วีดีโอ

@@SebastianGonzalez-cy1fx yeah so I've heard hes orthodox but he gibberates as bad as one so don't matter

People can do this with Hinduism and other beliefs lol

@@Alwah16 unironically one of thy worst apologists 🤣 Are you joking?

@darth_mb there are many things to joke about but Christ is not one of them. Repent

@darth_mb you're a Matt dillamonkey enjoyer right?

@Alwah16 um, ofc not. Wtf? I'm not a fan of anyone who's a moron, atheist and theist a like.

@darth_mb atleast you're not totally over. There is still hope for you yet. Atheism is pretty moronic itself tho

@@sethg.sturgeon5457 yeah Mason, the dude accused of not knowing basic phil terms was destroying them.

@ maybe I need to clarify: the Thomists annihilated the atheists. I’m not even a Thomist, either.

@sethg.sturgeon5457 no they were completely confused and embarrassed myself. Must be low tir enough that you could quite track the discussion and point made. Curious in what way did the thomists annihilate?

Unfortunately you and they don’t even see the issue Mason was explaining The best the thomist can do is appeal to a mysterious principle they can’t explain That sounds like the equivalent to making shit up

@@sadbuttrue-r9u 💀 yeah really good ideas here...

@darth_mb why not? Scared? atheist stand on nothing, theres Jeem196 too if you want to debate Trinity or something tied to Traditional Christianity, atheism is basically hallenism(neoplatonic school) that why its so low iq, and the reason why it sounds intellectual than those who 'just belive' is by propaganda, if there was no heretical Christianity there wouldn't be your low iq movement becuase saddly they started with all bs, if atheistic seculat moron humanism became dominant in Europe it would just easen up islamization of Europe, becuase muslims are cousins of yours in terms of ideological basis and use same methods as you do, good luck with your libtard utopia hope you fare well in sharia

⁠​⁠​⁠@@sadbuttrue-r9uWhat treasure box they dig you out of. This schizophrenic comment you wrote is just your favorite talking points you been programmed to regurgitate by your favorite apologist. Talking about IQ while you were misspelling words and drooling typing that comment with smoke coming from head. Get back in your enclosure I don’t know who let you out of your cage.

@@Weebgamer236 if you don't understand the contradiction mayhe rewatch and listen to the LPT ran by Mason

I mean I think most everybody agrees on this EXCEPT Trintiarian Christians. Unitarian Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists. You could maybe find a Hindu who is willing to go to bat for something like the Trinity, but they'd still think it's false because it's the wrong Trinity.

⁠@@Uryvichk well… obviously.. same way everyone thinks atheism is wrong except for atheists

@ Jehovahs witnesses are confused though because they think Jesus is the arch angel Michael which is obviously false since in Hebrews it clearly states “at no time did God say to an Angel be thou my son and sit at my right hand.” This idea that he’s the Angel of the Lord or any angel is easily proven false. Oh I also heard they recently have claimed he is also Abbadon they angel with the key to the pit. So sadly there getting way off track. Anyways it’s so nice to know there are others out there reading the Bible and being diligent to not read things that are not in the text. “Head cannon” if you will

@@Uryvichk This is fucking retarded, its like saying "everyone who isn't Muslim knows Muhammad isn't a true prophet" yeah no shit genius.

@@simpnt2813 yes they are, wdym? The thumbnail is franciscans but the trinitarians were thomist.

@@Professor_Pink 🤣🤣🤣 You're a complete joke, are you troll?? Pls tell me you are. Saying stupid comment like this and Nick beat Mason?? Jesus i pity you if you're not trolling?

@Professor_Pink dude look at the fuckin timestamps 🤣 Dumbass

@Professor_Pink if u wanna give ur discord we can talk about it

@@Professor_Pink ik i haven't made a point I'm not cringe enough that imma bout to argue in a comment section. If you don't have cord get it or can give me or insta, snap, any social and we can talk about my responses to your point, why I called u names, and all that jazz. You're just extremely confused and likely scared to vc, but I'm down.

@Professor_Pink _Substance_ is a modern term with meaning specific to modern philosophy. The concept being referred to in the video is not synonymous with the modern understanding of the term; it's derived from Greek philosophy. There is no modern term to represent it, so the speaker invokes a term that best approximates the intended meaning. That's why it sounds like gibberish if you don't recognize that it's just an approximation. Now, I'm not saying I fully understand the underlying Greek philosophy being referenced, but I do understand enough to recognize that it is distinct from what is represented by modern usage of the chosen terminology.

@Professor_Pink Well, my understanding is that ousia is more akin to essence, and hypostasis is akin to substance (note the use of akin vs. synonymous). It is also my understanding that Greek philosophy understood these as distinct. It is further my understanding that modern philosophy dos not consider them so. This being the source of confusion when trying to understand the trinity in modern philosophical terms, the trinity concept being heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Note, this is all my understanding and is offered only as an explination for why the trinity appears incoherent and the language appears to be gibberish. I am not a trinitarian (or even a theist).

"really philosophically deep" sure bro

Only if you consider identity over time to be a real thing. I personally treat existential inertia as one existence causing another. Saying they're "two instances of the same object" is just a figure of speech.

@@BlueEyesDY that's not what that is 🤣 No causation cannot be reflexive

@@СергейМакеев-ж2н No, identity (of any type) doesn't need to be real (and I don't believe it is). If it is metaphysically the case that substances must be sustained or they fade from existence, that sustenance may be sourced externally or internally. If its sourced internally, that is called existential inertia. No identity relation required. Just a note, your conception of existential inertia is ontologically inflated with no apparent additional explanatory power. It would reduce to mine under Occam's razor.

@@BlueEyesDY The identity relation is required not for the existential inertia itself, but to make it an example of reflexive causation. It's only reflexive if "X right now" and "X in the next moment" are *the same object.* I deny that they are the same object, so I deny that one causing the other is an example of a reflexive causation. For me it's just plain old forward causation, which makes it *more* parsimonious than yours.

@@darth_mb Sorry, _I use terms differently than you_ is not a meaningful critique of my position. You have to respond to my usage of terms. Otherwise, you are explicitly attacking a straw man. To be clear, as I use the term, existential inertia is equivalent to self-sustenance. I consider sustaining to be a causal relationship. That makes self-sustaining a reflexive causal relationship. Thus, my statement that existential inertia is causally reflexive is true. Another example, under a Thomistic understanding of movers, movement is causal. So, a self-moved object would be reflexively causing its own movement. There is no logical incoherence here, so what principal do you invoke to counter these examples? I am curious though, what is your understanding of existential inertia?

Damn i found u here as well r u the same marko who is in discord in modern day server

@@kamranahmed6446 probably

@@huntertobey6965 he's super dumb and dishonest and only knows gibberating. He did the same to Tom Rabbittt recently.

Your example is just describing intellect and will as parts of a mind.

Also those are things that happen to a single person, it's incoherent to call three parts of one person's intellectual faculties separate people. Your mind is not made up of three guys who also presumably have minds because otherwise they wouldn't be guys.

@@Uryvichk You're right that a human mind can't fully know itself without its faculties-intellect and will. But with God, His perfection means His self-knowledge must be fully actualized. Not fully expressing this self-knowledge would imply an unrealized potential, which isn't possible for a fully actualized perfect being. But God doesn't merely have intellect and will; He is intellect and will, analogically speaking. So, God's knowledge of Himself is so complete that it expresses as the distinct person of the Son (linked to intellect), and the perfect mutual bond between the Father and the Son expresses as the Holy Spirit (linked to will).

@@justinLoliver Pure actuality (sans a thing actualizing from one state to another) is incoherent in the same sense pure running (sans a runner and a place they're running) is incoherent. But setting that aside, what you're describing are not persons. Knowing yourself does not give rise to another self, that is, another center of thought or consciousness or (debatably, depending on the terminology assumed here) will. The Son as you describe it is just a label for a process of self-knowledge, but there has to be a self knowing something and in that case it doesn't know itself in the form of another, distinct self; so it's not actually a person you're describing and using the term "distinct person" is misleading. I understand the language is analogical, but if the Father/Son/Spirit are only "analogically" persons, that is identical to saying they are "not" persons. It's also completely unsupported why, even if the process as you describe it were accurate, that it would manifest in this particular way. "The Son" carries with it various additional baggage in Trinitarian understanding, such as suitability to incarnate, which do not follow from the assertion that divine self-knowledge is expressed as a distinct person. Even if perfect self-knowledge generates a person, there is no reason to think it would be The Son as described by Trinitarians.

​@@Uryvichk I agree that knowing oneself does not necessarily give rise to another distinct self or person. This is a unique phenomenon of a fully actualized being whose self-knowledge is fully self-contained (fully realized, complete and independent) and active (since it lacks any potency). They are indeed actual persons because they are individual (meaning self-contained and capable of action and experience), oppositionally distinct (meaning having unique roles and relationships), and of a rational nature (meaning having intellect and will). I mentioned that I was speaking analogically in terms of God's intellect and will, in the sense that since we cannot know all of God's properties, we can only describe God using terms and concepts that are familiar to us, even though they do not perfectly capture God's true nature. There is a paternal relationship, as we would understand it, between the first person, who is the source of the Godhead, and the second person, who eternally derives His identity and being from the first. If the Christian God exists, then the terms "Father" and "Son" would seem fitting for their distinct roles and the relationship they share.

@@treyexists yep, at least on was good faith and willing to listen. It's bc Justin is friends with Kata who's friends with me and Mason, so him in cahoots with those gibberators allowed Mason to pull through.

@@kingobama4305 yep 😆

LOLL

literally just a bunch of medieval crap glad I grew out of this phase myself

@@MoeThomas-jh7wo that's thomists gibberish for u

yea sure but the question is does "buzz" and "word" refer to the same thing you see "buz" and "word" share an essence but are ontological distinct, but if you cover it with hypostatic sauce they taste difference but only if you are high as fuck

@@FrikkinLazer sadly this makes more sense than whatever they were spewing 😭😂

@@FrikkinLazer I'm high as fuck and they all still taste the same 😩

It’s almost like the trinity is of three above logical beings You can’t attribute logical no beyond logical entities

@@markpalmer9844 this isn't me in this video so weird ud bring me up. But I don't pretend to not understand the question so no1s being disingenuous, also this isn't pedantic at all. Clarification for different interpretation that are relevantly demarcate the progression of the conversations flow is vital in these types of discourse or when it's entirely unclear what's being said. Kinda awful ppl cry about types of semantic analysis, funny they're always braindead too.

Are you just ret@rded? Lmfaooo you clearly didnt actually listen to the video. Danny had to sit here and explain to this guy that theres a difference between empirical and empiricism.

@@davex444 what Ben Shapiro act? Why tf do stupid ppl say stuff like this?

@darth_mb Perhaps it was not intentional and just your natural delivery, but since Wednesday, anything that sounds like right-wing horseshit seems like it needs attacking. Apologies.

@davex444 look you clearly don't understand what "Ben Shapiroing" is, what he does is spit ball talk, i was being concise and stringent, nor do I didn't i was saying super technically, convoluted, or esoteric. I understand how people had said about couple months ago i used to talk alien and with a lot of jargon but this was just so transparent and layman. Some terms they might had not of known, or even concepts like scientific heuristics but it's less an issue of me when you try and make a hypothesis to explain a fact and I use rudimentary phil of science terms, this isn't fuckin calculus. But no I was not fast talking, quite the contrary(I speak slow and enunciated my self super clearly) nor did I talk "big wordy".

think someone in one of newest videos or something talked about it, may had said some stuff to people on discord, Julian might have. Other than that, I'm not sure.

@@darth_mb Thanks! I think detoryer was not prepared to debate logic theorems. Unless you believe he is a low teir debater in general.

@glenntaylor1834 no detroyer is easily one of thy most knowledge people i know. He just preformed pretty terribly here