Simulation Theory & The Pagan Gods Refuted - Jay Dyer (Half)

I don't have them dumb wig on. Let's see, let me play the metal song.

challenge from our opponent last night. And I'm really sorry.

thank you, super chats rolling in. We're gonna get started if you if you missed the first ten minutes of complete nonsense. I really should have put that into more of a planned musical presentation because it could have been pretty funny. It's okay, all right, let's talk about last night. It's really lengthy debate. It was good. I wish that the sound had been.

any doubt about that. But whether or not you can really make out the arguments I'm making because every time I set a sentence the last part of the sentence was cut off because Discord was acting weird. So any debate that I do is posted at the website. It's posted on all my social media. So if you follow my website or any of the social media as you will see last night's debate posted. So yes, I'll add

it to the description. Unless Joe the Boomer has made the debate behind a paywall, I don't know if he's done that or not.

Discord was pathetic, dude. I mean, from now on, we'll have to do this on my channel because I'm not gonna waste three hour debate with a bunch of audio nonsense, and then if he wants to have it on his channel, he can put it up. Yeah, I cut out every five seconds after two hours, it was it was pitiful, all right. So what was what we're gonna see in this is the similarity between the pagan conception the Aristotelian conception.

And ironically, when I listened to the previous discussions that Tweetefon had had on that Daily Brat, they had discussed all of the similarities between Aristotle and the Tonus that we're on there, And Yeah, that's kind of the thrust of the argument I've been making for a long time, isn't it. So what I did was I kind of just listed all of these ideas, and I only got to about half of them in the debate because it

ended up being so wordy in circular. But what we want to keep in mind is there some basic principles that are going to be true in most of the Pagan the most of the philosophic and most of the

Far Eastern worldviews. Now I believe that this is still true for Islam and even arguably Judaism, but we're going to set aside the monotheistic views for the time being, and we want to focus on again the Pagan conceptions, the Platonic, Neoplatonic, Aristotilian, the Greek conceptions, and the Far Eastern conceptions, because basically they're all monistic, and I think when you have a system that's monistic, you're gonna be

in the same dilemmas. And this is why we can use arguments like critiquing absolute deviind simplicity, yes, and synergy distinction. Those arguments are still applicable to these other religions as well. Now that's a little more abtuse, perhaps, and there are simpler ways to critique those worldviews as well. Man, it's goning hot up in here, dancing and playing metal and both demons or something. They turn the air condition and

I'll be right back. And so yeah, the furry demons were the furry demons that run Discord Ward messing with my audio chat Alison. I got his my notes on his worldview two. Okay, So basically, yeah, and this is gonna be a half and half talk. Now, there is an old talk that I did for subscribers, which is

a pretty lengthy discussion of Aristotle. We'll be touching on some of that material, but the majority of this material is new and it's specific to this guy in the worldview that he presented because it's kind of piecemeal, very similar to Boggle or Dave and his approach. And you know, most of the people that are in these perspectives, that's what's going on. It's a piecemeal thing that they're kind

of just putting together. Now, they don't see that as problematic, but I think it is pretty evident that the root of all this, as we'll see connected to the position of monism, is that these positions end up still still relativistic. That's the pattern that we tend to see in these pagan guys again, over and over and over, the positions become cafeteri stall subjective things that some guys just kind

of piecing together. And ironically, again, if we set a sight of Satru and the different pagan movements, if we think about other religious movements in our last century, when we think about all the people, for example, that studied under Crowley, what did they do, not all of them, but many of them, Well, they went out and started their own religion. Right, So what did Gerald Gardner do? He creates Wika and he creates it as a blend of Druidism and all this jibber jaba that he learned

from Crowley and all this kind of stuff. Other guys, oh Ron Hubbard, he goes through the ranks of the Crowley school, goes out starts his own cult. A lot of these guys have this pattern. Now, I'm not saying that all the pagan guys are the equivalent of Joe Gardner, Croleier, l Roon Hubbard. I'm just making the association, the connection of the fact that these are people who just kind of try to piece it together. And he says, well, yeah,

I'm a reconstructionist. In other words, I'm reconstructing what the ancient rights must be. And what we tend to see is that this is a fool's enterprise. I remember when I was looking into Orthodoxy initially, and I was really trying to grapple with all the criticisms of neoplatonism. This

is neoplatonism, you're neoplatonic. And what about the similarities between Augustine's doctrine of the philioque and Plotinus's discussion of the Diad and the triad, and how the third principle between the two is love.

It's older scholarship that was trying to make that argument about Christianity being neoplatonic. But you see that, for example, reflected in Nietzsche's day where he says it's just another version of Platonism. And certainly many of the Christians over the years, especially in the West, have been absolutely platonic, especially a lot of the Calvinists and the Thomas, no

doubt about that. But what you realize is that between Iamblicus and between Platinis Neoplatonism is two completely different approaches. Is it me mentally recognizing these things or is it a bunch of ritual magic leading to theurgy? You see, which one is the real neoplatonism and so all, And it's the same thing in the rights of the constructed made up religions of paganism or any other cult. It's completely subjective.

don't you think? Yeah, exactly. So what you start to realize, and this is what I realized, when you get to a certain point in the researching, maybe like esoteric guys hermeticists, and you realize, oh wait a minute, like Manley P. Hall's big book, he's just doing He's just piecing together things from comparative religion, and they're just looking for similarities. And I'm not saying you can't find similarities. But what I'm saying is that a lot of these cult leaders

they're just making it up, dude. They're making it up as they go. They're starting their own shit, right, They're not really passing down mysteries. There might be some truths and mysteries contained and what they're constructing, but they're not the part of some lineage of the true Druidic tradition. Get that out of here, bullshit, Because there's a lot more about the anti world that we don't know than we do know. Now, that doesn't mean that there's absolutely

no traditions that are passed down. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the resurgence of paganism I don't believe. And this is we're gonna see this now all over. This is what all these people are gonna They're gonna go into it just like sheep. They're being primed for this because of the collapse of Evangelicalism, the collapse of

Roman Catholicism. They're all just piling into neopaganism. But let's talk about whether or not logic and reason and philosophy can actually coincide with paganism and all this stuff, because I don't think it can. I think actually we'll find that they are self refuting and inconsistent. So let's look at the basic outline of what the dude last night said Twitter. And I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent him. If I misstate him, I'm sure we'll have a future

interaction he can correct me. But what I understood him to be saying is that he starts with this metaphysical assumption that that we It's not exactly clear where he started. Then, That's why I kept pressing him on this, because he says, well, we look out at the world and we see that there was at one time a one. There was a hyperussia, beyond being, super existence, a monad emmonism, some kind of great unity, and then it split into the diad. Okay,

this is what all the ancient Greeks taught. Basically both I agree in Plato the diad then is the beginning of multiplicity, and then the Dad kind of splits into all of the particulars of our experience that we see out there in the world, all the hylomorphic matter form instantiations or particulars out there. Now, let me see if he said anything else. Theology, then he says, is understanding the gods and the principles behind things. There is the good,

and there is what ought to be. And these are derived from reasoning about these principles, which he said were independent but present in this world, and ultimately they derive from the one in the monad world in the perfect unity. But also somehow there were there are many unmoved movers. So the I'm looking at my notes on his view, the lesser humans have a lesser morality. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but and so this is what he's derived from reading seventh century BC to third

century BC Greek and Confucian philosophy. Okay, so it's kind of a little bit of Aristotol and a little bit of the far easier stuff and a little bit of Plato. Because he said he believes in divine idea or ideas. There's no mind for these ideas, so that doesn't even make any sense. But he says there's ideas that are independent of material form and existence, and he says we need to look to Permenides. So go back to the Presocratics and the Ionians and look to Parmenides. Permendes taught

us that everything that is will always be. And again, the logical conclusion of that is that change is illusory. I mean, if the here and the now is eternal and it's always just going to be happening again and again and again, then it doesn't it stand the reason that the alterations in time and space that we experience that they are illusory, because it means that every single point in time is eternal. So this is really just

a deifying of the here and the now right. This is all The monistic systems can either be dualistic and nonsensical or monistic and nonsensical. They can collapse either way. This is always true of any monistic system, he says. He says his system is monism. It's always one. The fundamental unifying aspect of all reality, the fundamental structure of all reality, or the ultimate reality is just one all things that are are. So he starts his system off

with this statement, everything is or isn't. Isn't doesn't make sense, So therefore everything is okay, this is number one. This is not a coherent starting point like he thinks. He thinks a starting point is theory neutral, that he can just start with this reasoned out assumption of what existence and being and all things are. No, you can't. I'm not saying you can never have a starting point. I'm pointing out that that is not the neutral starting point

that you think it is. And so that was a about forty minutes of stressing that point, and I don't think that he ever grasped it, or if he did, I don't know. Then when we started against this discussed time and change, and then when we moved into the last part of the debate where my audio was cutting out pretty heavy, and I was asking him how he came to these conclusions and how he had episomic certainty

about all these claims. How did he go from these general instantiations to universals, from the particular to the universal, which is again a big problem in the Arisitilian system. I don't think we got a coherent answer. I think what we got was him saying, well, I experienced it. Let me just go back to my individual personal experience and I look out and I see change. So change is real, but it's not ultimate. The debate is everything I do is on my website and my social media.

So it debate was last night. It'll be linked in the thing. If Joe the Boomer hasn't made it, it was on the Daily Prap, if Joe the Boomer hasn't made it behind a paywall. So all right, So let's start with these things that he's laid out, and let's take them now again. Monastic systems. And this is why I kept hammering this home and he didn't get it,

and he didn't answer it. Any fundamental critique from the time of the Presocratics and the Ionians up through Plato, and it still applies to Aersol too, even though Ersol tried to solve this problem in Plato, and it's applicable to all the far Eastern monastic views. Is the fact that in this realm of the ideal, in this realm of the one and of the monad, if everything is perfectly simple and unified, then it shares no similarity or

likeness to this realm. Okay, but if we think about Plato, for example, Plato wanted the world that we inhabit to be a kind of a rough phantasm mirror of that realm. Right the ideas in that realm are reflected into this realm in pale ways. So all the chairs that you see are pale lesser being and stantiations of the ultimate chairness that exists in the realm of the ideas. Now there's a problem right off from the outset. If the one is absolutely simple, then there aren't multiple different forms

within it. And again this is what I critiqued intomism to classical theists, because it's true because they adopt absolute demond simplicity, and they adopt the actus purest view. Now there can't be multiple ideas and a real distinction in

an absolute unity of this nature of this kind. But if you're going to say that all the things that exist in this realm are grounded in the ideas in that realm, in the monad out there, in the One, in the great Unity, in the great Beyond, whatever, wherever you locate, it doesn't matter, then you need there to be multiple different things, because if there's not, then what you end up having to say is that, in fact,

distinctions themselves are all also illusory. Because if there's not a form of a chair and a form of a man in the one, because that's where you've said it's located, that's where it's in. The ideas are in the form. By the way, how do ideas subsist in an impersonal, abstract realm doesn't make any sense because the word idea, the whole conception of idea, is itself analogous to his

mind having ideas, so it's retarded from the outset. But setting that aside, if there's not a separate form of man, in a separate form of chair in the Great One, then it can't be the ground of your epistemic certitude in this world. This is the fundamental problem of all monistic systems because they try to relate that world to this world, and it doesn't work because this world is in perpetual flux and change and is constituted by many, many,

many different distinct things. There are many particulars everywhere in this world, many many, many distinctions. And what we see is that when we try to ground it in this abstract nonsense thing, what happens is that all again dissolves. What seemed like it might be a coherent basis right, basically, what Plato says, in fact does not work. It completely dissolves. Now I'm not just making Aristotle's third man argument. That's not what I'm saying. Don't misunderstand me. This is not

basic bitch stuff. We're beyond that. What I'm saying is that there's an even better critique, and ultimately it applies to Aristotle too, because Aristotle doesn't actually ever get from the particulars to the universal. It doesn't make any sense to say, well, there's universals, but they're just in every particular. And that's why later down the road, the empiricist philosophers who followed that train of thought out consistently rejected universals

and became nominalists. They said, yeah, exactly, if we're going to start with empirical sense data, guess what we don't ever actually empirically sense a universe. We since this event, this event, this event, this event, or this collection of matter, this collection of matter, this collection of matter. That's not getting you to a universal if you believe in empiricism and the Aristotilian system, although it is a realist system, it is certainly more empirical than the a priori speculative

platonic view. But it doesn't matter because he grounded his essences, his ideas, his forms, the divine idea or the ideas as he called them, which have an independent existence. He grounded them as I understood in relationship to the unmoved movers which exist in the realm of I guess lower degree particularity. And he said, ahha, that's a good question. When I asked him, is there one unmoved mover or

fifty five? Because Aristotol contradict himself, and he admitted, Arisotle contradicts and says both at one and one in metaphysics that there are fifty five movers, and also in the on the celestial heavens, he speaks of one unmoved mover. Well, this is a problem with the one in the many, okay, and you can't solve it by saying that there's a fifty five different unmoved movers. Oh wait, there's only one unmoved mover. So he didn't really give an answer to that.

He kind of spoke early on in the debate about the different principles that are unmoved movers, and then later in the when I really honed in on that, he said, oh, well, no, there's just one unmoved mover. So that was a pretty devastating blow, I would say to his to his argument, and it really illustrates the higher level critique and principle that I was making about the one in the many.

You're always gonna have a dialectic in your system between one and many when you start with this absolutely simple, impersonal, unknown, unknowable monad and super essential oneness, right, which is, by the way, hyper ussia, beyond being a pyrone, beyond being wholly other. If it's wholly other and wholly beyond being in your view, then it doesn't relate to the many particularities.

It doesn't act as a platonic grounding for the many, many, many particularities and particulars that we experience in this world. And then of course I made moving beyond that, the point about any of those systems, whether it's the Presocratics, the Ionians, whether it's Plato, or whether it's far Eastern thought, is that if you follow that through, then it leads

to the logical conclusion that in this world. And he even appealed to Parmenides, and I said, well, if you have a legitimate defense of parmenities, I'm willing to hear it. But he just said no, I mean, I agree with promenities,

but you're just giving a basic bitch critique of permenities. Okay, I said, so defend permenities then, because if everything that exists is pure permanence, truly speaking, and the world that we experience is flux and change, doesn't it stand to reason that the world of flux and change isn't really real.

So the far Eastern philosophies, Buddhism, hindu whatever that follow through with that line of reasoning and ultimately come to the conclusion that oh wait a minute, yes, this world is like a giant demiurge tricking me, and he even brought that up. He even said, well, how do you

know it's not an evil demon tricking you? Right, the Descartes critique, And I said, well, first of all, that's really easy to refute, because if that view is true, then it's completely destructive to all rationality and logic and argumentation period. And so therefore it's not true because it's so fundamentally destructive to the possibility of reasoning. What how could that be? Well, let me give you an example.

If it is true that everything that I learn in this realm, in this world is ultimately illusory, and if it's true that there's no change ultimately, then I didn't really progress from a state of not knowing that truth to knowing that truth. And when I did possess from a state of being of not knowing that truth to then knowing this supposed great truth, then isn't that also part of the great illusion? Why? Yes, it is.

Why they're all really similar, aren't they. So while all of this apologetic discussion and debate sounds really obtuse and it's really abstract, it's really really simple because the founding points where these systems try to start building are very similar, and they're almost always the same, and it always starts with the individual's reasoning and rationality, constructing something that ultimately ends up in subjectivism or pure relativism every time, and

so ultimately, now it doesn't matter whether it's the atheist, whether it's the complete rank materialist, or whether it's the dude in your college class who's like man, and like, what if we're in a simulation, it's the same thing Plato's demiurge a gnosticism. This world is a trick. Got to flee it, flee the body. Same doctrine for Eastern religions. You got to like meditate yourself out of existence, destroy your ego man to become one with usness. Same basic argument.

Now he didn't say that he's like I don't believe this Hindu style stuff of you know, trying to destroy your ego whatever. But it doesn't matter because at root all these positions are monistic, and then they have the problem of relating that world to this world, which becomes a problem of dualism. The perfect ideal world to this world, how does it relate? And we all know Plato's answer

to this question, which is retarded and laughable. Well, I guess, at one time in our in our pre existent eternal lives, in our ur before we reincarnate stages back, we were in the ideal realm, and so that's how we were just remembering what was in that perfect realm. That's a retarded ad hoc answer, and Aerosol is correct to say, no,

that's a retarded adholc answer. But guess what. Aristotle's smushing of the ideas of the forms, of the essences, of the of the universals into the particulars doesn't work either. So Aristotle's right to critique Plato and his answer is also retarded. So what Aristotle does? Guess what? Here's let me blow your mind. Remember that all the arguments about

absolute divine simplicity. Well, guess what hilomorphism. It just takes all the problems of absolute divine simplicity that we critique in the theology and it applies them to particular objects. It's smushing the accidents as not really what constitutes the object. It's just smushing the universals into the particulars. And holomorphism ends up with absolute simplicity for objects.

Aristotle and substance and accidents. We got Jay, we got him.

Catch up, dudes, it's time to catch up. Any basic Tomistic work will tell you that Thomas Aquinas rejects the essence energy distinction. Thomas teaches Actus purists. That means there's no essence energy distinction. It's not hard to figure out. You can confuse yourself and get lost in all this stuff, but it's not hard to figure out if Thomists and Roman Catholicism accept or reject the essence entergy distinction. It's not hard to figure that out. And so guess what.

of the transcendental argument from Aristotle. Bro, catch up, dude, that wasn't it. That's not a gotcha moment. They don't understand that the gotcha moments are actually just making them look goofy, because I've already covered all this for years. Anyway, these are young guys. These are guys who are like twenty one. They don't they don't know what they're talking about.

All right, So let's get into Aristotle because again, what we want to stress here is that Plato and Aristotle are wrong in a very fundamental way, and Plato Aristotle are right in insightful ways. Does that make sense? Can

we grasp that? So, first of all, what we want to understand when we can trast this, We're going to look more in depth at the Aristotilian view as an example here, because again with this guy, it's a very good bridge between the Tomists and the Pagans, because this guy was interested in Aristotle very heavily, or a good bit of ariostol. He liked a lot of aerosol, and Aristotle is the bridge between Hellenism and you know, tomistic

Rome Catholicism in a big way. And I'm very aware that Aquinas cites Augustine, and he cites Dionysius and the divine names many many, many, many many times in Assumer. In fact, I believe he cites Dionysius more than he cites Ariostol. I'm aware of all that. But regardless, it doesn't really matter. It's not what we're here to talk about. Let's critique the Aristotilian perspective, because what we want to see is that Aristotle's system fundamentally is not at all Christian.

And if the fact that there's similar terms, it doesn't matter. If I say unmoved mover, I say, I believe that the world was started by a first cause an unmoved mover, And you get all excited and you start jumping around, Oh bro, you believe the same thing we do. We just differ on who it is. And then I say, yeah,

the unmoved mover was Satan. Doesn't that really illustrate the absurdity of just because he speaks of the unmoved mover as if, as if I could, in apologetics join with a Joeah's witness and join with an arian, and join with a scientology proponent, and join with whoever else. It doesn't matter Islam. Oh we're all going to argue for the same common God. No, we don't have the same common God, because we have the training God, and that's the only god that's ever existed, not a generic theism

that all the religon Jens know about. All right. So position A that we want to talk about, this problematic and contrasts is once again because this position that Arisola

would outline fundamentally can't interpret nature correctly. So one reason we can't do natural theology, and why in our theology it's more properly called natural revelation, is because you can't properly interpret the external world, the natural world as it is now, without the doctrine of the fall, because if you do try to do that, you will come to the conclusion, you will reason to the faulty conclusion as

the Deists and the Enlightenment guys did that. Whoever constructed this world, if I just look at at the natural world, is a psychopath, because that psychopath has made death and life just as important in the natural world. Yes, natural theology leads to to atheism, because the God of natural theology is the god of natural rights in the natural world, who naturally has put death into practice to feed on life,

and life feeds on death. Right when a body decomposes, outcome the microbes and the whatever that feed on the death and the decay. Now that's not the natural state of things. That's not natural. It's natural in a limited sense, but that's not the way God intended the world to be, because this world is fallen, and the decay and death and destruction that are in the world, any form of death, is a result of Adam's fall. Romans eight makes us abundantly clear. So again, as I did in the philosoph

traditional philosophy and metaphysics lectures already covered this. We covered why natural theology doesn't work. They don't get it, they can't grasp it. They can't understand that you can interpret the natural world without the fall. But the doctrine of the fall is presupposing the doctrine of creation, and the

doctrine of creation and the fall presupposed revelation Genesis. So you can't properly interpret the external world without supernatural revelation contained in Genesis and by Extension and the rest of the scriptures. This is why, as Father Stanneloy says in Volume one or Orthodox Dogmatics, for us, there is no natural theology. There's natural revelation. So you could see why Aristota looks out at the world and he says, well, death is just a natural process. The Seventh Actumenical Council

condemns those who call death a natural process. Right, because the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepts the Trollo synod decrees and the Canons of Trollo accept the earlier canons that speak of condemning anybody who says that death is a natural process and that death would have happened had not Adam sinned. You have to believe. This is why theistic evolution is impossible in any Christian system, Orthodoxy especially obviously that's the

only one that's truly Christian. You can't believe in theistic evolution because it denies that the canons of Trollo, which are accepted at and I see it too. I've cited this hundreds of times. I get tired of citing this and every time, and now that I do this, somebody gonna say, where is that? Where is that again. I'm gonna have to put it on my Twitter again. Pay attention. So death is unnatural. This is fundamental to Orthodox theology. That's why in the Harrowing of Hades Icon, Christ is

destroying death. And you say, well, is it spiritual death or physical death? It's both because they're both intertwined. Because man is a whole. He's a holistic being, body, soul, and spirit. And so when we speak of death, it's the It is intermittently linked. It is linked in the body and in the spirit and into all creation. That's why when Adam sends as the steward and covenant head of the of the cosmos of creation, when he sinned,

it affected the entire world, the entire universe. It introduced decay and destruction into the entire universe. And that's why we can't look out at the world as it is

now and reason back to a creator. If you listen to Neildagrass Tyson, if you go listen to the talks that I did on the Cornelius Hunter book about Darwin's God, I talk about this in depth, and I explain how Neildagrass Tyson is right when he says, if you think that the world out there teaches you natural theology, then to me, it seems like it teaches a psychopath god, because the psychopath god necessitates predator and pray relations for life to exist and subsisting to continue. But guess what,

that's not the natural state of things. We live in an unnatural state of things because of the fall. So nature and being natural is a very vague and loose term. It's a theory laden term. It doesn't come to us with uninterpreted brute meaning. It's not a brute fact. We don't know what nature means apart from the rest of

some philosophical or theological system. So this is another easy point to contrast Christianity from Arisitilianism or any of the paganisms, is that we're the only position that teaches creation x nilo. We're the only position that's going to interpret the world in a certain way, ultimately the correct way, but in a certain way where we see death as an enemy, and where as a result, death and sin are intimate,

are intimately connected, and thus man's problem is moral. This sets us off against all the other positions because all those far eastern monistic positions they start with man's problem being metaphysics. They don't start with a sin in the garden that's moral that leads to metaphysical problems and ontological decay in the universe. They start with a metaphysical problem of the one, and somehow movements changed things and it split the one, and then that diad split into a

triad that split into the multiplicity and infinity. Fractal nonsense, right, I'm not saying fractals aren't true, but that scheme is immediately contrasted with our redemptive scheme. In our scheme, creation is good. It's done x nelo out of nothing. It's not a pre existent matter that God forms into something. It's not co eternal with God. History thus is linear beginning middle end. This, by the way, is a presubsitional category for understanding all of experience beginning middle end. No

human being experiences the world in reverse. No human being experiences reality from the middle to the beginning to the end. No, it's We are constituted as beings to experience everything in our lives beginning, middle and end. And so you could argue that this means of experiencing the world itself is one of the transcendental categories. In fact, I think I think Kant himself even argues that that's a transcendental precondition for understanding anyway. Regardless, the point being is that our

view of history is then linear, not cyclical. The world comes to be at a specific point in time. It wasn't eternal, it's not a part of God, it's not an emanation. God freely created. This is why we can't believe in absolute divine simplicity, because that would mean that the action of creating is also co eternal with God's essence. And thus creating was always eternally an action of God. God eternally created, and then the creation ultimately becomes eternal.

It takes on one of the properties of divinity, takes on an eternal, uncreated state. But creation is not uncreated. That doesn't make any sense. So so creation has to be freely done. This is the whole point of the Fluorosky essay on Athenasius and Athanasius's arguments with the Arians. You have to make a distinction between God's nature and God's will and counsel, and so ultimately, Father Fluorowsky demonstrates without any shadow of a doubt, the Sant athenacious against

the Arians, is arguing the essence s energy distinction. That's the whole point. If he's not, then his whole argument with the Arians falls apart. So we see a system then where creation begins. It's ex nilo. It's not out of God or part of God. It's from nothing. And that doesn't mean that there was nothing and then God and creation came into existence. No, it means that God, forevery for all eternity was there, and he would have been there had he not created. But when he created,

he created into nothing. We say, just to spec fi and to set off against these pagan and eternal return, eternal recurrence type systems, cyclical systems. And again, cyclical history relativizes history. It makes change within history meaningless. And because change within and development within history is meaningless, what we get is the next dialectic that I contrasted in the

debate is that of stasis and change. Now, this dialectic is interesting because it's overlooked when we critique absolute divine simplicity and when we understand what Origin taught. So again we go back to Genesis. What Origin is teaching a similar doctrine to Plato and the Platonists a pagan gnostic doctrine.

He doesn't believe in creation. The Confession of Saint Sophronius accepted that the Sixth Council extensively condemns Origin for his rejection of Eden and the doctrine creation, and he allegorizes it, just like all the Darwinists and the theistic evolutions do. They allegorize Genesis. They allegorized Eden. They said wasn't real,

it was just some mythical, allegorical thing. Well, you're condemned by the Six Council for saying what Origin says, because actually the Six Council is very explicit in the Confession of Saint Sophronius about the errors of origin. It's not a general condemnation of origins of Pocketstasus, It's a very specific condemnation of origins doctrine of allegorization of Genesis and Eden. That's a heavy pill for a lot of these normy docs to swallow, and they won't swallow it. They will

choose anything but what Genesis says. Any give me anything but what scripture actually says anything about that? What did we see here? The pride of man, the pride of man of just not submitting to the scriptures. Whether it's the Pagans or whether it's the normy docs, all of them. It's just human pride and autonomy and not wanting to submit to what scripture says and what all the church fathers taught. And you say, well, yeah, but I found a church father who didn't believe. And it doesn't matter

because by the Sex Council it's already settled. You can't pick out one church father who got something wrong and say well, I don't have to accept that, because right now you can't do that, and everybody knows you can't do that. If you could do that, the whole system would be chaos, nonsense, it would all collapse, It wouldn't make any sense. Everybody could just it would be like Protestants, like everybody could just pick out which saint that they

want to fallow. So nature can't be interpreted without understanding the doction of creation in the fall. And since we see change in nature, we have a problem of relating this unchanging, eternal, timeless, a temporal realm of impersonal whatever essence, to this realm of change and flux. So this is a dialectic between being and becoming, and the Church Fathers encounter and debate the dialectic between being and becoming, and it's specifically encountered in the encounter with Origin. And this

actually it's Saint max when he corrects Origin. It's Saint Maximus that fixes a lot of this, because this originistic error kept floating around and it kept popping back up. And if you read Saint Maximus, he's very explicit about

how to correct and condemn this. And what he says is that in actually Saint Gregor a Nissa had already done some some groundbreaking work in this arena, and he points out that the problem with man and man's fall wasn't being in a perfect state of unity and willing in some way to look to some other created good or some other thing to turn its gaze, its perfect

intellectual gaze away from the One. Okay, And in the in the originistic scheme, the pre eternal, pre existent souls fell because they wield something other than the One and the good, and so then they fell into being in a created state, and they fell into bodies. This is totally heretical, totally gnostic, totally platonic garbage, garbage nonsense, anybody trying to resurrect Origin is either a fool or demonic, all right, so you can't there's no you can't import

any of this into orthox Christianity. It's nonsense when you really understand the Origin is scheme. So the fall then for Origin is that. And then what happens in redemption is that the mind, the intellect you know, makes its way back through the created images, is very platonic to the one, right, and then when you get back to the one, Origin says, if we have free will, it stands to reason that you can always choose between good

and evil. So as a dialectical definition of free will meaning either the choice between good or evil, and since everybody believes that you do retain free will in the afterlife,

you could see Origin's reasoning process here. He says, well, then in the in the afterlife, if you have free will, then you have to be able to will something other than the super supreme essence the monat And if you can will something other than the super supreme essence monad in the afterlife, in the next life in eternity, then you can fall again. So he has a weird mix

of absolute divide simplicity, but also stressing free will. But again, if you understand that, then you understand that it's actually the Roman Catholics and the Tomus that are inconsistent because in the Beatific Vision doctrine they want to say that the will is forever focused on the essence of God and seeing all things in the essence of God. But the essence of God is one. It's absolutely simple, and there aren't really many things in it, so there aren't

really different things to will. And every church father agrees that free will involves an actual choice. So if there's only one thing in the afterlife and there's not a real distinction between things, because you're all, everything is being seen and known through the essence of God, which is total blasphemy. You guys, are blasphemous, then again we're at the problem of absolute divine simplicity, where there's not real

distinctions in the one. And I brought this point up to Classist and I brought it up in the first time being on the Daily brap to the Thomas, and I tried to stress this point because this is why the Atific Vision doctrine is just platonism. Now in our view, Saint Maximus has a great chapter in the If you read the Selected Writings version of Saint Maximus, there's a chapter where he talks about seeing God in the afterlife. There's also a one of the theological orations of Gregory Nazianzus,

he talks about seeing God. So we have a problem of seeing God because, as you know, we say that we already see God in this life and then it becomes the fullness of that in the afterlife. But what these fathers are very clear about is that we're not seeing the essence of God. The seeing of God is seeing directly the energies of God. So there you go.

That's the solution. Also the forms of things, if you want to call him that, the essences of the universals, if you read ambiguous set of Saint Maximus, they're uncreated energies. They're not the essence of God. This is where we differ from the Roman Catholics. They're not exemplars in the essence of God.

aware how prominent this is in the Church Fathers. How constantly they're talking about the heretics being caught up in dialectics. It's in all of them. Athanasius rebukes the Arians for it, Basil rebukes the Eunomians for it. Nissa rebukes the Eunomians for it. Saint Maximus rebukes the Monothelites for it. Nestorius

gets rebuked for it. Because they're obsessed with either or dialect So in our review, and if you read Father Steine Eelloyd, if you read Orthodox Dogmatics Volume one, then you know that he has an awesome chapter on not just the problems of absolute simplicity, but the problems of the dialectic between stasis and change. That's why for us, the afterlife is different. There's not just stasis. There's real change in the afterlife because we're not playing this bro.

And there's an extensive section where Father steinyeloin and Volume one just completely annihilates this stupid argument. Now, that's going to be true for Origanism, and it's also true for all the paganisms, because are you are starting to see how a lot of these systems are because they start with the same errors and problems. So nature can't be interpreted without creation. The fall, death becomes natural history becomes

cyclical and meaningless and illusory. Ultimately, I would argue, if you're consistent in this system, perfection in this scheme is perfect unity. Why is perfect unity somehow perfection? All these dumb philosophic systems, all the systems based on chain of being, they all have this assumption that perfection is somehow a perfect unity or monad. Well, that kind of introduces a gradation, and the Trinity, doesn't it, Yes, it does. But Basil says, God is not more one than he is three, and

he's not more three than he is one. So there's the perfect balance of the one the many in the Trinity according to the Eastern Fathers. So we don't want any of this gradations of being, We don't want any gradations of nonsense.

facts in education, no, that's not man's problem. Do you see that at each point our system doesn't work with the Greeks. Now, the Greeks might have read Isaiah, they might have read Moses. We don't know. Many church fathers thought maybe they did. Doesn't really matter. The point being is that ours is the true system, and whatever truth

they have is from us, dude, not the other way around. Now, if they say something true and they didn't learn it from our system, it's still from us, because it's from the logos that they have, from the logos of God. All right. So the next as we move up then to history. History for us is not a historical and meaningless and a prison to escape from the God of Creation stepped into history. History is meaningful if you go listen to the talk I did on Genesis versus atheists

and Pagans, I talk about this. If you listen to the talk I did about Aaron Aus's anti Gnostic work against heresies. If you go listen to my against Gnoscissism talk, I outline like ten things that set us off against the world religions and against the Pagans and the Gnostics. So the zeitgy shit doesn't work, dude, because literally we havemultiple distinctives that no other religions have. And just saying that, well, there's another religion that has a similar idea of the

God's birthing a world out of sexual intercourse. That's not creation. We don't teach that, and that's not similar. Well, there's a there's a kind of weird triad in some religion. I heard one time. The Vedic texts have a try that triad is nothing like what we teach. What we teach is nothing like a triad in Plato, it's not anything like it. As Basil says, the one is he not it?

and presuppositions. They don't know what I mean. You would think Aristotilians might know about what a transcendental argument is, given the fact that the metaphysics makes a transtal argument, but they don't actually know about presubpositional thought and questioning presubositions. And that's why they never win these debates, and they never will unless they start learning what I talk about.

So we see the assumptions of neutrality, the assumptions of the idea that well, we all know what existence is, right, so I can start by talking about everything exists, right, everything that is exists? Oh do we really now? In my worldview? Everything that exists in this world is created in your worldview? It's not so existence itself is completely different from your view to mind, they're not unifical terms just because it's the same vowels coming out of our mouths.

It's vastly different existence in Aristotle, not the same thing is what it means in Christian theology. For us, all that exists is made by God. And what is Paul say and Colossians. It's held in being. It subsists in the logos. It's not pre existing eternal matter. It's not premia material. It's created matter, created forms that have their meaning and their grounding in the logi, the logo, the

logi in the logos. Why is that? Because everything that exists in the world is triadic from the Father, through the Son and the Spirit. Everything the world was created that way, redemption happened that way. That's basal dictum. So being and existence are not self evident terms that don't come theory laden. They're not neutral terms that are self interpreted. They are theory laden terms and claims, he says being, I say, what do you mean created? Uncreated? They're not

unifical terms. But every attempt to approach these goofy philosophical systems and import too much of them makes this mistake. I need to do a talk just on this and hammer at home. I'm going to call it Jerusalem versus Athens. So no Greeks taught creation, No Greeks taught that creation was a free act by a personal God. No Greeks taught that God is personal for them. It's ultimate reality is impersonal. Now, once any has made this concession that

ultimate reality is impersonal, they've already lost a debate. It's over because it means that chaos ultimately is what rules and reigns. And you could say, well, it's not. Chaos is a bunch of abstract principles. A bunch of abstract principles can't string together all the different abstract principles to be coherent. How does law? How does the law of logic relate to the principle of love in the world? How does the How do those two different things relate

to the concept of a soul or a self? How do those three things relate to the concept of past, present, and future? They don't. They're just abstract categories that are placeholders in the system that don't really have any real relation to one another, unless we just assume that they do.

But if there's an all knowing, provident God who's omniscience, then he's the one who strings all these things together and holds them in being, as Paul says, and makes sense of all these different categories and gives us the possibility for them all relating in a meaningful way. The divine mind is needed then in this system to hold

these categories together and to make sense of them. Now, as we move on to a little more difficult concepts in this Now, by the way, we've come all the way up from the beginning of creation to man and the incarnation, let's talk about the end of history as well, because the coming of Christ's and history and the resurrection, that's the definitive signaling of the meaning of all history, past, president, and future. So it's an aschatologe. When Christ is resurrected

is an eschaological event. I'm not saying there's not an end of the world. There is, but we are now living in the Church age, the Messianic age, right, and that same covenant has been open to the Gentiles. Point being, the body is good, you know all these dumb Greek systems. The body is not good. Now, Aristotle trusts to temper this, right. Aristotle doesn't have a problem with the body, so he

departs from Plato's gnostic nonsense. He says, they know the body is not that bad, right, There's not eternal life in the body. You just kind of die, and then your monad soul seeds. They go off into another being that forms again, you know, maybe something cyclical. Right, we don't exactly know how this works, but you know, you go back into nature and then nature forms another kid down the road. So there's no eternal life in this system, and there's not a god in this system that actually

relates to the world. The God of Aristotle is thought, thinking itself. Now pause for a minute. Thought thinking itself, self, referential, abstract thought is the ultimate good in God here. Well, that sounds a lot like Greek philosophy, doesn't it. So Aristotle's God is just the personified Greek It's just the ultimate idea of Greek philosophy. What's the highest possible goal? Well, it's like thinking, man, well, what could be higher than

thinking thought thinking itself? Which is total nonsense. So anyway, so again, it's a god who's not related to you. He's unknowable. He doesn't have any direct interaction in this world. He's either a one unmoved mover or fifty five unmoved movers. What similarity is? Does that bear to Exodus three fourteen I am that I am none? Is it true that God is the first cause in an unmove mover. Yeah, but it's true because Christianity is true and that God

is personal, not an impersonal abstract force. Now, why do all these pagans do this? I'm gonna get you here's the real secret to this. That's because, guess what, you're not accountable to a number. You're not accountable to gravity. You don't have to give an account of your life to gravity, to the number seven. So that's why they

love abstract principles. But if there's a personal God, you've got to give an account to your life, and you have duties and obligations and so forth, and there's a moral law that you have to follow to take commandments matter. In other words, it would require repentance, it would require a change of mind, metanoia, and a change of worldview. In this view, although it makes a big hubub about Tilos, there's actually not an overriding Tulos. There's tilos in objects.

The acorn becomes the tree right in Aristotle in the four causes. But actually, in reality that's just from the human vantage point. Do we know that an acorn really possesses tilos in the overall universal scheme of things? No, we don't. So really, tilos is a purely subjective human advantage point category for things. It's not a thing actually

in things, because there's not an overriding Telos to the universe. Now, later on the you know, like Thomas, they will try to take the telos argument and make it into a teleogical argument for all of reality. If I mean, if you understand, you could make an an a transcendental tilos argument. A transcendental form of the teleological argument would be valid.

But the problem with just making a bare teleological argument assumes that tilos is a self evident, neutral, uninterpreted term, just like we saw earlier with being in existence, And it's not.

So when you start talking about oh well, I look out at the world and I start reasoning about the world no reason, and you look out at the world so experience sense data, and then you start talking about how the hylomorphisms out there.

of a worldview. It's a self evident term and idea. No, what does human mean to me? It's completely different than what it means to the Aristilian. To him, it's just a vegetative form that comes from natural processes and then disintegrates into dirt. For us, human means made in the image of God, a nature restored by the incarnation and destined to live in all eternity with God. So completely

different ideas about what human means. So human is not self evident and that's the root of this problem here of all of these systems that are classical foundationalists, is that they all assume neutrality, and they assume that ideas, concepts, terms are theory neutral and system neutral and don't require interpretation. They're interpretively neutral. They're not none of them are. Can't

you see that again? Nature, it's not self evident to everybody what nature is, because it's going to be dependent

on the rest of my worldview what nature means. So he immediately starts on the spill of all of these different categories and concepts and very abuse metaphysical baggage things that he acts like, we're just well, it's obviously we know what existence is, right, it's the things that exist what No, it's not obvious, right, And so what happens if he had been more schooled in philosophy in the history of philosophy, he would realize that actually, as philosophy developed,

people begin to question those assumptions. Now I'm not saying that Hume and these different enlightened characters are ultimately correct, but they are ultimately correct to on the basis of classical foundationalism start to question assumptions and start to ask, hey, wait a minute, do we really know if existence is a neutral term? It seems to kind of go along with a bunch of other baggage and your philosophy. Oh, absolutely, of course it does. This is why you can't appeal

to some kind of generic being argument for God. You can't appeal to some generic Tilos concept, because Tilos is only possible if the God that we believe in exists. That's why this apologetic is better. It's a much stronger argument than the weak SOI tomist arguments, the five ways of SOI. Those arguments are weak because they assume neutrality. They assume that beliefs and terms aren't theory laden. But guess what they are. So being, human, nature, all these

things he thinks he's a apeealing to that are self evident. No, they're not. And I absolutely nailed him on that in the debate. In fact, he wasn't ready for that. He was, all right, let's see being as not unifical, existence, human These terms are not self evident, he says, change in motion. Yeah, okay, So it doesn't make sense to say, oh, I remember telos, that's what we're talking about. So telos isn't theory neutral. Well, it just means purpose. Yeah, purpose is not theory neutral obviously,

And this is a key criticism of Aerosol himself. We're not talking about this guy, but let's look at Aerosol himself. If change and motion are eternal, well, actually, this is a good critique of the unmoved mover first cause argument. So if you reason back to why there has to be a first cause, no, there doesn't. And Aristotle's first cause is not the same thing as the Christian ex nilo, So really it doesn't work because of change in motion

are eternal, then there is no beginning. Aristol didn't think that the world had a beginning. It's eternal matter that's formed into the forms that are here presently. And so, in other words, you can't utilize Aristotle's for causes because in Aristotle's system, when you reason back to the unmoved mover, there's no efficient cause. So Aristotol's ugmentation is awful for apologetics, it's terrible. There's no efficient cause in the beginning on

the part of the unmove mover. Now why do we say that, because again, what are the four causes material? And this would be like matter premia, materia, the substance, the stuffiness, right, the formal cause, all right, this is what impresses the form that an object has. So we've got the clay, we stamp it with the rectangle square. It's a brick. It becomes a brick, all right, that's formal cause. The efficient cause is me doing it. The final cause is the telos. Now, the unmoved mover isn't

really an efficient cause. I know that the Thomas want to make him that, but he's not really because there's not a beginning in this system, because it's not creation x neilo. It's eternal matter being formed into something that doesn't make any sense, eternal matter being given form. That's a change in things. If there's a change in things, then there's not a beginning. There's not a beginning because it's eternal. You see, eternal matter is changed. It's nonsense.

There you go. And this is because, of course, in Aristotle he wanted to deal with change and identity over change. That's a central problem in Aristotle. So there's not really an unmoved mover who can function as the efficient cause of things at the beginning of time. And there's no reason to assume by reasoning back through a chain of causes that there had to be one andover. Maybe there's fifty five unmoved movers see and Aristotle contradicts himself on

that point. So why anybody would want to try to co opt this argument? It's beyond me. It's dumb. There's not really Telos in the world because there's not a singular divine mind that providentially orders and regulates and relates all things to each other. Therefore, Telos cannot be applicable to the universe as a whole. It's a subjective human predicate of phenomena in their experience. For example, is ninety

degrees a property in the object? For Aristotle he has to say yes because of islomorphism, because of objects being basically simple unity, ninety degrees is actually in that object? No, come on. And then when we think about more abstract mathematical things like Mandelbrot sets. Oh wait, now, wait a minute, where are they? Remember we wanted to squish everything in Plato's ideal realm into the here and the now, into the objects. Where is a Mandelbrot set out there in

the world nowhere? So that doesn't work. And actually, in one of my grad classes I had. I had two grad Aristotle professors who were high high level dudes, doctor Robinson and doctor Goggins, And under doctor Goggins, I did a paper and he specialized in a lot of these ancient mathematicians theories on number and so really high levels specialist dudes debate this problem in Aristotle in relationship to number because how do numbers actually only exist in particulars? Yeah, exactly.

It doesn't make any sense because they don't, because this is wrong. How are numbers only in particulars? Are Mandel brought sets only in some particular out in the world that's retarded? Ninety degrees is not just in your head, and it's not just an angle on an object, and it's not just a word. There's nothing in your brain that cars corresponds to ninety degrees when you're speaking, I'm not talking about ninety eight degrees the band No Boy banter.

It's about ninety degrees on the edge of an object. So at this point, if we look at numbers in relationship to aerosol, we're back at Plato. And again this is a problem because for Aristotle we're just kind of locating universals and abstractions in the particulars he thought that would solve the issue doesn't. Another reason this doesn't work for us is again because of this starting point of it being classical foundationalism and ultimately appealing to since experience.

And that's why I asked this guy, how'd you come to the system? Oh, I read Parmenides and Aristotle and Confucius or whoever. So he, by his since experience, read these books, and then he reasoned to these things about all this metaphysical stuff that he thought was self evident. None of it's self evident. We've shown that very clearly here. And so at this point the system I think that he was presenting was just completely dysynthicate, degrading and breaking down.

And I don't think he was even catching the arguments and the force of the arguments. The next problem that we could see in Aristotle is ethics. Me and this guy, we didn't get to the ethical arm of debate. But I would have made the same type of argument if he had gone with the golden mean. The golden mean can't be a basis for ethics because the golden mean assumes that you have a basis to know what is in between two extremes, saying you demonea or golden mean

it doesn't work. How do you know what the middle is? If you don't know what the extremes are, obviously come on. So it's subjective, it's relativistic. The Arisitilian God is ultimately deistic, so he's not an efficient cause the Arisitylian God is unknowable. You don't have a relationship with him because he's thought thinking itself. He's not related to you. And thus none of this works for intelligent design because the God in this system is unknowable, deistic, not related to this world,

and he doesn't actually design this world. How dumb to try to call opt this for intelligent design? If by intelligent design you mean not the orthodox douction of creation. Maybe the one in the many argument we got to. I argue that the trinity is the only way to balance the one and the many. The trying God solves this problem of the one and the many. And he said, well, how can something be one and many at once? I said, well,

have you seen numbers? Numbers are one and many at once, and there's nothing about a number that's more one than it is many or more many than it is one. A number can constitute a unity and a multiplicity at the exact same time, in perfect balance. And that's an image, an analogy to the trendy. It's not exactly the same as the trinity. Nothing is. But it's an analogy. So Tilos didn't work. It's a human Oh, that's right. Tilos is, by the way, in Aristotle, an analogy on the basis

of human architects. Right. So if you have artificial objects in Aristotol, which would be like if you created a tool, right, it has a purpose. And so you've taken matter, you've stamped it with the form of a brick, and it becomes a tool to build the house, and you build the house out of the bricks, and so the brick thus has purpose. Okay, But in aristotle system, the world as a whole doesn't have that purpose because it's not created from the mind of a god who is providential,

who directly relates to this world. No, he doesn't believe that. So Telos does not work on a universal scale. Highlomorphism is absolute simplicity applied to objects in the world. It thus breaks down. It doesn't work as an epistemic system

because our epistemology. I got into this with a little bit with the classical theist when we reason about objects and we try to make sense of things in the world in the Ariscitilian scheme and in the platonics are in the atomistic scheme to a degree, you have the idea that I abstract from the particular objects the phantasm in my passive intellect, and then from that I somehow

know or have access to a universal. Doesn't work because no matter how many particulars you add up, you're not ever obtaining to universal, because the universals aren't just five, ten, twenty particulars added up together. And the empiricists were right to critique this because this system starts with empirical data and tries to reason up to universals. Not possible on

this scheme. And you could say, well, yeah, but what about in the tomistic scheme, where the universals and the forms and the ideas of things are in the essence of God. Yeah, exactly, But what you're abstracting isn't the essence of God. And in this world you never have thats to the essence of God. You only have access to created likenesses, created analogies and analogy and or created effects, never to the actual essence of God. So it doesn't work to ground knowledge in the divine ideas in the

essence of God. It's self refuting because of absolute don't suppose to say, Okay, I think I've hit I think I've hit all the problems in Aristotle and how it applies to dudes made up pagan system. Okay, So I think that's pretty much most of what I wanted to get to. There's more areas in Aristotle that we could critique. My old notes, I've got problems we already touched on. The problems of a bunch of different trees. Don't get you in the general form of a tree. Where do

you ever get the general idea? You don't Heilomorphism is absolute simplicity applied to objects. The ethics are not really ethics because we don't know what the golden mean actually is. It's just assumed, and then we don't I don't care about Aristotle's polus. We're not gonna go into that. So so these are the problems that really sort of blatant problems in Aristotle. And although his system didn't have every aspect of Aristotle. It is good and so relevant to

to critique and point it out. So that's the critique of Aristotle. In hour two of this for subscribers, today's analysis, I'm going to continue with a fuller critique of Aristotle from my notes that are pretty extensive. And what we're gonna do is go back once again and we're gonna look at the Presocratics and the Ionians, and we're gonna trace this up through Aristotle, and we're gonna talk again about how similar this is to the far Eastern conceptions

of monism and so forth. And I'm going to try to make it, you know, as accessible as possible for the subscribers, so it's not too ab tuo s. But since this is public, I wanted to address all the different possible objections that are out there. So our two will again be a revisiting for subscribers, a revisiting of Presocratics, Ionians, Promenides, and Aristotle and how it can trasts with our worldview.

So if you want access to that, go to Jay's analysis and you can subscribe at the subscription button there for the members content. You get access to all the great archives and interviews over the years countless talks. Now there's a vast archive there of awesome stuff. All the globalism book series, Tragi and Hope, the Plato talks, all of the Republic, all the Bible talks. I mean, just a treasure trove of literal, graduate level stuff in multiple

subjects for four months, sixty dollars a year. All these people bitching about me. Do you understand the gifts that I'm giving you here. I'm not bragging about myself. It's all a gift from God. But you guys could be could be making use of this stuff. I just cover these subjects. I covered the books of the big the big boys. All right, let's get down here to the super chats. And if you're ready for super chat, to sens some super chants my super chants. Well, it's just

super chats. So the gods, even in the in the most philosophic forms, these systems of the gods and we was vikings. It boils down to these very simple problems of monism, of dualism, of dialectical tensions, one of the

many these same critiques. That's the point here. These same criticus are applicable to the Pagans, to the Gnostics, to the atheists, to the materialists, to the far Eastern mystics for Eastern religions, and to the goofballs in philosophy one oh one who think that the matrix simulation theory, it's all the same argument Rose, It's all the same nonsense. Hesser mentioned a right Ai Howard five bucks. Hesser mentioned Carnival the other night. Any analysis on that show in

the future very gnostics shown. Dee, I've heard about it, and I have to get to it. I haven't thought about it, though, I'd have to get to that. My mind is getting tired, so I'm having a hard time talking. And yes, I'm gonna put the debate. Let me just put it in there now, since people keep assing minute. And part of the reason I did this recap was again because the Discord audio kept cutting out after hour two when I was making my really nuclear arguments, my

really based arguments, when it was getting pure fire. Is when, of course Discord started messing up. So let me go to Daily Prap and let me pull up. It looks like it's still there. Somebody said they couldn't access it. No, it's still there. So I'm adding that to the I think most of it you can hear. I haven't gone back and listened to all of it, but people were

saying that it's pretty rough. You can kind of make out now that you know what I'm saying here, and now that you've heard this, now you know the what I'm getting at in my arguments, and you'll be able if you want to go back and listen to the debate with understanding what I was trying to say, even though every time I would talk it would get cut off. Now you could you could probably decipher through this Rosetta

stone what the heck I was trying to argue. So I put it in there, and then I'll put the debate. Here's the debate in the chat if you want it that way. Anthony Cavallo ten dollars gibbs for my Warrior King and she Yat. Thank you, Anthony. We appreciate that. But yeah, I'll put I'll put I'll check out Carnival by the way, AI, I end to put that on the list, and I'll check that out see if it's

worthy of analysis down the road or something. John sand for ten bucks, Vulcan Prayer, Penguin, tell Lescope, Heart Punch, Hang ten okay, Wizard five New Zealand's five in Zi's you have an excellent taste in wigs well, thank you, of course I do. What would you expect, Wizard in Zis you have excellent taste and wigs well, thank you for the extra in zis as a burner. By the way, this, do you see how much of this is applicable to

tumism of what we talked about tonight spec. Seven eighty two four nine, watching from sixteen minutes behind, can you

expand on how monism makes change illusory? You may have already covered it, Yeah, Because again I think if you're consistent, if everything is truly one, if the real reality that exists is one, right, this is Plato, many other religions and philosophies, then when we look at this world that's not just one, that's many things, and there's change, the tendency is to say or to try to explain change

and distinction as illusory. It starts by saying, well, if everything is ultimately one, and then the problems that we have. Man's problem is distinction is being many, is interacting with other men. We all need to realize we're all one man.

So the assumption being that the problem of the world of mankind is metaphysical, and that problem is that being in a realm of particularity, of distinctions, of differences is a lesser state of being somehow from this primitive, primordial, pre eminent one, this pre eminent Unity, this Great Monad, this realm is typically seen then as lesser uh, a prison place, a creation of an evil demiurge blah blah

blah blah blah, a simulation, a matrix, dude, whoa. And so therefore, typically, if that's the case, then what is this world. Well, it's like a dream state. It's like an illusion. And if it's a dream state illusion, then you gotta wake up. You gotta get woke from Bra, get woke from this dream state.

even some of the Eastern fathers got that wrong. Gregory of Nissa got that wrong. And Saint Maximus corrects Saint Gregory Nissa on that point. So even Saint Gregor Nissa, for all of his amazing insights and argumentation, he didn't get everything right. That's why we don't go by one saint right. He got it wrong about Genesis. He thought the fall resulted in the distinctions between male and female, but that's not what Genesis says. So he was too

influenced by origin. He wasn't a heretic like Origin, but he was influenced by origin. But it doesn't matter because we don't accept the opinion of every single church father. Nobody does. There's no person on the there's no religion or or church or system and the face of the planet that actually does that. Son't, So it's stupid when people bring that up. Well, well, one I found a church father who teaches this, so I could still hold that view. No you can't. It doesn't work like that.

So that's how change ultimately becomes illusory. And it's actually just a nonsensical statement to say that time is eternal, that the world is eternal. That doesn't make any sense because if it had no beginning, middle, or end, then again, the change that we're experiencing is actually not real. It's not it's illusory because eternality is in that view static.

If eternality is static and the one is eternal and we're in the realm of change in flux, always moving, then change in flux and always moving are not real because eternality in the monad is what's real. So this is why the far Eastern religions are more consistent and they say, yeah, exactly, that's why you got to wake up from this deceptive dream realm, which is an illusion, and get back to ultimate absolute, get back to thusness, get back to the great and personal sea of being

or whatever. Immerse yourself into the great ocean of non being in the thusness. Orthro Nat twenty dollars, thank you worthnet. Yes, no, it's fine. I understand that you weren't trying to be gossipy and no, I'm not in trouble with anybody. I tend a church in good standing and it is canonical, and I'm not gonna say anything more than that. And thank you for the fan art. Appreciate that much much appreciated, Mario callib Calobic. Five dollars. My grandparents were by Kings.

You are being offensive, Okay, well you could be offended, bra. I know you're joking, but thank you for that, Mario. Marco. Jethro told fifteen dollars. Well, I hope you guys are benefiting from that. Those are some fat super chats, some super fats P A A T. Misty Earn's one dollar, thank you, Missy, white Top two bucks, Thank you, white Top.

Lawrence ballinag two bucks. Much appreciated, Lawrence. We always love seeing our usual friends, Jethro and Misty and white Top and Lawrence n c rid Jay, you have big brained cracker. Drew McMahon, thank you, and see Drew McMahon, the father of Vince McMahon. Seven dollars. I'm a fan of you and mister Pageot. Why did you too, not, Jill? He seems to have wanted to. He's I don't think he wants a dialogue anymore. He at one time he was open to that, but ultimately I think we just decided

that the approaches are too different. And I think I critiqued too many of the people that he regards very highly. Obviously I wasn't intentionally critiquing them to get mad, to get him mad or anything like that. It was just, uh, I critique the people that he regards highly, and that caused a problem. And then I think from there we just decided that we have different approaches to things. So yeah, that just kind of fell through the cracks. So I don't think there's going to be I mean, I would.

I'm open to talking to people, but I don't think he's interested in having a chat with me. And I'm not butt hurt. That's fine. I don't have any any harsh feelings or anything like that towards him. So that's what's up. Gabriel. Are five dollars our thoughts. Logi pre existing patterns in the mind of God. Well, if you read the essay by Father Fluorowski, which is really good, the logi have a an uncreated and a created aspect to them. So the logi that are in that are

all one the logos. If you read Ambiguum seven by Saint Maximus, he goes into depth about this, which is not very long. I think it's about eight ten pages. It's a great chapter Ambiguum seven. So there's a created and uncreated aspect to them, and they are thought wills of God, they're not the essence of God. And Father Fluorofsky in his essay Creation and Creature Hood is what you must read. So read Ambiguum seven of Saint Maximus

and then read Father Fluorowski's Creation and Creature Hood. That's one of the best treatments of the low boy the logi I've ever seen, and it actually solved a lot of problems I had understanding it too. And Tho's other guys torst Off, Torstein, Talofsun, these guys have written a lot really fat, lengthy books on logos logi. So they are pre existing patterns in the mind of God. And but what's in our minds is not exactly the same as that, because our thoughts are created, so we have

a created reasoning, we have a created energy. The noetic energy in our mind is created, but it is tapping into and it is reflecting something that's an uncreated energy. And so that's why for us there are analogia. There are analogies, but the analogies, the analogia, contrasted to the tomiss to the Roman Catholics, is not the essence of God.

It's the uncreated energies of God. And so Saint Maximus and Father Florarovsky and any of the Orthodox writers ever who've written on this will make great pains to point out that the logoi, the logi are uncreated energies, and they're not the essence of God. They're not predeterminations that God had to create. They are thought wills of God

and archetypes and patterns that He willed to do. So they're not the same as the essence of God, because if they're the same as the essence of God, then they must have been created and they are coterminous and eternal, which they are not. Alright, let's see, Okay, I don't see any more super chats, anymore questions. I'm only gonna read super chats because if I read people's questions from the chats, it's not fair to the people who super chatted.

Some pretty gross questions in the gross Marl Kark's five dollars an Orthodox church recommendation in Nashville. I don't think there's a row Core church. There's one in Tennessee somewhere, but it's a good drive from Nashville. I would not go to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Nashville because I asked if they accepted Freemasonry and they said they do, so I would not go there, but I would check out.

You could check out the Antiochian Church in Franklin. Probably what would be your best bet The Antiochian Church in Franklin, Tennessee, which is right by Nashville. Franklin is right outside Nasville. So all right, thank you for that question. There are Marl Kirks, and thank you guys again. So the debate is here in the show description. Now good luck. If you want to try to decipher, you're welcome to The

first two hours I think are fine. So like, if you listen to the first two hours of the exchange, my audio is good. It's just that third hour where it really kind of starts get getting choppy. But with the Rosetta stone that I just gave you in this talk, you should be able to decode the argument I'm making and I think you'll see that it's a pretty strong argument.

All right, thank you guys, God Bless. If you want to hear more of this talk, I'm going to give you a more in depth analysis of the presocratics in Aristotle and monism and dualism in the hour two chat this week for subscribers. And yes, we will do more of Julian Huxley. It's just that I got really bogged down in the Julian Huxley is boring writing, man, It's boring, boring, boring globalism book. So I had to take a break this week and we had these debates, so I thought

revisiting Aristotle would be would be fun, more relevant. But yes, next week next the next talk after this will we will go back to the rest of Julian Huxley in the next part of that book will be public, and then we'll do some more Jillian for the subscribers next week. Thank you guys for listening. God Bless, have a good night.