Jay Dyer Destroys atheism Livestream Clip-92821B #tag #orthodoxchristian

追加: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Yeah, lately I've been hearing people that we've been engaging with on the server doing the typical I don't have to give an account for for logic. I heard someone say I don't have to give an account for logic cuz it's a tool. And so I said, I don't need to give an account for God then if we're going to use your standard. How would you flush that out differently?

[00:00:20]Yeah, that's a great point. Um Let me I just wanted to add on to my diagram here to kind of help the So this is helpful in illustrating the the transcendental argument, right? The at least in the way that you guys see me make it.

[00:00:41]Where I say that for us, right? Our day-to-day observations, science, empirical sense data, beliefs, right? These operate at we'll say level two. Uh the tree is green. I am straight. Uh Bill Cosby lives next door, right? These are normal, average, day-to-day, mundane predications, beliefs, observations, assumptions.

[00:01:03]>> [snorts] >> And this I'm just saying that this is the case for any claim of knowledge about the external world. Or any knowledge claim at all, right?

[00:01:12]Every knowledge claim, the tree is green, right? It presupposes these things.

[00:01:18]Right? There's an assumption to be able to predicate greenness of the tree. For example, it assumes the ability to pick out one tree amongst many trees.

[00:01:28]To pick out one color amongst an array of colors, green.

[00:01:31]To predicate the is of predication distinct from the is of identity. So already I have implicit in my sentence metaphysical content. Now, it's true modern philosophers will try to de-ontologize language and linguistic philosophy to remove metaphysical content, but we're going to set that aside for a moment. We can deal with that objection later. But we're going to assume that you really do mean to speak of an external tree out there in the external world that does in some way have a reflect greenness, right? So, that that Can somebody mute, please?

[00:02:05]So, that sentence any act of predication, any any act of predication is going to assume the categories of what we're going to call level one. And these would be things like time determination, the self, the external world, um being ontology, the existence of the tree distinct from other objects, right?

[00:02:26]Uh that things have purpose, telos, uh causation in the external world, um uh that objects have meaning over time, meaningful content, um that uh you know, on and on and on, right? That there's some reality to the things that I'm speaking of, um that they're not just mental figments, etc. etc. So, all of these things that lead to philosophical contradictions and absurdities, right?

[00:02:52]We're assuming when we predicate of these objects in the world that these these categories are the case, right?

[00:02:59]These transcendental presuppositional preconditions for the possibility of knowledge. So, level two is knowledge claims. Knowledge claims use preconditions of knowledge here.

[00:03:10]And my argument is that these things they don't function in vacuum, they presuppose this.

[00:03:17]And not just any God, but a specific type of God.

[00:03:21]So, that's the transcendental argument to answer Excuse me, to answer uh Chase's objection, well, what if somebody says, I don't have to give an account for these things?

[00:03:32]Well, as you correctly said, the first thing that you could reply is that the debate presupposes giving an account for things, right? That's why we're at the table is to justify our beliefs.

[00:03:42]Remember Remember Matt Dillahunty's famous statement in his debates prior to mine, his statement was, we shouldn't believe anything unless we have good reasons to believe it.

[00:03:53]And and those good reasons, he said, are empirical sense data. Don't believe anything unless you have empirical hard data to believe in it.

[00:04:01]And then when confronted on the topic of presuppositional transcendental categories, he says, "No, there is no sense data for those things. You can't give an answer or an account for those things. They just are. There's no way to give it to give an account for them."

[00:04:14]Well, at that point in the discussion, all you have to say to the opponent is that oh, okay. So, in the courtroom setting, if you're granted the ability to just arbitrarily say things are the case without giving an account for them, I get the same privilege as you. I don't have to give an account for things.

[00:04:30]Simultaneously to that, you can give another objection, right? That's not the only uh possible objection to that that absurd ad hoc fallacy. And that is ad hoc. That's being ad hoc, right? He's saying, uh grant me this, I don't have to give an account for it.

[00:04:43]It just is. That's arbitrary. That's a fallacy, the ad hoc fallacy.

[00:04:48]Doesn't matter if it's informal or formal. It's a fallacy. You can't do it in a debate. You can do it, but you get called out, all right? So, that's that's the sophistry of the people that say that you can do fallacies in a debate.

[00:04:58]You can do whatever you want.

[00:05:00]Yeah, you can do it, but it's it's you get called out and you lose the debate, dummy. So, uh what what we we are pointing out beyond that, if we want to go deeper into the critique, is to say, "No, wait a minute.

[00:05:13]So, if we don't have to give an account for our beliefs, are you saying that there's no reasons for our beliefs? Because you're admitting that things like logic are necessary for debate. You're here to debate, so you believe in logic, but you're saying that we don't have to give an account for these immaterial invariant things." And they're saying, "Yes, it just is."

[00:05:32]Okay. It just is what?

[00:05:35]It just is chemical reactions in our head? You're You're really going to reduce logical categories, numbers, and mathematics to just chaotic bubblings over and reactions in our head?

[00:05:46]That's literally all you think numbers are? Logic So, So, you have different numbers in your head for my head, right?

[00:05:52]And then then hence we can go down that line of reputation. But, to reduce objective immaterial invariant logical principles to social constructs, arbitrary states of affairs, they just are, they just work. Just work to do what?

[00:06:08]Uh something working presupposes purpose or telos. And your whole position as an atheist is pretty much predicated on there being no telos. Right? Most atheists don't believe there's this objective meta metaphysical principle of purpose in the world. How could there be? It's just chaos. It's just molecules hitting other molecules. There's no purpose to it. Purpose is something that the mind imposes on reality. This is every atheist refutation of the design argument, of the teleological argument, right?

[00:06:36]They always say, "There's no such thing as design out there in the world. You perceive there to be design."

[00:06:44]Well, okay, if you're you have to bite the bullet, right? If you're going to go that route, now you've you've denied telos. There's not actually telos in anything.

[00:06:52]And if nothing has purpose, there's no reason to to believe the true over the false.

[00:06:59]Uh if I'm just chemically determined to believe the false and you're chemically determined to believe the true, then there's not really the true and the false. Those are illusory categories.

[00:07:08]So, that's where we take that debate.

[00:07:10]And we just show that uh if you're going to reduce things to just arbitrarily they are, they work, that's not giving an account. They work to do what? They work how? They just are. Just are what?

[00:07:26]And something lately too that that I've been seeing is Oh, I forgot, Chase. I forgot. Uh argument is just there's no there's no good reason to believe in God. And so, I just ask them, "Okay, what's your standard for a good reason?"

[00:07:39]And I just point out to them that all of all of those good reasons, quote unquote, that entire criteria is just arbitrary and made up. Um, and they destroy the possibility. That's true, but you could go an even stronger route and say, "Wait a minute, what is reason?" Because clearly you believe in reason. I'd like you to give an account for reason and reasoning.

[00:08:02]Given the fact that you're an atheist, and since there's no good reason to believe in God, that's presupposing reasoning and reasoning categories and logic. So, can you please give an account for those things, and then I will let you argue why there's no God.

[00:08:20]Does that make sense?

[00:08:23]Yeah, mhm. And that's and that's where I've been taking it and they it's it seems it's always the same thing, but lately it's been it's been that and then them saying, "Well, um Oh, what was it? Well, there's no um And I explain to them that you've Yeah, what is reason? You can't give an account for reason. What is it? They reduce it to just saying, "It's something that works." And I say, "Works for who? Works for what?" And then we hit this wall where um it results in a psychological problem, and it seems like that's everyone that's been coming here lately. It just comes down to I'm not convinced.

[00:09:00]Yeah, so that's a good point, too, because they'll always say, "I don't find it convincing." All right, that's biographical details. That's not an argument. So, just point out that Okay, um that's cool and all. That's neat, bro, but what does that have to do with argumentation? I see your problem, not a me Exactly. The fact that you don't find something convincing is irrelevant to the nature of debate. And um You know, I'd be like imagine being in a courtroom and being like, "Your honor, I just I don't find it convincing what the the bad guy says on the on the uh witness stand."

[00:09:37]Okay, so what? Where's the evidence?

[00:09:39]Where's the proof that he's guilty or not guilty, right?

[00:09:42]We're not interested in your own psychological disposition and states uh in this case, right? That's not useful in a courtroom setting. It's not useful in a debate. So, likewise, um uh if you listen to the Bonson-Tobaš debate, uh Bonson actually calls that that very mistake out uh about 10 times in the debate. He's like, uh you know, "You keep relating that you I He got Tobaš is like, I find it hard to believe that a god who is all loving would condemn anyone. I find it hard to believe that the Bible is true." And he's go "I find it hard to believe how it's Okay, so what? That's not an argument. I mean, it's not it's not me being mean when I say that. That's objectively not an argument. It Do you see, right? Not you, Chase, but you guys out there in the audience. Do you see why that's not an argument? I mean, I could I could counter that by doing the exact same thing and say, "I see no reason to be an atheist."

[00:10:43]It makes no sense to me to be an atheist. Okay, that's cool, bro, but that's not an argument. And every atheist ought to call me out if I were to say that.

[00:10:55]Also, I think we do have an atheist came in that wanted to engage uh a Okay.

[00:11:03]a Melchior.

[00:11:05]Are you uh are you in here area?

[00:11:08]>> Uh-oh. We got a We got a legit uh sorcerer here.

[00:11:14]We got a We got a legitimate medieval sorcerer named Melchior. Isn't that a like a weird name?

[00:11:21]So, it >> I'm just joking, dude. I'm just joking.

[00:11:23]It is actually my middle name, and so I know why I was named that, and it's because my dad's a big Lord of the Rings fan.

[00:11:29]>> Ah.

[00:11:29]>> But he But he could justify it because Melchior is also one of the wise men's names. That's a good point. That's true.

[00:11:36]I was just joking. Um That's really cool. Uh one thing I did want to say before we move on to the uh to Melchior's objections is that uh Chase, another point that uh Father Deacon uh makes often, which is to say another problem with saying that everything is like just psychological states, or excuse me, it is just uh like brain uh determined brain, you know, reactions, chemical reactions, or whatever, or to say that something just is, it's not a good justification or account for knowledge because um it could be the case that we're just psychologically disposed, right, to uh react in a way that we think is logical, right? So, we don't actually know if it is in fact logical, but rather we're just chemically disposed to always respond in that way.

[00:12:26]So, that's the problem with with trying to say that pragmatism or pragmatic accounts are justifications is that there's multiple ways to refute that. And and Father Deacon's paper is really good on that in pointing out that okay, well, maybe I'm just psychologically predisposed to do that every time, and therefore it's not actually a justified belief that I have, right? Like uh what's an example of this? Like like maybe logic is just my chemical reaction response that's programmed into me, right, when I hear this or that argument or this or that belief, and it's not actually an objective thing.

[00:13:06]That's one of the problems with saying that, "Oh, well, logic just works."

[00:13:10]Well, it just works to do what? Just works to give me psychological certitude or actually works to do some end, some telos, some purpose.

[00:13:20]So, that the psychologism response is a good way to refute those types of bad attempts at justification, right? In other words, they're they're defeaters. They show that Okay, how if that's your justification, then how's that justification answer this theoretical dilemma? And it doesn't, so it fails.

[00:13:42]It relativizes logic as Exactly.

[00:13:45]Yeah, if logic is just chemical reactions in the brain, then it just appears to be logical and it's just my predisposed uh chemical reaction response to various stimuli, and I think that it's logical and it corresponds to some objective reality, but that's also just also in my head chemical reactions.

[00:14:03]It's not actually the case.

[00:14:05]You see. So, that's the problem That's the problem with It's always funny to me to >> That's the problem with the just is. The just is. That's the problem with the just is reply.

[00:14:16]I was going to say it's always funny for me to hear when people make these grandiose claims, and I just apply that to the claim. They say, "Everything's just psychological states." And then I ask, "Is that just a psychological state that you're predisposed to say?" Yeah.

[00:14:31]And it's it's just a it's the most interesting thing that every time you apply that standard to them and what they're saying, it instantly destroys the whole system.

[00:14:41]Yeah, and that's because they don't realize that all meaningful linguistic predication presupposes metaphysical realities and principles for it to work.

[00:14:51]I mean, they might play a word game and try to deny that there's any metaphysics entailed in terms of language.

[00:14:58]Uh which you can go down a different route to critique that, but if they don't play that game and they're trying to literally say that um You go You guys have seen it in the last 3 weeks in the Discord. Like almost every time we opened it up, there was an atheist saying literally each time, there was an atheist saying um it's universally the case that there are no universal states of affairs. It's universally the case that this is not universal. It's universally the case that this is false. But also there's no universal truth. So they would just keep saying this. Yeah.

[00:15:30]Yeah, I I can't know anything universally true and that's universally true.