[00:06:54]>> Oh. Or we can we can observe that it is is true.

[00:06:57]>> How do you know that observations are self-evidently true?

[00:07:03]I mean, can we mis- Can we Can we misinterpret our observations?

[00:07:11]Yes, but I have to assume >> So, how how do we know that we aren't misinterpreting our observations in these cases of things that you're saying are self-evident?

[00:07:23]Because if if that is the case, then basically nothing that I think or see I can take as as at face value or true. And if that's the case, then >> So, that's circular.

[00:07:41]So, I assume I'm I'm taking it as an axiom that not nihilism is not true that we that there is some truth in the world and we can observe it and that our observations aren't completely illusory.

[00:07:53]Um Right, but what I'm what I'm pointing out is that that's not >> I can't give an account for why that is the case. Oh, okay.

[00:08:02]Well, that's what we got to do when we believe in these things is give an account for them because nobody wants to believe in something irrational. Nobody wants to believe in something that they can't give an account for. But remember you number point two that you made was that, you know, uh nobody should be asked to believe in something that they don't have a good logical rational account for. So, I've heard you believe in a lot of things that now you're saying and I'm not trying to put you on the spot or be rude. I'm just saying that in the interrogation process here, I'm just looking for an account for not one thing, not a couple things, but a host of metaphysical and epistemological principles and categories that are necessary to have the structure or seemed to say exist in the world and not just in the brain.

[00:08:45]But what's the what's the justification for believing in those things and the existence of these things? You did say which anytime we hear the word existence, we're in the domain of metaphysics.

[00:08:55]And the reason I'm raising all these objections is is because if you read somebody like David Hume who's a consistent atheist, you know, in you guys's camp, he pretty much calls you guys out in exactly what I'm doing.

[00:09:06]He's just going to say there is no justification for these things.

[00:09:12]Right. Um so, I would I would admit that there is no justification if you want to take it to the deepest level of logic, but that we have to assume some bedrock uh reality in order to function as uh as living beings >> Okay, but now you're bringing in Now you're bringing in value judgments though. Like well, why are we supposed to function? May Maybe every Maybe everything should uh degrade and devolve into the universe just collapsing. Like why ought we to function and flourish?

[00:09:48]That's a value judgment.

[00:09:53]Um good question.

[00:09:56]I would I guess if I were pressed on that, I would say that um I I just want to.

[00:10:05]Okay, but I mean that's not I mean again, I'm not trying to be rude. People think I'm being a when I say this.

[00:10:09]Has nothing to do with the debate. So, that you want that is a taste preference subjective to Okay, I want to eat ice cream here in a minute.

[00:10:18]I'm not being a I'm not being a douchebag. I'm just saying that I'm illustrating that that it it really has nothing to do with um justified true beliefs, right?

[00:10:30]Okay, so suppose I took as an alternative some argument for Well, you're you say that specifically Christianity must be true, not just not just deism.

[00:10:44]Um How would How would you establish that?

[00:10:51]Well, because that all of these transcendental categories that underlie any possible act of perception or predication, they need a specific type of metaphysic, a specific type of world, specific type of logic, epistemology, reasoning, ethics, and a specific kind of structure to the world. So, it's not like um any kind of God will work to just stick in there. We need a a paradigm. So, ultimately what's being argued for is not just an abstract conception of some kind of mental deity or thing. It's actually an entire paradigm, an entire worldview of how the world's structured, how man is made in the image of God, so he has the ability to reason, he has the ability to use logic, which are you know, invariant metaphysical principles that are out there operating in the world. Uh and so, he has an ethical dimension and domain to his being because he's made the image of God. So, we have a basis for ethics.

[00:11:43]We have a basis for doing science because the future will be like the past precisely due to divine providence. I'm not saying it's true because I'm saying it. I'm saying that when you look at the paradigm as a whole, the the things that we use to predicate these transcendental categories, they make sense and they're coherent and they are clearly there in the Christian paradigm.

[00:12:04]When we look at the other paradigms, atheism, materialism, radical skepticism, scientism, they can't give an account for logic, reason, demonstrating anything. They can't give an account for the various metaphysical things that we saw were needed for uh your claims and for your worldview. And so, that's why I'm saying that the argument is a an argument for our position because the other positions can't give an account for the things that they're using.

[00:12:32]So, why can't it be the case that a universe exists or was created through some means unknown to us and then it just happens to give rise to a reality where you can ascribe um numbers accurately and there's lot and there's rules of rationality that are true in this universe and laws of physics are true in this universe and we exist in this universe and so on. Because we need a specific type of God to string the pearls together, so to speak. So, to to just say that there's some God out there that has no direct connection to the world.

[00:13:06]Like you mentioned deism, um that would not be a God who could sustain and keep in being every object and every relation between objects uh over time. So, for example, if you read St. Maximus, he has a really good essay about the logoi. And one of the things in his logoi doctrine is that he thinks that the I the divine ideas uh are the undergirding structure, fabric, and and and way that the world is constructed. It's like the fabric of how reality is constructed in the divine mind, and that's a perfect justification and providential way for reality to be guided to help be held together, etc. So, there's a a specific metaphysic that we have that the other worldviews like deism don't have. And what I'm saying is that when you adopt those positions, they they end up in absurdities. So, in other words, it doesn't actually do us any good to admit deism because deism wouldn't solve the problems, for example, of predication.

[00:14:05]So, I I need a god who has knowledge of all the facts which I'm learning analogically. So, we need an omniscient god. And we need a god who's present at every point for the facts to actually correlate to one another. Any fact, right? So, in other words, I can't predicate without universals.

[00:14:22]Universals and particulars presuppose the one and the many question. And the one and the many question has to be grounded in a god who is both immanent and transcendent, omniscient, etc. Okay. Um I don't know what all of those mean. So, in other words, in other words, let let let's let me give you an easier example.

[00:14:43]So, if if we if we had a deistic god, there would no longer be telos in the universe.

[00:14:49]So, in other words, I need the immanent presence of god. I need the what's called divine conceptualism where we ground things in the mind of god.

[00:14:58]If I don't have that, then this world becomes basically the god there is useless. And that's why in the history of Western philosophy, the deistic god gets tossed out.

[00:15:07]Because he's a useless placeholder.

[00:15:10]He has no relation to anything.

[00:15:14]In other words, I'm saying it wouldn't it wouldn't solve the metaphysical and epistemic dilemmas that we think god solves unless we had the specific theological paradigm of Orthodoxy.

[00:15:27]Okay, and what exactly exists in this world that would not be accounted for by random entropy spawned universe?

[00:15:37]All of the transcendental categories that I mentioned, abstract objects, logic, anything anything invariant and immaterial such as numbers, uh you know, advanced mathematics. I mean, none of that stuff would be even be possible if the uh universe were pure chaos and and just random um molecules in motion.

[00:15:58]Well, if you have a uh suppose a space of uh pure entropy.

[00:16:05]Um that space cannot be homogeneous because if it were, it would not be uh entropic. And so, within that space, you would have pockets of less entropy and pockets of greater entropy. And in one of those pockets of lesser entropy, there is our universe.

[00:16:22]That is a theory that I hear scientists say is what they actually think is the case now. Right, and that's interesting, but the critique that I gave was that you can't actually make sentences.

[00:16:34]So, before you get into these uh you know, grand stories of entropy and all that, which is fine. I don't mind you doing that, but like you're going to have to be able to give an account for how you can make sentences, which that was my original line of questioning. I was posing the objection that I don't believe that in your world view, you can account for predication at all. So, if you're going to give me big science theories, that's fine, but you're going to have to give an account first for how you make sentences given your world view.

[00:17:03]Um I have um a certain capabilities to make sentences and uh you know what I mean. I I know what I mean because we speak the English language in common. Yeah. None of none of those are those are all bad arguments. I'm not trying to be a dick, but uh uh so the fact that you claim to have the capabilities is not a justification. That's a biographical detail. So, I'm asking for a justification in the epistemological sense for the ability to predicate meaningful true statements, true propositions about objects in the external world.

[00:17:39]Okay. I don't see why you lack that ability if the world were created randomly, so to speak.

[00:17:46]So, again, if everything is matter in motion and it's chaotic, I need an account for how there is structure, logic, reason, invariant objects, the ability to predicate, um value judgments, metaphysical claims, existence, etc. All of this stuff that the skeptical atheist tradition has rejected, you're now relying on it, and I'm saying, "Okay, if you want to rely on it, which I agree with you, we have to have those things to be able to speak meaningfully about the world, we have to give an account for those things."

[00:18:19]I think in the case of logic, that you could make the argument that it must be true in all possible worlds, therefore it is true even in the random world. If there if you have particles in motion, you have a certain number of those particles in motion, and so you can describe number to them and so on.

[00:18:35]So, now you believe in invariant immaterial realities that are not just physical?

[00:18:44]Such as logic, you mean? Yeah.

[00:18:50]I think um logic is just a discovery of the bare minimum or bedrock um properties that any structure must have to exist. Okay, but you keep saying that it is and it is the case. Is what? I'm asking the What is the metaphysical status of numbers and logical objects and entities.

[00:19:18]Okay, then yes, you could call it an immaterial thing that exists. I would probably call it something that is a pattern or observation noticed about our physical world that we can interpret and using logic which is circular, I know.

[00:19:35]Uh say that it must exist in other worlds.

[00:19:40]Okay, so but it's separate from the patterns themself. In other words, the the patterns I would I think you believe are the physical objects, right? And so the thing that you're picking out as the pattern is not identical to the physical object, right?

[00:19:54]Right, like if you have seven bananas, that is not the the number seven.

[00:19:57]>> I I absolutely. So, uh what or where is seven? Where is it located? In our minds? In uh Do you do you now believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the immaterial world of numbers?

[00:20:12]I don't believe it's located anywhere. I don't believe location is um a word that properly describes an immaterial object. Right. So, uh if they're not located, then they must be grounded somehow. How do we give an account for them or ground them?

[00:20:50]Are you there?

[00:20:53]Um okay, I don't have a good answer for that.

[00:20:57]Right. So, and I'm not trying to be douchebag, just pointing out that typically again, what we see is that the atheist worldview wants to utilize all all metaphysical principles, all these metaphysical truths, all these epistemological laws and structure without being able to give an account for them. And in fact, their paradigm actually makes those things impossible.

[00:21:15]So, they want to have all their cake and to eat it, too, at the same time as turning around and saying, "God is a metaphysical being that doesn't exist.

[00:21:21]There's no real reason to believe in metaphysical realities." And yet, all of the things that undergird language and predication and meaning are kind of like God.

[00:21:31]That's the point.