Appeal: homologia
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #13711:45:04upheld Jay Dyer against Mike Lowry agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“So you're anti trinitarian. Thank you.”
Diogenes: By simply asking what Mike meant, Jay draws out the admission that the Son and Spirit "are created through the Father", which concedes the very equivocation Jay alleged an hour earlier when Mike claimed "I do believe in the trinity".- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared metaphysics is a graded, non-consubstantial emanationism (Son as "vehicle," Spirit as "conjoint actor," not homoousion), so this answer is consistent with his framework rather than a reversal of it, but it is nonetheless the first time he states plainly, without qualification, the creaturely-derivation claim that Jay names as anti-trinitarian, and Mike does not push back against that label. Jay's simple question ("Was Jesus created?") draws from Mike a plain, unhedged statement — Son and Spirit "are created through the Father" — that goes well beyond the vague "small disagreement of terms" Mike had offered earlier (57:51) when pressed on whether he really held the trinity Jay meant. When Jay then labels this "anti-trinitarian," Mike does not contest the characterization but takes it under consideration ("Interesting. I'll have to think about that some more too"), granting rather than rebutting the point, consistent with his pattern elsewhere in the debate of not defending a position once it is pinned down in concrete terms.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. This is a fair, direct inference from what Mike had just affirmed (that the Son and Spirit "are created through the Father"), not a jab standing in for an answer: since Nicene trinitarianism holds the Son and Spirit as uncreated and consubstantial, a position that makes them created entails a denial of that doctrine, and Jay states the entailment plainly.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike's position on record from the opening is graded/Neoplatonic emanationism (Son and Spirit derived from, not consubstantial with, the Father), and Jay's position on record includes Nicene-Cappadocian homoousion; Jay had already alleged at ~57:54 that Mike's professed "trinity" is equivocal with the Nicene term, and here Mike's answer that Son and Spirit are "created through the Father" is simply a restatement of his standing metaphysics, not a new admission wrung out by refutation. Mike neither grants Jay's "anti-Trinitarian" characterization nor admits he has no answer; his reply — "Interesting. I'll have to think about that some more too" — is a deferral, not a concession or a dead-end admission, matching the pattern already declined as duel material at 52:02. This is Jay correctly drawing out an implication of Mike's already-declared doctrine (fits better as a fallacy-spotted/equivocation point on the ordinary ledger) rather than a decisive homologia landed in the exchange.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.