If a contradiction is "at the same time and in the same sense" then how is it coherent to say that people have contradictions in them that arent at the same time or at the same sense but are still contradictions? Bro is just vomiting nonsense because he can't defend his religion lmfaooooo
This video reminds me of a funny joke on Yes Prime Minister. Britain was hosting an international conference. The heads of government from every country across Europe was arriving in the UK to attend the conference. Some delegates were getting upset at the proceedings. Because the Queen was formally welcoming the French president into the UK. But she wasn't welcoming other heads of government, such as the German Chancellor. This is clearly unfair. Either all or none. Bernard, the civil servant working for the prime minister, explained why. The Queen is obligated to welcome all heads of state into Britain, no exceptions. She does not evee welcome the heads of government. The French president is the French head of state, hence the Queen must welcome him into the UK, that's the rules. But this is a political conference, not a diplomatic one. The French president is here at this conference acting in his role as French head of govenment, not the French head of state. It doesn't matter what type of conference this is. The French president simultaneously exists as both head of government and head of state, and must be treated simultaneously as head of government and state, regardless of the situation. So the Queen must welcome him into the UK. But it would be very inappropriate if she welcomed other heads of government, like the German Chancellor, as well, seeing as how the latter is not head of state.
He doesn't understand that comparing love and hate, in two different senses, implies two different definitions for at least one of those symbols. That is, love equals not hate but if you're loving and hating in two different senses then you have two definitions for hate. The version that is equal to not-love, in the original sense, and the version that's equal to some new thing in some new sense! He keeps breaking the dichotomy then wonders what equivocation means.
As far as I can tell, his argument is that divine and human are contradictory positions, but if the divine includes humanity, but humanity doesn't neccessarily include the divine, they can be reconciled. Magical thinking is not a resolution.
All these theists who believe in the trinity can do is find fancier, wordier, more round about ways to say, over and over again, "Yes, my god entails a contradiction but it's god so it's ok!".
All of these contradictions and the philosobabble used to explain them away are nothing more than patches for a story full of plot holes and unforced errors
This is the worst word salad I've heard in while. If you can't state your view in simple words, you don't understand it. Complexity is how people try to hide their ignorance. They don't want to get understood, they just want to sound smart. They don't want people to understand them because they want to sound smart. But that is not how smart people explain things as truly smart people want to get understood clearly.
Usagi and Sailor Moon are the same person. Usagi is a human, with human frailties, human strength. Sailor Moon is a magical girl, with magical powers and supernatural abilities. Usagi must transform in order to become Sailor Moon. And Sailor Moon must transform in order to become Usagi. According to Christian theology, Jesus, aka Christ, aka The Logos, existed for all eternity prior to human civilisation, because Jesus is one and the same with God the father. Doesn't that mean that Jesus doesn't obtain his finite qualities until he becomes the human being born in Nazareth, and then he loses those finite qualities after he ascends back to heaven when his resurrection respawn time on Earth ends?
This is actually a serious issue with the whole doctrine and why the Chalcedonian Christology had to be cobbled together. The explanation of Chalcedon is basically as follows: There's the Son, the divine Logos, which is co-eternal and timeless alongside the Father; and there's the human nature associated with the Incarnation as Jesus, which the Logos assumes within time at the point where Jesus is conceived. At this point the Son assumes a human nature while also fully retaining its original divine nature. The divine essence cannot change, and thus the Incarnation does not actually change the Logos in any respect. Yes, apparently now it is somehow united with a human nature, but this is somehow not affecting it in any way and it is exactly as it always was from eternity. The problem with this argument, beyond it sounding like the ravings of a frothing madman, is that it doesn't actually work and the Chalcedonian council knew it, because they couldn't figure out how exactly the divine and human natures are united without interacting or combining or how there is a single "person" present. So they made up the Communication of Idioms to allow them to predicate things of "Jesus" when in fact they are only actually related to a single nature. For example, "Jesus suffered and died on the cross" is just sleight-of-hand, and what they actually mean is "The human nature within the hypostatic union experienced suffering and death on the cross, while the divine nature was entirely unaffected." This dodge did not escape notice by their opponents, the Monophysites, whose monks frequently taunted Chalcedonians by telling them that at least *they* could actually say Jesus died for their sins and mean it. Under Chalcedon, Jesus cannot actually die. His human nature can experience death, but "Jesus" can't actually die for two reasons. First, the divine nature is essentially immortal and not capable of experiencing death in any capacity; and second, "Jesus" is the hypostatic union of the two natures undivided. This means that, at best, part of Jesus experienced something that kind of sucked; and at worst, there actually isn't anything real to the hypostatic union and "Jesus" is just sort of a gestalt fiction that sometimes refers to a divine nature and sometimes to a human nature that are stated to be united but with no actual identifiable connection. TL;DR: Chalcedonian Christology does not actually make sense, surprise surprise.
Arent 'love' and 'hate' feelings you can HAVE, but finite and infinite properties of BEING? Like, you can feel love and can feel hate, but some feeling can't BE love and BE hate at the same time. In the same way, it doesnt make sense to something 'be finite' and 'be infinite'. Love and hate arent 'properties'.
Also, you can love or not love AND hate or not hate. For instance: you could say, I don't love nor hate you. 'Don't love you' does not mean 'I hate you', nor 'I don't hate u' means 'I love u'.
So Im wondering why christians dont compare the trinity to something like a person with mulitple personalities? Like, perhaps its different in the medical field or what have you, but If someone has MPD, I wouldnt say that person is two people, they are one person with multiple personalities. Perhaps my understanding of modalism is too narrow such that I dont understand how this personalities notion is simply modalism as opposed to being closer to the trinitarian notion of hypostasis. Can someone explain? *Note, Im assuming the christian isnt a modalist, otherwise Id not even be worried about it..
Basically the issue is threefold: 1) It's too close to modalism because multiple personalities don't exist simultaneously and the hypostases are supposed to do that. 2) Any accurate analogy for the Trinity is guaranteed to result in complications that undermine the Trinity when thought about for too long, so they have to vehemently reject any and every analogy as inaccurate or people will notice the doctrine is incomprehensible. 3) "The Trinity" isn't supposed to be a person, so we can't say "The Trinity" is having MPD (because "people" have MPD), and we can't say "God" has MPD because God is a person and the only persons in the Trinity are the Father/Son/Spirit, who are not supposed to share the identity/mind of each other. Basically for "God" to have three personalities there would have to be four Gods: God/Trinity (the host), Father, Son, and Spirit (the multiple personalities). Four Gods is obviously the wrong number of Gods.
@Uryvichk alright, so then it seems like without some sense of modalism all analogies for the trinity are impossible, and even worse - the trinity is utterly incoherent without modalism 😂😂 The notion of hypostasis is especially the problem, because it's supposed to be some deterrent from polytheism and as you said having four gods, but to utilize it just forces the modalism notion, which they also reject 😂 The Trinity Dilemma lol Thank you for the explanation 🙏👍
“Show me the contradiction”… 🤦🏼♂️ Super simple: Humans are NOT “divine” by definition Jesus is either “divine” or he is NOT “divine” but he cannot be both divine & not divine as this violates the law of non contradiction
This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The way he's talking about it idk what "sense" is. He invokes metaphysics and doesn't get what he himself is talking about
@ Freud’s model that holds the two terms identical isn’t definitive and doesn’t even track based on his own proposed mapping but in either manner that’s not how the term is commonly used when invoked philosophically or colloquially. It refers to the experience of consciousness that others don’t have direct access to. For example, “reading someone’s mind” can’t be done via externally monitoring, observing, testing etc… a brain.
This theist was annoying as hell & smug. Every damn time he’s asked a question or makes a statement he felt the need to give a sh!t ton of examples 😂 all he kept trying to do is beat you into submission with examples and analogies 😂 he couldn’t make a point or answer a question without an example. Not sure the purpose of having someone on this obtuse
What exactly would you not be willing to accept if you're always willing to accept an appeal to mystery to explain something? Can I say that I'm a jar of peanut butter, and if that doesn't make any logical sense, bada bing bada boom appeal to mystery, so now you have to concede that I am in fact a jar of peanut butter? This reeks of shite.
Random thought: Could it be that Darth Dawkins is actually a brilliant poe, parodying Matt Dillahuntys Style while naming himself after Richard Dawkins to throw everyone off? I mean... ... "This is a yes or no question!" ... "You're now muted!" ... "Aaand you're done!" ... And he's using presuppositional apologetics, because as a good Matt Dillahunty clone he has to interrogate his oppositions beliefs. Guys, has he tricked us all?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
"Darth Dawkins training" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, that was pretty funny.
Debating these people is a waste of time. Honestly, everyone in the atheist community should collectively ignore these dishonest creeps.
We can't ignore them, we have to stand up to them forever, unfortunately
@@MarkAhlquist and we are losing...
@@valroniclehre193 Seems so.
There are a lot more of these people than you think and they talk to other theists and make the other theists feel justified.
@@realBreakfasttacos They outnumber us, and a higher percentage of them are more active in pushing their cause.
If a contradiction is "at the same time and in the same sense" then how is it coherent to say that people have contradictions in them that arent at the same time or at the same sense but are still contradictions? Bro is just vomiting nonsense because he can't defend his religion lmfaooooo
Excellent point!
@realBreakfasttacos which is also him equivocating on the term "contradiction" funny enough 😂
@@GrimAngel01100 Yes!
This guy is completely full of shit like all theists.
This video reminds me of a funny joke on Yes Prime Minister.
Britain was hosting an international conference. The heads of government from every country across Europe was arriving in the UK to attend the conference.
Some delegates were getting upset at the proceedings. Because the Queen was formally welcoming the French president into the UK. But she wasn't welcoming other heads of government, such as the German Chancellor. This is clearly unfair. Either all or none.
Bernard, the civil servant working for the prime minister, explained why. The Queen is obligated to welcome all heads of state into Britain, no exceptions. She does not evee welcome the heads of government. The French president is the French head of state, hence the Queen must welcome him into the UK, that's the rules.
But this is a political conference, not a diplomatic one. The French president is here at this conference acting in his role as French head of govenment, not the French head of state.
It doesn't matter what type of conference this is. The French president simultaneously exists as both head of government and head of state, and must be treated simultaneously as head of government and state, regardless of the situation. So the Queen must welcome him into the UK. But it would be very inappropriate if she welcomed other heads of government, like the German Chancellor, as well, seeing as how the latter is not head of state.
Interesting!
Did you guys know there are no contradictions in the history of all literature? 😮😮 It’s all harmonizable!
LOL Excellent point!
This guy was both ignorant and arrogant at the same time, and that's not a contradiction.
LOL Great point!
He doesn't understand that comparing love and hate, in two different senses, implies two different definitions for at least one of those symbols. That is, love equals not hate but if you're loving and hating in two different senses then you have two definitions for hate. The version that is equal to not-love, in the original sense, and the version that's equal to some new thing in some new sense! He keeps breaking the dichotomy then wonders what equivocation means.
Yes! Faceofyah is horrifying!
you don't love and hate someone in the same sense at the same time.
Christians should stop trying to argue until they understand what they're saying.
Great point!
As far as I can tell, his argument is that divine and human are contradictory positions, but if the divine includes humanity, but humanity doesn't neccessarily include the divine, they can be reconciled.
Magical thinking is not a resolution.
All this divine stuff is nonsense. It's a totally made up thing.
@@realBreakfasttacos yeah, but its the only way they can excuse the actions of thier so called loving god. its part of a divine plan.
@@tussk.That is such a horrible thing for them to say though because they can justify anything with that.
“I’m changing the sense of the word” = to equivocate. 🤦🏼♂️
Great point!
I love how one of the tags(pun intended) on the video is "Reality TV"😂😂
Yes!
All these theists who believe in the trinity can do is find fancier, wordier, more round about ways to say, over and over again, "Yes, my god entails a contradiction but it's god so it's ok!".
Excellent point!
I'm not a huge fan of Ayn Rand. But she was right when she said that once you truly understand that A = A you realise that God doesn't exist.
Yes!
All of these contradictions and the philosobabble used to explain them away are nothing more than patches for a story full of plot holes and unforced errors
Very well said
This is the worst word salad I've heard in while. If you can't state your view in simple words, you don't understand it. Complexity is how people try to hide their ignorance. They don't want to get understood, they just want to sound smart. They don't want people to understand them because they want to sound smart. But that is not how smart people explain things as truly smart people want to get understood clearly.
You made an excellent point here!
Theists make my brain ache.
They do that to all of us.
Usagi and Sailor Moon are the same person. Usagi is a human, with human frailties, human strength. Sailor Moon is a magical girl, with magical powers and supernatural abilities.
Usagi must transform in order to become Sailor Moon. And Sailor Moon must transform in order to become Usagi.
According to Christian theology, Jesus, aka Christ, aka The Logos, existed for all eternity prior to human civilisation, because Jesus is one and the same with God the father.
Doesn't that mean that Jesus doesn't obtain his finite qualities until he becomes the human being born in Nazareth, and then he loses those finite qualities after he ascends back to heaven when his resurrection respawn time on Earth ends?
It's all DND rules at this point.
This is actually a serious issue with the whole doctrine and why the Chalcedonian Christology had to be cobbled together.
The explanation of Chalcedon is basically as follows: There's the Son, the divine Logos, which is co-eternal and timeless alongside the Father; and there's the human nature associated with the Incarnation as Jesus, which the Logos assumes within time at the point where Jesus is conceived. At this point the Son assumes a human nature while also fully retaining its original divine nature. The divine essence cannot change, and thus the Incarnation does not actually change the Logos in any respect. Yes, apparently now it is somehow united with a human nature, but this is somehow not affecting it in any way and it is exactly as it always was from eternity.
The problem with this argument, beyond it sounding like the ravings of a frothing madman, is that it doesn't actually work and the Chalcedonian council knew it, because they couldn't figure out how exactly the divine and human natures are united without interacting or combining or how there is a single "person" present. So they made up the Communication of Idioms to allow them to predicate things of "Jesus" when in fact they are only actually related to a single nature. For example, "Jesus suffered and died on the cross" is just sleight-of-hand, and what they actually mean is "The human nature within the hypostatic union experienced suffering and death on the cross, while the divine nature was entirely unaffected." This dodge did not escape notice by their opponents, the Monophysites, whose monks frequently taunted Chalcedonians by telling them that at least *they* could actually say Jesus died for their sins and mean it.
Under Chalcedon, Jesus cannot actually die. His human nature can experience death, but "Jesus" can't actually die for two reasons. First, the divine nature is essentially immortal and not capable of experiencing death in any capacity; and second, "Jesus" is the hypostatic union of the two natures undivided. This means that, at best, part of Jesus experienced something that kind of sucked; and at worst, there actually isn't anything real to the hypostatic union and "Jesus" is just sort of a gestalt fiction that sometimes refers to a divine nature and sometimes to a human nature that are stated to be united but with no actual identifiable connection.
TL;DR: Chalcedonian Christology does not actually make sense, surprise surprise.
Love and hate are not opposites comparable with P or notP. Love is opposed to indifference
Interesting point!
Arent 'love' and 'hate' feelings you can HAVE, but finite and infinite properties of BEING? Like, you can feel love and can feel hate, but some feeling can't BE love and BE hate at the same time. In the same way, it doesnt make sense to something 'be finite' and 'be infinite'. Love and hate arent 'properties'.
Also, you can love or not love AND hate or not hate. For instance: you could say, I don't love nor hate you. 'Don't love you' does not mean 'I hate you', nor 'I don't hate u' means 'I love u'.
To "be love," or be "pure act," is like "being sitting" when there isn't a chair or a butt in it.
Great point!
So Im wondering why christians dont compare the trinity to something like a person with mulitple personalities?
Like, perhaps its different in the medical field or what have you, but If someone has MPD, I wouldnt say that person is two people, they are one person with multiple personalities.
Perhaps my understanding of modalism is too narrow such that I dont understand how this personalities notion is simply modalism as opposed to being closer to the trinitarian notion of hypostasis.
Can someone explain? *Note, Im assuming the christian isnt a modalist, otherwise Id not even be worried about it..
That is a great question!
Basically the issue is threefold:
1) It's too close to modalism because multiple personalities don't exist simultaneously and the hypostases are supposed to do that.
2) Any accurate analogy for the Trinity is guaranteed to result in complications that undermine the Trinity when thought about for too long, so they have to vehemently reject any and every analogy as inaccurate or people will notice the doctrine is incomprehensible.
3) "The Trinity" isn't supposed to be a person, so we can't say "The Trinity" is having MPD (because "people" have MPD), and we can't say "God" has MPD because God is a person and the only persons in the Trinity are the Father/Son/Spirit, who are not supposed to share the identity/mind of each other. Basically for "God" to have three personalities there would have to be four Gods: God/Trinity (the host), Father, Son, and Spirit (the multiple personalities). Four Gods is obviously the wrong number of Gods.
@@Uryvichk
*'"The Trinity' isn't supposed to be a person"*
it's a set is what it is.
KEvron
@Uryvichk alright, so then it seems like without some sense of modalism all analogies for the trinity are impossible, and even worse - the trinity is utterly incoherent without modalism 😂😂
The notion of hypostasis is especially the problem, because it's supposed to be some deterrent from polytheism and as you said having four gods, but to utilize it just forces the modalism notion, which they also reject 😂
The Trinity Dilemma lol
Thank you for the explanation 🙏👍
“Show me the contradiction”… 🤦🏼♂️
Super simple:
Humans are NOT “divine” by definition
Jesus is either “divine” or he is NOT “divine” but he cannot be both divine & not divine as this violates the law of non contradiction
Great point!
If anything finite exists, Infinity does not, cannot, exist.
Interesting thought!
🙄 Stupid. So, if something temporary exists, nothing permanent can exist? 🙄
This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The way he's talking about it idk what "sense" is. He invokes metaphysics and doesn't get what he himself is talking about
You are correct, he is totally lost.
How is the human mind not corporeal?
Physical brain vs the conception of consciousness aka mind
@@AdamEdn
mind is also physical.
KEvron
Freud demonstrated definitively that the mind and brain are not separate entities, but one in the same.
@ Freud’s model that holds the two terms identical isn’t definitive and doesn’t even track based on his own proposed mapping but in either manner that’s not how the term is commonly used when invoked philosophically or colloquially. It refers to the experience of consciousness that others don’t have direct access to. For example, “reading someone’s mind” can’t be done via externally monitoring, observing, testing etc… a brain.
@@KEvronista can be depending on the setting where it’s being invoked. Here for example, it’s clearly meant in the metaphysical / philosophical sense
This theist was annoying as hell & smug. Every damn time he’s asked a question or makes a statement he felt the need to give a sh!t ton of examples 😂 all he kept trying to do is beat you into submission with examples and analogies 😂 he couldn’t make a point or answer a question without an example. Not sure the purpose of having someone on this obtuse
What a wonderful breakdown of the conversation!
uh, "strong" is a fully subjective and arbitrary term, like "old," which, at sixty years, i am not.
KEvron
LOL great point Kevron!
@@realBreakfasttacos
thanks, young man!
KEvron
It is subjective, and relative. Relative to a 6 year old, I am incredibly strong 💪🏼, relative to an Olympic power lifter, I am not.
The irony of religious 'intellectuals' calling others 'ret ards' while arguing interpretations of magic thinking
Excellent observation!
This is Inception level equivocation
You are 100% correct!
What exactly would you not be willing to accept if you're always willing to accept an appeal to mystery to explain something? Can I say that I'm a jar of peanut butter, and if that doesn't make any logical sense, bada bing bada boom appeal to mystery, so now you have to concede that I am in fact a jar of peanut butter? This reeks of shite.
Great point!
Classic trinity nonsense, why do Christians feel the need to die on this hill, this subject almost makes Muslim theology look sane
Who knows.
Random thought: Could it be that Darth Dawkins is actually a brilliant poe, parodying Matt Dillahuntys Style while naming himself after Richard Dawkins to throw everyone off?
I mean...
... "This is a yes or no question!"
... "You're now muted!"
... "Aaand you're done!"
...
And he's using presuppositional apologetics, because as a good Matt Dillahunty clone he has to interrogate his oppositions beliefs.
Guys, has he tricked us all?
I have thought Darth was a plant since day 1.
@@realBreakfasttacos That would at least explain his perseverance in oppostion to all the demonstrable facts.
@@vex1669 LOL Yup!
Souls aren't real.
Great point!