Transcription
Question: What's your question? What's your question?
Do you believe that through natural theology we can come to the conclusion of your doctrine of what you consider Allah? Okay. So, some aspect of it, not all of it. So, for example, through natural theology from first principles, you can, I think, take four or four or five at most, uh, attributes of God and probably come to them logically. But the other ones, like, for example, compassion and love and mercy and so on, or that's the same thing really, compassion and special compassion, or any any type, special compassion or non-nonspecial compassion, or any of that stuff, it requires the n requires some kind of a text. Okay.
So then, can I offset this and saying, for example, is this first princip or rather this first principle, is its first action going to be in creation? Do you believe in a first act? Do I believe in the first act, or does Islam say there's a first act? I'm asking you, and of course, your position is going to reflect for whatever. No, I think uh No, to be honest with you, Islam has different opinions on that. But I'm asking you. I'm not asking. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to say that your position is going to reflect. So my my position is that there doesn't need to be one. I believe that textually, from an Islamic perspective, there's more uh reason to believe that there was a first act.
Okay. So you agree that Allah is perfect? Yeah. Buddy, don't talk in "what if." Some people affirm this. Don't say "what if." Some people affirm this, some people don't. Say what you believe. This is your My belief is who am I? I'm not important. Okay. You are I'm just like you. We're both not important. Yeah. But you're representing. No, I'm not important. Wait. So you said that you won't discuss on me on a formal discussion because I'm not important. But you two I'm not important. Tracing cloud. No, I'm not important. So I'm telling you from an Islamic perspective, I'm not an authority. Like when it comes to theology, I'm not an authority. When it comes to like uh positions on this matter, all I can do is regurgitate and tell you what scholars of the past have said and what do you affirm? So, for example, if you're saying first act, first creation, they create first a first thing. Yeah. Like a creation x nyl, is that what you're talking about? Yeah. So in Islam, there are two opinions. One opinion is that, which is the majority opinion, is that yes, there is creation xyo. And do you agree with that? Yeah, I I favor that opinion, but I don't say necessarily that's the only opinion. So there's another opinion, which is the opinion of Ibam, for example, who believes in something called so he believes in a chain of things that happened, and God can perpetually created to the past. I can see that that's a logical possibility, okay, and even a textual one to some extent, but I'm not saying that you're saying that someone who denies the first act is just not is still in the body of Islam that you personally hold to this position.
Okay. So then the composition argument that firstly you deny divine simplicity, that all of the attributes within God is identical to himself. Therefore, all of Allah's attributes are going to be less than the whole itself. If therefore he is composite because he's composed of things that are less than the whole itself. Even though Ib wants to say, for example, but either these are abstract descriptors or something which he doesn't say that he doesn't say that. Well, he says that it's inseparable from the whole itself. And you want it. Yeah. That his attributes are inseparable from the whole. But I allowed you to speak. So if you want to say that I'm mischaracterizing his position after the time of me speaking, that's absolutely just get to the point, man. Stop talking. Go ahead. You are speaking. You are speaking. Just talk. You're wasting my time. Just get there. I'll get there. I'll get there. And this is why I said we should have a timed discussion and not one where you interrupt me and I interrupt you. Just go get to the point. The point is is that what's the question? Because you said I have to load this in a question. I have to go through a line of premises and ask the question. You're boring everyone around. Would you ask the question please? It's boring. It's boring. You ran physically, bro. You ran physically. You ran. You actually ran physically. I am very still. I very much want to talk to you. And in fact, I propose that we have a timed discussion. All right. Does someone want to time it? One minute. One minute. Okay. One minute. One minute. And the agreed discussion for the sake of the camera is firstly your issue or consension with Christianity that Christ cannot be God because he has a cause. And then my argument to you is going to be that your god cannot be the god of natural theology because you reject divine simplicity. Therefore, implying that your god is composite and the first act is going to be composing himself. Do do you do you do you accept the fact that in Christianity there are different views on uh divine simplicity? Yeah, that's kufur. No, hold on, hold on. Do you accept the fact that in you don't accept that? I don't I don't grant that these people are Christian. Oh, okay. So what what what strand of Christianity do you follow? Eastern Orthodoxy. Okay. So is eastern orthodoxy unanimous in its uh proclamation of divine simplicity? Yeah. So like either like, for example, say Maximus wants to affirm absolute divine simplicity or some of the Cathodosians want to f like divine simplicity, but at least we're going to have to affirm divine simplicity. Now you this is simply appealing, and I noticed this in your rhetoric. Oh, there are we haven't started the time yet. There are some people you got to do one minute. One minute. Do you want to do one minute, one minute? Of course. But you asked me a question. I'm I'm trying to give a sufficient You can have a minute. Go ahead. You 1 minute starts now. Wait, no. Hold on. You said something untimed. So I want to say something on time. Go ahead. So I want to make this very clear. Do not appeal to people I do not agree are Christian. You can say, "Oh, these people Protestants are not Christians." I would say that there is a second fold term that we could use. For example, there is a colloquial term that we can call these people Christian because they attempt to follow the faith of Christ, but they're not actually legitimate. But of course, they try to, but they're not. Okay. Can I can I ask you a question then? Honestly, serious, cuz you seem to be reading on these issues as well. Yeah. So okay, divine simplicity right now, let's say for example, let's look at Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas, no, but he believes in divine simplicity, and he's one but like do I do I understand do I take that he's going to come to divine simplicity are you I haven't asked a question I haven't asked you a question okay so the question is going to be on an individual I don't care about correct okay no problem but what I'm saying is that he divided the you know the the attributes of God into univocal equal and analogy do you accept that distinction or not I I mean like I mean in terms of for example his understanding of scripture when it says for example like go do you understand these distinctions? Do you understand this or not? Yeah, but like I want you to argue why I should take Thomas Aquinas as a source. No, I'm not that wasn't my question. Yeah. My question was not that. Listen like I don't have to concern myself with Aquinus as the point. Let's actually get to the argument. That's not my question. My question was and my my my clarifying question to you is why should I care? Okay. No. No. My question is this. When you're discussing the attributes of God Yeah. Are you go is it okay for you to hold to the distinctions that are held by someone like Thomas Aquinas and or Duncotus or does that make no sense to you? So I'm just going to say that when we speak of God's attributes, the common definition of the word as to avoid his attributes being non-cognitive like saying oh God has this and it's blah blah blah the common the common definition of the word is the same but the way that God possesses it is different. So which scholars of Christianity do you accept as authoritative? I mean is this going to be the the scholars that I can agree with are the corpus of the church fathers and the canonized saints. Sure. So someone like Gregory of Nania, someone like Gregory of Nissa, you would accept as authoritative. Of course. No. Beautiful. No, no, no. Okay. You notice how I said I can agree with them. Not that I have to. There's a distinction. No, but is that not the case in Greek orthodoxy? Yeah. I I I can agree with them. Only only theological claims at sods or councils which are dogmatized. So, for example, I don't have to say that Sirill is authoritative, but I have to say his letters at emphasis are. You see the distinction? Yeah, I see the distinction. So I'm making it very clear because he wants to prove. No, no, no, no. This is before we start. This is what it's fine. How about this? He complained about it. So let's actually have a timed discussion. No, it's good that I got to the bottom of who he sees as authority. You give me a formal argument of why Christ cannot be God because of my own tradition. Go for it. Sure. And I want you or whoever's climbing this to time the discussion. Do you accept by before I start, can I ask you a question on the Capidosian fathers, Gregory of Niss and Greg as a serial? Yeah. No. No. Hold on. You accepted that they are they are figures of authority in terms of your religion, right? Yeah. In terms of things. So when it comes to the trinity, do you accept them as figures of authority? Yes. Okay. Excellent. Let's get started. Yeah. Go on then. No, you start. You start off. Okay. So premise one, you reject the van simplicity, the concept that God all of his attributes are going to be identical to himself. Sure. Conclusion two, you say that his parts are going to be less than the whole itself. Conclusion one, therefore your God is composite. Point three, your own tradition of Sunni Islam says that God is the first act. Premise four, therefore if he is composing himself, therefore the first act is going to be composing himself. Conclusion two, therefore if you want to say that Allah is the God of natural theology, this would not follow through because you said that this first principles, first act is going to be created which within the previous premises had been outlined as for example him composing himself. The first act is not creating, it is compos composing, which therefore means we cannot reason after natural theology. You accept natural theology, therefore of course then this is just going to be something which either reduces the explanation
All right. So, I I'm I'll be honest. I'll need to hear that argument again cuz I didn't understand it. Um I'll need to hear that one more time for you cuz you No, no, no. No, no, no. If you I'll I'll give him 30 seconds. Can you say the argument again? Well, how am I supposed to I wasn't even finished my argument in 2 minutes. How am I supposed to do it in 30 seconds? All right. Take a minute. Okay. So, take two minutes like we agreed upon. No, no. Take one minute. Take one minute. You can speak. How about this? for the simple child discussing with me here. We go premise by premise in an untimed situation because I'm not going to have less than two minutes to talk in an argument I hadn't even been able to finish. Okay. Okay. So, you reject simplicity, the concept that all of the attributes within God is identical to himself. Premise premise two, you say that the attributes of God are less than the whole itself. Conclusion one, therefore your god is composite. conclusion. Why? Why does that follow? Because if he is composed of things that are less than the whole itself, therefore we can pick out things which are going to be really distinct from him which are less than him going to be things that are comprising himself. No, say that again. Say that again. Say it again. So what we premise one you said that I I you simplicity. So hold on, hold on. Now I want to make this very discussion is not going saying what is this? What is this define this? It's going to be that he literally said in his reputation that he understood the argument and it's weak. So he knows it. Don't be disingenuous and don't play a definition game cuz I'm really not here for it, mate. So you know what I'm saying. So don't be disingenuous to yourself. Continue. All right. So he's he is attempting. Here's the thing. And I've I've heard it very I've I've heard it very I've heard it very clearly and I can tell you for a fact I've been doing philosophy for a very long time. And and I'll tell you what, he has not actually put together an argument. He know he has put together right hold on hold on hold on I I can tell you that I've heard him twice now cuz I I wouldn't have said this unless I heard it twice. He said you believe in such and such therefore such and such. That's not how works. That's by the way no with all due respect no that's not how it works. No, no, it's not. You don't know how to construct a syllogism. Okay, that's you can't say you believe in this, therefore this. Doesn't work like that. It has to be okay. So, you you're going to start from a general, go into a specific and hold on, hold on, hold on. You have not you have you have done a bad job in creating an argument. Listen, listen. Okay, hold on. No, let me speak now. Let me speak. Let me speak. You spoke. You spoke. Is he being timed right now? Is he being timed right now? Time it, time it. time it because here's the thing. I don't like when people time to untime discuss. You just want to have the talking because you think you're the main man. Okay. All right. Do you want to press the button? All right. Um, start again cuz I haven't started yet. See the vine? No. No. Hold on. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't you ran away. Don't get Please don't get involved. Don't get involved. One, one at a time. One out of time. Do you need two on one? Is that how I need to be? I can't I can't speak on I can't speak to two people at a time. I can't speak. It's not physically possible to speak to two people at time. All right. Let go. Let go. All right. So, are you ready? A child brother. So, okay. Let's start with the first thing he said which is the only thing really intelligible that he said which is that the proposition of divine simplicity uh indicates that when you say that something is an attribute of God is saying that that's identical to the essence of God. That is what the Martzles believed by the way and that is what Thomas Aquinus believed. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm just speaking to myself. No, no, don't get involved in my conversation. Yeah, I know you're trying to get rude. Don't get don't get involved. Yeah. So the point is this is that if that's the case, you have to admit today that God is not love. You know why? Because if God is love is identical to the essence, God's love is also identical to what? Through the law of identity is also identical to his knowledge. So God's love is God's knowledge and God's knowledge is God's power. You must admit to this. And if that's the case, you believe in a God without attributes. You are as Aquinus would as not Aquinus as many Christians would say pretty much an atheist because you believe in a deistic God, a non-personal God, a God that can't love, a God that can't be merciful, a God that can't be powerful, a God that because these things, these descriptors and attributes are when you say that God's power is identical to his essence. If God's power is identical to his essence and his knowledge is identical to his power, it follows God's power is God's knowledge. It follows God's power is God's love. It go it follows God's power, God's compassion and so on and so forth. Therefore, you have to admit today that you don't believe in a God that loves. Go ahead and do it. Okay. So, is that you conceding time? Okay, good. So, like, okay, your argument. Okay, so notice how he didn't really respond to the argument and that we're just moving arguments. I thought we would agree to a structure of we point to one argument, then we point to another once the one has either been refuted or conceded to. But let me entertain it, then also go back to the arguments at hand. And why is he looking like he's part of Incredibles right now? We'll never know. So the first point is is that anti-reflex identity does not work within the trinity. Just as much as for example when we say the son is God, we do not therefore say that whenever we're talking of God, we're talking of the son. Just as much as we say Muhammad is job is human, but when we pick out humanity, we're not talking about Muhammad. That is anti-relux identity, my friend. And it does not work in the case of the trinity. My second point is again going to be that we can be apahatic about these things within the syllogism. He can say that because you do not believe in eggs, therefore you've only half the position which entails Y. If you reject that God is not uh is not composed of parts, therefore he is composed of parts. Do you see the point here? If you reject a negative, therefore you're going to affirm the positive that is that God is composed of parts. Now the reason why you believe in this is because the essence of God is going to be comprised of things which are less than. So he didn't answer my question. He he has not conceded to the fact that if you say that God's power is identical to his essence and there and his knowledge is identical to his essence, it follows that his knowledge is identical to his power by the law of identity. That's a that is a logical law. In fact, one of the most foundational propositional logical laws. He's talking as if he's making some kind of argument. He's not making an argument. He has not conceded to the fact that on his view of divine simplicity, he must acknowledge that God does not love. God is not loving. When you say God is loving, you're using that as a descriptive. It's not actually talking about something with ontological status within God. So he has to now acknowledge before we move forward. He has to tell me, yes, when I say God is love, when Christians say God is love, according to divine simplicity, it's not true that he's actually love in an onlogically real sense. It's just some words we say. So that would mean that according to us, God is really love and according to you, God is not love. So let's make that clear first and then we can move on to other things. Please go ahead. Okay. So I want to demonstrate that supposedly this very foundational principle of identity is just going to pull him into extreme positions. So hijab during my time uh time I want to ask you a question. Uh hijab you're a human. Yes. Hijab stop film me if you're only fans for a minute and answer. You've got your time. Be quiet and and speak. So hijab hijab equals human. Schuman does not equal hijab. I wonder why. Because anti-relux identity does not work in the case of the trinity. Just because hijab is human does not whenever I say this individual here is a human he is therefore hijab. I wonder why because identity does not work in this way. I can be identical to the divine essence for example whilst also for example possessing hypothatic properties. Hijab can be identical to humanity whilst not everyone who is human be identical to hijab. So can we concede that this concept of identity is not sufficient in all things? Then I can make the argument for why in the case of the divine essence it also does not follow. So I want him to at least reiterate what I said because he was not because he did not answer my question when I said that I was going to allow him to speak in my time. How can he stop posing to come fans 16? Well, I know you're 16. You sound like a 16-year-old. Jab pipilia. They go hand in hand. You're the one you're the one touching him, boy. You're the one touching him. You keep touching him touching him, but you
Want to watch him. You're touching him. Anyway, whatever. Hijab. Anyway, the point is this. All day. Okay. Thank you very much. Is it my time? Is it my time? Yeah. All right. I'll do the other a moment ago. He was shaking his chest in front of you. The point is is if you if you use it with a universal outside of God's essence. So here is the difference: if I say that animality or horsiness or any kind of uh universal that exists within and I say X is equivalent to Y and Y, then yes, there could be a difference, but we're not talking about that. We're saying that if God's attribute yes is the same as his essence. We're not talk we're not using a universal here. This is not a genus or universal that anomalist can say in his conceptualizing is some kind of thing which is abstract from God. We're saying we're using God to compare him with God. So I'm saying that according to divine simplicity, this is what they say, they the divine simplic say that the attribute of God is equivalent to the essence of God. So if it's equivalent to the essence of God, if God's power is God's essence, then and God's knowledge is God's uh essence, it follows God's power is God's knowledge, it follows and and so on and so forth, which means when Christians say God is love, if they believe in divine simplicity, they're lying to you. That's what it means. It means they don't actually believe in God being love in any real ontological sense. That's it.
So, can you concede that? Can we can we move on now? No, because like you haven't really argued for why the argument follows, right? You're just bringing a case of identity that being anti-relux identity, then already assuming it applies to the trinity by then saying an arbitrary criteria of this identity being in play is that a universal has to be the thing that we're talking about. Again, don't have to concede to this. You have to argue for it. You notice how for someone that was picking out my poor debating skills, he already runs from an assumption, from an argument he's already ran away from. He ran away initially from an argument against composition, then ran to my position whilst having an argument that assumes a principle of identity to which I don't agree to. So I want hijab to argue for why this thing actually actually follows. You were just being apathic and saying it's not in the case of a genus. Therefore, it has to be in the case of a particular, for example, that anti-reflux identity does follow. I wanted to argue this. You just said I can't play on negatives in order to pose a positive. Therefore, he has to do the exact same thing within his argument. Now, again, why does he keep on posing? I want to know. I didn't want to talk about a pedophilia cuz man, you can talk about pipelia.
[Laughter] Okay, let's get started. Look, at the end of the day, I was making it very clear. All right? If you believe by the law of identity that God's power is God's essence and God's knowledge is God's essence, it follows God's power is God's knowledge. This is in a GCSE way for you to understand. I know you're a GCSE student. I just want trust me. If you are my A-level student, and I know I've got six degrees, one of the most qualified men in the in the world actually fake having said that fake. No, no problem. Put that to the side. If you think that, go and ask the University of Oxford, going after the University of Birmingham yourself. No problem. No problem. Here's here's the thing. If I was teaching him in school, I'd give him a C plus for effort. Your face. You get a C plus for you get a C plus. Yeah, you can you could be an extra. I'm an actor. You could be an extra. Hollywood. Maybe we can get the hot hot water in the coffees and stuff like that. But here's the point. Yeah. The point I'm making to you is you if you can't concede this, we could just move on. I didn't say anything about the Trinity. It gets worse if we talk about the Trinity. Way worse. is the concession way for but go ahead and tell us that God is not loved. Go ahead.
Well, no, because again, okay, listen, listen. Okay, he's saying that this principle of identity, which he hasn't even named, by the way. He's just saying this thing of identity that everyone knows about in GCSE level that he hasn't argued for in the case of the Trinity follows that therefore he does not possess attributes. Again, what I'm contending is the fact that yes, I agree that these attributes are identical with God's essence. I do not believe although that his uh that God is going to equal his attribute. It's anti-relux identity. Hijab is human. This guy is human. He's not hijab. That's the point. You have to argue these principles whenever you apply it to a particular thing. You've just been apathetic. It is not in the case of a genus or a universal. We're talking about a particular. Therefore, it follows. It doesn't. You're just saying in some cases, in this case, it works. Therefore, if it's not this case, it shouldn't work. It's not how you do debating, my friend. It's a false assumption. You want to say you want to move on because you've got poor rhetoric. So far, we've moved to Allah that you believe can be proven. Hands up. Look, now it gets worse cuz I'm going to put him to bed now. Sleep. And maybe he's going to get some sexual thoughts. Sorry to say when I said this because I know he loves pedophilia. But here's what I'm going to say. Be quiet, my friend. Be quiet. You keep talking about pedophilia every time you see me. I don't know what the situation is. I don't know. Sure. I'm not going to bring my kids here. I tell you that for sure. I mean, this guy here keeps talking about pedophilia. But anyway, the point, let me start my time. The point I'm making to you is now we've said this and he tried to defend it and he has no defense because the thing is he's in a dilemma. If he says that these these are actual attributes with an onlogical status, then he affirms the kind of composition he wishes to deny. If he says they're not, then he actually falls into a kind of collapse of attributes, which leads to not believing in any of the attributes, including God's love. Which means you can't as Christians say that God is love. Now Muslims can say it. So that's I don't know why you haven't admitted it. Number one. Number two is this. It gets even worse when you go into the trinity. Do you know why? Because if you say that the father is God, the son is God and the holy spirit is God. In that sense, if they are all God in distinct personas, as they say, and as Gregory of Nissa and Gregory of Nisandius and his Capidoshian authorities say, I don't know how it could be the the case. How could it be the case that you believe in three and one and one and three but you don't believe in parts of God? It's absolutely uh ridiculous to postulate that you don't believe you believe in no composition but you believe in the trinity. Try and square the circle for me my friend.
Okay. So again and he's brought up the essence as it pertains to the substantiations i.e the persons. So hijab please answer this question in my time. Hijab are you equal to humanity? Are you a human? Do you want to answer me? Because I I can Okay, he's reing this argument. The son is God. God therefore is the son. The son is not the father because then you either lead into composition or you lead to polytheism. Although we reject polytheism, we say there's one God. Therefore, it leads into composition. But I want to ask him this and this makes very perfect sense. Hijab is a human. JC is a human. Is JC Muhammad hijab? No. Because there's a thing called anti-relux identity which I've been begging for him like all the children that he wants to say can marry adults for him to say that why does this not work in the case of yourself but works in the case of the trinity please not is it time is it time he's got a bit of time okay okay again don't be a coward for Allah and resolve the issue of composition I want you to ask answer why you affirm that the first act Allah was also the first action of Allah is to compose kids nowadays have very little respect. No problem. Let me put this. Yeah, I know you do. Shut up. It's embarrassing. Look, here's the thing. Yeah. What he's describing, as I mentioned before, I don't think he's been paying attention. He's C-grade now, but he can become a B-grade if he listens a little bit closer. Right? Because here's what I'll say to you. Be very listen to what I'm saying to you. When you're dealing with a particular and a universal, it's different to dealing with two things with supposedly the same onlogical value. So here, for example, if you say that God's attribute is God, we're talking about God's attribute, we're assuming God's attribute has actual ontological status. And then God's essence has actual onlogical status. A nominalist or a conceptualist would say that a universal does not have an actual maybe a concept conceptualist will, but definitely a nomalist will not say they have an actual ontological status. There are social constructs in in in in many ways. So if you say that this person is a human, this person is a human, it's not the same because we're talking about here with attributes and essence distinction both of which are meant to be real in God. So my point to you again, do you concede considering this response, do you concede that according to your idea of divine simplicity, God is not loving in a real ontological sense? Yes or no?
Wait. Okay. So okay, so again, so firstly, he's assuming he's assuming the universe [Laughter] He was assuming he's assuming that universals don't really exist. He's assuming that universals do not really exist. I'm just going to say and to void that language has no real meaning to speak for one minute. Okay. When I finish with this guy, I'll come to you is serious issue. I'll come to you in a second. Very serious issue. I will come immediately. Let me just finish with this guy. I'll start talking to him next time. Okay. So the reason why universals have to really exist is because we have to avoid the fact that language therefore becomes meaningless. So for example when we say that Allah has attributes we're picking out this normative definition of what it means when we say that Allah is loving for example. If you want to say that in fact this is not a universal it can be anything mind dependent upon the person. The common definition is what we're going to pick out in the universal of when we were referring to what is love. So why are you assuming that universals do not really exist within your argument? That's my first point. My my second point again is just you're just saying that it does not work in the case of a universal or it does work in the case of universal even though in a particular it doesn't and you're then just assuming that these universal natures do not for really exist. So if universals do exist in a platonically real sense that he's talking about like what Plato believed that you know there was a whole place there where the universe exists in a perfect sense. If they do exist in that sense, then his argument falls. Because actually it only this his argument only makes sense. His response only makes sense if the universal is not real. If you're saying that for example Muhammad is a human and he's a you're a human and so therefore me I'm not you. If that's what basically he's saying humanity here is a universal which is not real in that sense. If it is real then it does become a contradiction because if if there is a such a thing as a personified manifested uh humanity or perfect human person which Plato believed there was some kind of man there standing maybe in the heaven somewhere neoplatonic mo realism if you believe in that it actually does fall apart which means I'm that guy and you're that guy how can we both be that guy at the same time it's a contradiction the same thing applies with the trinity and the same thing applies with your attributes of God on divine simplicity so you fail you fail D minus actually. But because you've been a little bit cognizant, I might give you a C plus and and pass you, but I'm going to give you one more chance. Do you admit that God is not love? Yes or no?
So, I've got a question. So, let's go back to the analogy of Muhammad is a human. What exactly are we picking out or what exactly is being invoked when we say hijab is a human and JC is a human? Of course, there's going to be this common definition that is invoked when we say that these two subjects are the same thing. Just to say that they don't really exist. I don't hold to this neoplatonic understanding of that there is a perfect can of coke that really exists somewhere else. I'm just not saying that they have to be conceptual or mind dependent on the person. That's metal linguistic nominalism which I don't hold to although you could hold to therefore meaning that language has no definite meaning. But I want to ask you this. He says they don't exist at all. They don't have any onlogical status. Well, that's what you just said on camera and they'll pick that out. And again, he wants to answer me when he thinks it's going to better his argument. But when I actually want to ask an honest to good question within my time, he doesn't want to because it will not help him. Now, what is being picked out when we say that hijab is a human and JC is a human? Okay, that's my time now. Yeah. So, has you got a couple of seconds left? Whatever. All right, cool. So, here's the point. Here's the thing. I haven't declared my position whether I'm a conceptualist or a nominalist or whatever I am. I'm just bas basically saying to you that if you believe that as you've mentioned that universals do exist the question would be then in what context do they exist? In what context do they exist? Is it in a neoplatonic real kind of context? If not that context in what context? In what context does humanity exist with actual onlogical uh significance? So for example Plato believed that there was a perfect man out there that we like human beings would you know connect to it. So for example what what differentiates a sword from a knife according to Plato there's like an archetype of what a sword is somewhere an archetype of what a knife is somewhere and then yeah whatever corresponds with that is a line now if you don't believe in universals like that if you don't if you believe in universals are real the question number one is in what context are and number two how is it not now a contradiction if if I I say for example I'm a human which corresponds to something which is real and he's a human that that actually does cause a contradiction. So once again, it's been refuted, but he doesn't understand it. If I can say one more time you want, I can try and scaffold it for you. I can try and put it in a syllogism, but I don't think you'll understand. This is your last This is your last chance. Is God love? Yes or no on your view? Is God love?
So I'm going to I'm only going to answer the question if it's not founded on a framework that I don't have to agree to. So you notice how instead of actually answering my question on his normalism, he just wants to ask the person which he I'm not using these concepts. He is if he's superimposing these concepts onto me in in case of performing a reputation that therefore necessitates that he's going to have to provide a position on which this uh argument actually works. I can't suppose divine simplicity when critiquing Allah because I know divine simplicity does not work in the case of Allah. So then I have to ask you a clarifying question in the case of nominalism or universals in order to further our principle of identity in the application of a critique of the trinity. So then what do you take then to be nominalism or what is your position on nomalism because I would say metal linguistic normalism or any form of nomalism rather is this going to lead to concepts like humanity being meaningless because again I'm asking you this when I said to you that anti-reflex identity does not work in the case of this particular the trinity and this universe of humanity and you're contesting with universals. So what is being picked out when we say the universal of humanity? If you want to say it's my independent has no meaning whatsoever. It's non-cognitive. Humanity could mean pedophilia in the face of Muhammad which it probably does. All right. So just because you said that you've lost privilege to talk to me now. You can go and honestly don't disrespect cuz I know you can do it to your dad. You can disrespect your mom at home. You can disrespect your dad. You can disrespect your uncle. Uncle Barry. Don't come and talk about pity affiliate. Don't disrespect. I'm No. No. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. He was he first. I haven't I haven't come to you with anything like that. I haven't disrespected you like that. Hold on. I haven't I haven't I haven't The first thing you said is the camera is not worth your money. Sure. Sure. Sure. But that's not that's not calling you a pedophile, is it? All right. So So So now that you are worthless in my eyes and you're going to see my back know that I've asked him five, six times about about the love thing. He couldn't answer it once. Go back to your daddy. Maybe he can teach you a couple manners. Go back to your mom. Maybe she'll give you a little spank. Yeah. Or maybe he'll get excited about that. And that's equal. It doesn't matter. But anyway, we'll see it. You can't answer the question. They Christians can't answer the question. The only argument they've got is pedophilia. That's all. All right. Cool. You can't answer the question. Done. Now, go back to your school. Go back to your school. Go back. Whatever. All right. See, goodbye. Goodbye. You cannot agree. This is my son. This is an issue going on for 8 years. Yes. You're not going to believe it. Is a very serious which is genetic, degenerative.