Jay Dyer Debates an Atheist on God, Knowledge & TAG

Añadido: 2026-06-04

[00:00:00]Can you hear me?

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

[00:00:01]>> I'm not sure it is. This is one of the topics like theism.

[00:00:06]>> Sure.

[00:00:07]>> Okay. Do you have like an argument that God exists?

[00:00:11]>> Yeah, the transinal argument.

[00:00:13]>> Okay. Run it by me.

[00:00:16]>> Uh any knowledge claim or the possibility of knowledge at all requires uh preconditions or transcendal categories. Those transendal categories require for their grounding and for their coherence and for their synthesis some kind of being that could ground them. God is the only type of being that could ground them. Therefore, God exists because knowledge exists.

[00:00:40]>> What is knowledge? Like if I'm saying I know something, what does that say?

[00:00:45]>> Uh I mean there's correspondence theory of truth. There's uh there's different truth theories. There's coherence theory of truth. I would say that all of the truth the schools of truth theory have an element of quote truth to them. So I would say some combination of all of those truth theories would constitute uh justified true belief and thus uh true knowledge. So in other words JTB plus get >> okay something okay some something like a defeasible theory or defeasible account with JTB.

[00:01:16]Okay. So, well, what does it mean to say like justified true belief exists? Or or dude, is that just saying that somebody might have justified? Is that what you mean? Or the same thing?

[00:01:29]>> Uh, I mean, it's not making an ontological statement. It's a description of what a good belief is or a rational belief is. So, we have to follow the laws of critical thinking or logic. And so, good beliefs are good reasons for our beliefs. Excuse me. Uh, justified beliefs are good beliefs that have good reasons for them.

[00:01:50]>> Okay. Um, it it might depend on what you mean by justification or like good reasons there.

[00:01:57]>> Well, that's why I said JTB, which is the classical idea of what it is to be to have a justified.

[00:02:03]>> I understand that to like understand what you mean by knowledge. Um, but I I don't even think >> Well, the argument is that any possibility of knowledge. So, it's an even stronger claim than just having a knowledge claim. It's it it's if knowledge is possible at all, then you require certain preconditions of knowledge. Now, you could theoretically say, well, I don't think knowledge is possible at all. Well, the problem is that, well, that's a knowledge claim.

[00:02:29]So, it seems like you're on the horns of a dilemma if you think that there is no possibility of knowledge. So, it's really not even hinging on some uh theory of knowledge per se because it's a stronger statement of for any possible assertion or knowledge claim whatsoever, there are preconditions of knowledge.

[00:02:48]>> Okay. I I was going to first ask what what is it that gets us to God exists if I said like I have justified true belief? Because to say that you have a justified true belief about a knowledge claim or an assertion or whatever um requires a whole series of things be the case that are assumed that are necessarily the case. So in other words, you need an external world. You need some concept of a knower. You need some concept of meaningful action uh in the world. You need some concept of meaning itself. You need things like universals in particular. So some account of the one and the many. All of these kinds of what are called transcendentals or you could look up something like Aristotle's categories, quantity, quality, relation, etc. All of those things are necessary for knowledge. They they're things that have to be the case as preconditions. So the question then is one level lower.

[00:03:52]Well then what grounds all the preconditions? How are they? What are they? Where are they? And the existence of God gives an account for that. It gives them coherence. It gives them sustainability. It gives them uh immateriality. It gives them invariance because God structured and created the world in such a way that if God exists and if that world is the case, it makes sense why there would be those things.

[00:04:16]If God doesn't exist, then there are no preconditions. There are no categories.

[00:04:20]There's no way to make sense of those things and not just in themselves, but how they work together. Because for example, knowledge requires a knower, right? So you've got what Kant calls like the transcendental self uh is necessary to have uh as the knower to have knowledge. So in other words, it's like a series of inferences is what we're talking about and they don't just stand in some abstraction because it's basically an argument for an entire worldview, namely the Christian worldview.

[00:04:52]>> Okay. I might have I might have been under a wrong. Is this like maybe some kind of IBE or is this like a deductive argument to where if we say God doesn't exist, there's like a contradiction or something?

[00:05:04]>> No, it's just a transcendental argument about the preconditions of logic, the preconditions of knowledge at all. So, it's even more fundamental than that.

[00:05:12]>> No, I'm understanding that it's like a transcendental argument. Okay. But I'm asking what type of argu like you can have like an inductive, abductive, deductive kinds of arguments.

[00:05:22]>> Like what kind of argument is this one?

[00:05:24]It's a >> It's a disjunctive. It's a disjunctive.

[00:05:28]X is a necessary condition of Y. Y therefore X.

[00:05:31]>> A disjunctive. Did you say?

[00:05:33]>> What do you mean disjunctive?

[00:05:34]>> X is a necessary condition of Y. Y therefore X. That's the formal structure of what I'm arguing in the most simple formula.

[00:05:43]>> Okay, that sounds deductive. I don't >> whatever. Dude, do you want to argue about terms or do you want to make an argument?

[00:05:48]>> No, no, I was just making sure. Okay, so X has three precondition for Y. Y there for X and X here is what and Y is what I didn't hear you.

[00:05:58]>> Well, we can do it in the case of we can use knowledge as an example. God is a necessary or let's start with without God. Let's start with the preconditions because I said there's tears to this. So knowledge requires preconditions.

[00:06:10]Knowledge exists, therefore the preconditions exist. Preconditions require God. Precondition exists, therefore God exists.

[00:06:16]>> But I'm okay. Is this what is just just what is X and Y? That's all I know. I want to know. Sorry. I literally just filled in the X and Y for you. Do you want me to restate it for you?

[00:06:26]>> Are you going to make an argument or you just gonna any When are you going to make an argument?

[00:06:30]>> Me give an argument for what?

[00:06:33]>> You obviously are disagreeing. So where is the critique? Because I just filled in X and Y for you.

[00:06:40]>> Okay, maybe it wasn't clear. What is X and Y?

[00:06:42]>> For knowledge to exist, there are preconditions of knowledge, right? So knowledge exists.

[00:06:49]>> Just define X and Y.

[00:06:50]>> I just did. Did you not listen? X is a necessary condition of Y. Y therefore X.

[00:06:55]Knowledge requires preconditions. Listen to what I'm saying. Dude, this is so stupid. X is a necessary condition of Y.

[00:07:03]Y. Therefore, X is the form. I'm going to fill it in. Knowledge exists.

[00:07:08]Therefore, the preconditions of knowledge exist.

[00:07:11]>> Preconditions are the understand.

[00:07:13]>> Preconditions are the necessary uh basis for knowledge. Knowledge exists.

[00:07:19]Therefore, there are the preconditions.

[00:07:21]How many times can I say it?

[00:07:23]>> But maybe your It would look like this.

[00:07:25]Imagine. So, I'd say like X is an >> Can you just restate what I'm arguing?

[00:07:28]Can you restate what I'm saying?

[00:07:30]>> No, I can. But it's not answering the question.

[00:07:33]>> You asked me to fill it in. I fill it in three times for you.

[00:07:37]>> Okay. Just say say X is this, Y is this?

[00:07:39]Because it's not clear to me. It's just not hard.

[00:07:42]>> Okay. Do you agree that the before I fill it in, do you agree that X is a necessary condition of Y? Y therefore X.

[00:07:48]You agree that that's sound, right?

[00:07:49]>> Yes. I Well, it wouldn't be It's valid.

[00:07:52]Yes.

[00:07:53]>> Okay. Thank you. So, it's valid. What I'm filling in is preconditions are the necessary precondition for knowledge. Knowledge exists. Therefore, the preconditions of knowledge exist.

[00:08:05]>> Okay. So, X is a preconditions for knowledge and then Y is knowledge. Okay.

[00:08:10]>> And you understand none of So, I mean, are you defining God then as the preconditions for knowledge?

[00:08:15]>> I said there's two layers to this. I said that's the first layer of my argument. No, you're not. That's unfair to what I argue because I said three times now in this discussion that >> I argue from knowledge to the preconditions and the preconditions to God. So there's steps to my line of argumentation. So you can address that or not. I don't care what you want to do, but that's how I'm arguing it.

[00:08:37]>> Okay.

[00:08:38]>> Do you think there's pre Look, are there preconditions of knowledge or not?

[00:08:40]You're just being a sophist. I'm I'm literally you're you're giggling, but you can't even understand the basic argument.

[00:08:47]>> Critiquing anything yet.

[00:08:49]>> I'm asking for the critique. So, make your point.

[00:08:52]>> I know what you're saying before I critique it.

[00:08:54]>> Well, I've told you like five times and you you can't seem to grasp it.

[00:08:58]>> You're pretending that what I'm saying doesn't make sense. You're pretending that what I'm saying doesn't make sense or you just don't get it. And then you're acting you're acting like you're sophisticated.

[00:09:07]>> It's not interesting at all.

[00:09:08]>> The psychology. What are you talking about psychology?

[00:09:11]You're saying that I'm pretending to think what you're saying is true.

[00:09:14]>> Yeah, because I've dealt with a thousand million atheists and you do the same every time. It's always what you guys do. So, do you have an actual argument against what I'm saying?

[00:09:21]>> What?

[00:09:22]>> Okay. So, you're you're a condescending full of When are you going to make an argument?

[00:09:27]>> We're waiting for You're a sophist.

[00:09:29]>> I can tell within like one minute who's a sophist because of thousands of debates. That's how I know.

[00:09:34]>> Okay. Sure. If it helps you, I'm a theist. So, >> I don't believe you are. I think you're just saying whatever.

[00:09:41]>> Anyway, okay.

[00:09:42]>> So, are you going to make an argument against tag or not?

[00:09:44]>> Yes, I'm going to respond.

[00:09:46]>> What is the argument against tag? You're condescending giggle gives away your off the street.

[00:09:52]>> It's just funny.

[00:09:52]>> It's just funny, bro. We're waiting.

[00:09:54]>> Funny. All right. So, you said X is necessary precondition for Y. Y for X.

[00:09:58]Now, X is the necessary preconditions for knowledge. Y is knowledge. No. So, I asked for the argument >> knowledge exists. Therefore, the preconditions exist. Next has to be God.

[00:10:09]>> This is just wasting my time. The next line of argument. Can you just restate what my argument is?

[00:10:15]>> Well, this is a waste of time. Goodbye.

[00:10:17]Goodbye.

[00:10:18]>> Waste of time. Horn, what's up? This is what you get with I mean, I can tell within a minute of an atheist talking that it's not a good faith endeavor.

[00:10:26]It's just giggling, condescension. It's just >> Can I Can I ask another question? Yeah, if you just ask it please >> to understand the uh transcendental argument that you usually do. Does someone need to have a deep understanding of epistemology to understand it or is it something that I'm I have to I could just understand very quickly cuz I've tried to I've heard it before. Um I don't really have a background in philosophy but when I hear it I I I don't see how it leads to God to be honest. I it it's you know it's just me maybe but >> did you hear the argument with the previous So again the argument with the previous guy is another example of this knowledge requires preconditions of knowledge. The preconditions also require some way to be grounded or made sense of. I'm arguing that only God could do that. It's that simple. Do you have to have a PhD in epistemology? Not necessarily. But I mean the more you know about it could help you out.

[00:11:23]>> So what would what would these preconditions be? everything that I just explained to the previous caller, but thank you for that. This is why the I mean I I'm not trying to be mean to this guy, but like this is why it's really frustrating and annoying to do these types of atheist debates is because most of the atheists that call in to debate nowadays are not good faith. I'm not saying that guy was bad faith. The first guy was not good faith, right? And then you guys in the chat are bitching. Like being uh frustrated and fed up with the same stupid condescension is not a man being emotional. By the way, men are not supposed to uh get rid of all emotion. I don't know where you you got that.

[00:11:59]That's like it's not even reality. You can't get rid of all of your emotions.

[00:12:02]So, you say dumb like that in the chat, I'm just going to immediately ban you. The other thing, too, is people don't know how to communicate. I'm not trying to be mean to people, but like you got to learn to as a man, state your argument. Don't be passive aggressive with condescending, effeminite giggles.

[00:12:18]State your argument. Be clear. Be concise. Don't yap for 20 minutes to make a just make the point. What's up?

[00:12:26]>> What's up, dude? Um uh first well comment and then I have a question about Hollywood, >> but uh I think these guys just don't understand patterns and that's kind of why they don't understand tag. I think that's a fundamental >> disability now today that why they can't understand tag.

[00:12:42]>> Well, I mean it tag unfortunately does require a degree of knowledge uh particularly philosophical understanding. And the problem is that >> every debate and discussion ends up being a philosophy lecture. And I'm not going to give a philosophy lecture every time somebody asks a tag question. It's just it sucks all the air out of the room. All the people leave the chat. It gets boring and technical. And again, if you want to go that route, go to FDA's channel and watch all of his lectures and and his tag talks. Um >> or just address be a grifter and uh go tell everybody about your philosophy course. If you want a tag, go buy the philosophy course.

[00:13:21]>> Be a grifter. You think I'm a grifter for selling a tag course?

[00:13:24]>> No, no, no. I was just joking.

[00:13:26]>> Oh, you mean like Rouslon could create a tag course, right? He would think it would be playing uh playing touch football or something. Hey yo, we about to do a a tag course, you guys. Yo, my church rap church going to do a tag course. What's up?

[00:13:39]>> Hey, I just wanted to ask real quick.

[00:13:41]Um, I had was wanting to know, do you have a video that go that provides a rebuttal to the argument that people that atheists will give about, you know, I don't need religion to be a good person? I was just wondering if you had a video that you could point me to for that.

[00:13:55]>> Well, I mean, there's a ton of critiques that we've done from a philosophical vantage point off the top of my head. I don't know what specific video. Probably a lot of the videos that we did with FDA, you know, four or five years ago, there was probably 20 of those where, you know, what's the good? I mean, you can't just say, "Oh, well, I don't need God. I follow the good." Okay, well, give me an account of the good. What is the good? Where's the good? How do we know what the good is? I mean, that's the line of reasoning that I would do.

[00:14:31]>> You like them female monkeys with them bananas between the trees hanging down upside down.