Reddit Tier Atheist Tries Converting Jay Dyer

Añadido: 2026-05-12

[00:00:01][music] Hello. Hello Jay. How you doing?

[00:00:07]>> Yo, what's up? How you doing?

[00:00:09]>> Am I audible?

[00:00:10]>> Yes, sir.

[00:00:12]>> Okay. Okay. So, I I don't want to assume you hold any beliefs. So, um are you a Christian? It's I find it's better to ask questions rather than to assume u views or positions.

[00:00:24]>> Yeah. Orthodox Christianity.

[00:00:27]>> Okay. Okay. So, um, so is this alternatively at the same time going out to some radio station? Not that I mind being heard. Just out of curiosity.

[00:00:36]>> Yeah, we're on, uh, WW KQ105 out of national. No, I'm joking. There's no radio. It's on my YouTube channel. It's not It's not on radio.

[00:00:45]>> Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. So, I I have some um question. So, is this um the is the reason you do this um and I I do some mild activism on my page as well. Not that I'm plugging myself and getting people to follow me, but is is your main thing here that you want to bring people to Christ or Christianity or get them to change their mind?

[00:01:09]>> We do a lot of things over here. We do movie analysis. We do geopolitical analysis. uh not really activism, more of a intellectual educational approach to questions. Uh and then part of what we do is uh debates and apologetics to defend Orthodox Christianity. So yes, that's part of what we do.

[00:01:28]>> Sure. Sure. And um I think so so with me, I think it's good to um change mind because I I think you know every now and then if you change your mind then you remember that you have one. But um so I think you would agree with me that >> Yeah, I've changed my mind many times.

[00:01:44]Sure.

[00:01:46]>> So in the spirit of it's good to change your mind. What would possibly make you change your mind that Christianity is the true religion?

[00:01:55]>> And I'll put you on the spot of it, but >> No, I don't care. You can say whatever you want. It's open forum. Anybody can make any challenges or questions.

[00:02:01]>> What would change your opinion that Christianity is the truth?

[00:02:06]Um, I think if there was another worldview that was better at giving an account for the fundamental aspects of reality, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, uh, or if there was some sort of, you know, massive internal contradiction within Christianity that was demonstrable, that might make me question it or rethink it. But, um, you know, I've not heard those things yet.

[00:02:32]>> Sure. I mean, my position is just to be open. I'm an agnostic atheist. So my my own take is that um it's um I mean sometimes people think agnostic and atheist are the answer to the same question. Whereas real agnostic cuznostic by definition is to do with knowledge. So we are agnostic. We don't know if there's a god or not. So theism and atheism those are positions of whether you believe it's true. I don't know if you've heard this point. Sorry if I'm repeating myself if if you've heard it before. So you understand the difference between the terms. Sorry.

[00:03:06]Oh, sorry. I thought you were going to say something.

[00:03:07]>> I said yes. I understand the difference between the term atheist and agnostic.

[00:03:11]Yeah.

[00:03:11]>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I would say I for me I am about 0.00001% convinced that there is a supernatural deity um presently existing. So, see what I find interesting is just from looking at religions and god is that um so not every religion has a god. I think about twothirds of religion have a god.

[00:03:34]About onethird of religions are atheistic i.e. Janism or Buddhism. Um but what I find interesting is that every religion has an afterlife. So for me the question is that should be asked is not whether a god exists. I think the question is of psychology. So I think what religion does I mean you may disagree with this opinion. I think the idea that you have an afterlife is the greatest marketing gimmick ever made. So this um and you can come back on this with your own thoughts. It's the idea that oh you're so special. You're so super sillious. You're so amazing. You know after you die that's not the end.

[00:04:14]There's a continuation. There's a there's a um cinematic universe where you're involved where you know films are made for 80 years or for infinity. I think it appeals to our human ego where we want to think, "Oh, I can't just die and become maggot buffet. You know, I'm going to be I'm going to, you know, I have to get this sort of VIP ticket to this eternal theme park of paradise and it's going to be wonderful and I'm going to see my grandparents in young age and you know, it's like a utopia." So, I I think that is that that's very appealing like >> Can can I make a can I make a statement?

[00:04:52]So, sorry. I just say one last sentence and can come. Thank you for the time.

[00:04:56]So, um I think that's very appealing cuz the idea that you just die and then you get eaten by worms. It's it's sort of minimizing yourself as you are. But yeah, you um so I'll come to the question now. So would you if you was being I mean I don't see no reason why you shouldn't be honest. You seem like a sincere person. So would you say that that appeal of yes Jay will have an afterlife if I believe? Do you think that is some uh level of your reason for belief?

[00:05:27]>> So what you did and I don't object to you asking those kinds of questions but >> sure >> what you said was really just a psychological report and an emotional appeal. Neither of which constitute an argument or have anything to do with whether religion and the afterlife are true or not.

[00:05:44]Okay. Well, I I have no reason to think it's true because I've seen >> Okay, but wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa. But Grant, I understand. So, you're I understand that you question theology, religion, the afterlife.

[00:05:56]That's fine. But the argumentation that you gave was a psychological report of where you think the the desire for that to be the case comes from from human desire and ego and what we call an emotional appeal. that people believe this because they want to and you know but none of that is an argument.

[00:06:19]>> No, this I'm saying it's a reasoning.

[00:06:20]I'm not say I'm not saying why you should believe or not. But what I want to know is that appeal like the idea that >> So let's put it this way. My response to you is that I believe that God's existence is objectively provable and that there's a logical philosophical argumentation that can demonstrate that.

[00:06:39]So, what all of what you said is neat, but doesn't have anything to do with whether or not God exists or whether or not there's an afterlife. You just gave again an emotional appeal, which is a fallacy.

[00:06:51]>> No, I'm saying the appeal of emotion is to the theist, not to me because it appeals to that person.

[00:06:57]>> That has nothing to do It has nothing to That's No, it doesn't. That's a Do you understand what a fallacy is? It's an emotional appeal is a fallacy. No, it's a fallacy. But I think the fallacy is for the theist because >> it's not a fallacy for a theist because it's not an argument against the position. It's just a you're reporting about how you think the the belief arises, but that has nothing to do with whether it's true or false.

[00:07:21]>> Okay. But what I'm saying to I mean I I'll talk about I've seen people die and they pretty much stay dead. So there's no reason to fe I'm not seeing I mean uh you believe in Christianity so >> so what we only believe the things that we've >> three days you believe that on faith >> so we no I don't believe it purely on faith you so you only believe the things that are what locally visibly phenomenally present to you at the at this moment >> no when it when it comes to objective claims such as God um then or or an afterlife I mean it doesn't make sense if you look at it from a scientific point of view because anyone who's anyone who's gone into a neurology clinic can see that a brain that is slightly damaged, we lose all our primary senses, our memories are affected. So the idea that if you've got a body rotting in the ground for thousands of years and then it's going to resurrect and it that person is going to come back in their in their original form with the same personality that just there is no sort of rational basis for thinking that. Well, but I mean what you consider rational and what you consider possible is already based on your presuppositions and your worldview. And so if you're committed to a naturalistic worldview, then I need to know how you can make knowledge claims at all given your naturalism.

[00:08:41]>> Okay. Well, we make knowledge claims through I mean there's um um empirical claims. There's there's there's ways to there's ways to test like um I mean if someone is pregnant you can do a pregnancy test and it's pretty much yes or no and then you can also do sort of like ultrasounds or whatever and you can see the embryo.

[00:09:00]>> So do you so you're you're saying as an empiricist so you think that basically all human knowledge comes from sense data.

[00:09:08]>> We don't come to objective claims yet.

[00:09:09]Hm. How do you know? How do you know the how do you know the claim all knowledge comes through sense data is true from sense data?

[00:09:20]>> Because it's it's not circular reasoning. So for example, if someone writes in a book that evolution is true um and uh that would not mean evolution is true. You can um or for example if someone says corona virus is real. It won't be true because it's written in a book by epidemiologist. It would be true because you can go and do uh >> yeah but I'm asking a different question the way the way is >> you're not you don't understand the question I'm asking it's no no you made a univers >> you made a universal claim all knowledge is from sense data and I'm saying that it's fundamentally contradictory and I can show you that because you can't show that proposition to be true from sense data there's no sense data that tells you that all knowledge comes from sense data and That's your governing presupposition.

[00:10:09]>> But I I would not regard faith as knowledge.

[00:10:12]>> Did you not hear that has nothing to do with the claim I just criticized your belief your claim? How is that criticism not devastating to your epistemology?

[00:10:23]>> Well, I'm not here to talk about my epistemology because I mean there's certain of mess. Yeah. So, >> you're making knowledge claims that are the basis for why God doesn't exist. And I want to know how you have a justification for knowledge claims at all. And you just gave me a big contradiction. So I'm not getting how you have knowledge at all.

[00:10:42]>> I don't I don't understand which way where where you saw the contradiction.

[00:10:46]>> All knowledge comes from sense data. You said that proposition itself, which is a >> objective claims.

[00:10:53]>> Okay. All objective claims come from sense data. That proposition itself is not a truth that you can find in sense data. You think it's an objectively true statement, don't you?

[00:11:03]Yep.

[00:11:03]>> Is it found in? Is that true?

[00:11:06]>> Are you listening to me? People never listen. They just blow past. Is the proposition itself in sense data?

[00:11:14]>> Sorry.

[00:11:16]>> The proposition itself all objective knowledge comes from. Can you not answer the question? Can't understand. It's a very simple argument. Do you know David Hume is? It's a critique of David Hume.

[00:11:28]>> Okay. I'm I'm not familiar with David Hume. You said all objective knowledge comes from sense data. Do you want me to ask you for the fifth time? All objective knowledge comes from sense data. Where in sense data is that proposition itself?

[00:11:43]>> Well, you can see you can there's a way to you can testing. So for example, I had co and then I >> the proposition itself. I'm not asking about you're not answering the question.

[00:11:55]>> It's not verified by me testing itself.

[00:11:57]You can do it. You can test me for CO.

[00:11:59]And >> how do you test that proposition? I'm not talking about CO. What are you talking about? Co.

[00:12:04]>> The proposition itself.

[00:12:06]>> I'm giving an example. I'm giving an example.

[00:12:08]>> That's not this proposition.

[00:12:09]>> I don't think you understand.

[00:12:11]>> I do understand. You don't understand.

[00:12:12]The proposition itself, all knowledge that's objective comes from sense data.

[00:12:17]That proposition. Do you understand?

[00:12:18]That's a sentence claim. A proposition.

[00:12:20]You know what a proposition is?

[00:12:22]>> Yeah.

[00:12:23]>> That proposition, not COVID. that proposition.

[00:12:27]Where in sense data is that proposition?

[00:12:30]Stop interrupting me until you answer the question or I'm going to boot you.

[00:12:33]You're not going to answer the question.

[00:12:35]How many times must I ask people these questions?

[00:12:38]>> You're not unable to understand. So, you're putting on me. You're deflecting.

[00:12:42]>> I'm not deflecting because it's a battle of worldviews and who can give an account for epistemology. That's my argument. My argument for theism is the one that gives an account for epistemology. You made a really big claim. All knowledge that's objective comes from sense data. All you got to do is tell me where in sense data that proposition is known and it can't be known because it's a universal claim.

[00:13:04]You don't have universal sense data.

[00:13:06]>> I can't explain it if you're unable to understand.

[00:13:08]>> You can't explain anything. You're not answering anything. This is always what you people do. It's a very simple qu is it just ignorance of philosophy? I'm not trying to be mean to you. It's just like do you not understand the question that I'm asking you? Can you repeat? Tell you what. Can you repeat to me? Can you repeat to me?

[00:13:24]>> Disagree. We'll have to agree to disagree because you think I don't understand the question and I >> Well, can you can you can you clear that up for me and repeat?

[00:13:31]>> There's no point going around.

[00:13:32]>> If you're not going to answer the question, then I'm going to boot you because you're not. It's Look, all you have to do is just repeat what are >> you understanding the answer, but you don't want to look stupid.

[00:13:40]>> You don't have an answer.

[00:13:41]>> You're trying to put on me.

[00:13:42]>> I'm not, bro. I'm not worried about looking stupid, dude. You made a claim.

[00:13:46]I'm just asking you to explain that claim given your system. Do you not understand that?

[00:13:50]>> I've done that. Let's move up. If you can't understand, that's beyond your comprehension. That's fine. I don't understand everything about everything.

[00:13:57]>> So, you just said that you don't know about David Hume, but you think that this is my problem of comprehension.

[00:14:03]>> David Hume. I've never read David Hume.

[00:14:05]>> I know. Exactly. So, it's not a problem of comprehension on my end. Classical quotes.

[00:14:16]It never fails when we have this question come up. No matter how many times you ask a very simple question about a universal epistemic claim, they will not answer it. They blow past it. If you're want if you want me to believe your empiricism and your skepticism, fine.

[00:14:36]You have a progenitor who is better and more eloquent at you in this position.

[00:14:41]His name's David Hume. You should go read him. So, I know David Hume's argument and you're just repeating it and you don't even understand that you made a universal claim and all I'm asking for is if all knowledge comes from sense data or all objected knowledge comes from sense data, then in your system that proposition itself has to also come from sense data because that's a knowledge claim. This is a very simple argument.

[00:15:06]And to tell me I don't comprehend your answer, you didn't give an answer and you didn't understand what I'm asking.

[00:15:13]Go ahead, dude.

[00:15:19]Classical quotes. Go ahead.

[00:15:32]Yeah, I don't care if you're thumbming me down. If you're going to do a philosophical debate, you might want to know a little bit about philosophy.

[00:15:47]Morgan, what's up?

[00:15:53]>> Hello. Can you hear me?

[00:15:54]>> Yep.

[00:15:56]>> Yeah. Hi, Mr. Dy. Um, I was wondering, can I still participate in orthodoxy without going to a church? I guess where LA does not have a an orthodox whether it's Eastern or Greek doesn't have one.

[00:16:10]>> Uh yeah, you just do you do the best that you can. I think God knows that. I mean, we have people who are baptism of desire in the church who couldn't, you know, fully be received. So yeah, you just you do the best that you can.

[00:16:22]Exactly. Good question. Classical quotes. Did you want to try again?

[00:16:33]You're being mean. Did I not tell everybody at the beginning of this that if you won't answer the question, I will keep bringing it back. Bringing it back.

[00:16:42]Bringing it back until you answer the question.

[00:16:47]Classical quotes. Do you want to say something?

[00:16:51]Where you at, dude? Come on.

[00:17:00]Today is not for people that have called in a million times. Please, if you uh are coming on, it's because you take issue or disagree. So remember, it's disagreement day. Orthonome.

[00:17:19]I mean, do I have to write it on a whiteboard? Would that help people out what we're saying here? I thought I had my whiteboard in here. Where is it at?

[00:17:27]Whiteboard. Summer. Let me get the whiteboard.

[00:17:38]And what did what do we see? The same old thing. Machine gun blow past. Let's blow past into other topics. Nope. No lazy atheism allowed here.

[00:17:50]All knowledge.

[00:17:55]That's objective comes from sense data.

[00:18:08]Okay, can we all see this?

[00:18:12]See that?

[00:18:14]This is a proposition that makes what's called a universal claim. See that word all there?

[00:18:22]That's a universal quantifier that is making a statement about all states of human knowledge.

[00:18:31]All human knowledge that is objective comes from sense data.

[00:18:38]Okay, that is a very strong claim when we stop and pause and think about the claim. Okay, so this is the question that I'm asking to this person.

[00:18:49]See the brackets there? The brackets are bracketing that proposition.

[00:18:57]I want to know where in sense data that proposition is because this claim here would include the claim itself. You see, in other words, if all objective knowledge comes from sense data, this is an objective knowledge claim. It must therefore also some be somewhere in sense data. Of course, this universal claim is in no one's individual sense data. Therefore, say fundamental contradiction for basic empiricism. It is an empiricist critique 101. So, if you're going to come at me with worse than David Hume skepticism, I'm going to give you the David Hume better than than you skeptical response because I can be a better skeptic than you because David Hume is a classic skeptic.

[00:19:56]Where you at? Orthonome Espendola?

[00:19:59]What's up?

[00:20:02]I mean, you have the microphone, dude.

[00:20:04]What's up?

[00:20:06]on mute.

[00:20:07]>> Hey, uh, can you hear me?

[00:20:09]>> Yes, sir.

[00:20:11]>> Uh, first of all, thank you for getting my request. Uh, just for context, I'm an orthodox Christian, but that's the there's a question that many, uh, atheistic or agnostic friends of mine always end up asking me, okay, when they question my beliefs or anything, >> okay? And that is that any claim made they say I'm trying to put it on words but they say that if all human knowledge logic and you know empiricism and universal claims it's all based on it's like human creations how can we trust these uh these affirmations like that? Well, hold on. First of all, how could a universal Hold on.

[00:20:58]>> How could a universal claim be based on human creation? That that right there doesn't make any sense. Do Do you have universal experience?

[00:21:07][laughter] >> Yeah, exactly. For example, uh if I want to prove like give a proof about God in a logic way or you know in a philosophical way, they the debate always ends up in oh but that's just like human truth. You can't really prove that it's objective.

[00:21:24]>> Okay. Well, then if that's just if that's just human truth and subjective, then their own claim against it is also human truth and subjective and thus undercut.

[00:21:37]>> That's usually how the debate ends up, you know. So, no one is convinced by the end of the the argument.

[00:21:42]>> Well, but no, hold on. But they they just that's your truth. No.

[00:21:46]>> Well, if they reduce their position to pure subjectivism, relativism, and skepticism, then they can't say anything.

[00:21:53]then they don't have an then they don't have an argument against >> with that most of the time they say oh yeah >> okay well then you've done your job as a really prove that >> then you've done your job as an apologist because their position now means that nothing is provable >> yeah that's usually how the debate ends up >> okay well if nothing is provable then they can't prove Christianity false >> yeah exactly >> so then that's all you can do >> I wonder if there's something more because they you know they just shrug it off and yeah we can't really prove any >> well if we can't prove anything then you've done your job and they don't have any argument against Christianity so that's all you really can do I mean apologetics only go so far right it doesn't I mean apart from you know the individual being open to what's true and God working on their heart and all these other factors logic and argumentation only go so far ultimately it's not a question of knowledge right man's fundamental issue is not knowledge it's Ethics. [music]