Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #13741:46:23upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“God is eternally father, Athanasius says. If he is the eternal father. To be eternal father presupposes an eternal son that he's father of. So Jesus is not a creature.”
Diogenes: Asked directly what distinguishes begotten from created, Jay gives a compact argument from the correlativity of the terms rather than an appeal to authority, and Mike grants its force.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held from the outset a Nicene-Cappadocian trinitarian position with eternal generation of the Son from the Father, and this line is a direct restatement/application of that stated doctrine via an argument from correlative terms, not a departure from his position. The line states a premise (God is eternally Father), draws out its entailment (eternal fatherhood presupposes an eternal son), and reaches a conclusion (Jesus is not a creature) — a genuine explicit argument rather than a bare appeal to Athanasius's authority; the transcript does not clearly show Mike conceding its force immediately afterward, but that detail is not needed to credit Jay's argument as meeting the "explicit argument" criteria on its own terms.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". This is a plainly stated syllogism answering Mike's question of what distinguishes "begotten" from "created": God is eternally Father (per Athanasius); being eternally Father presupposes an eternally existing Son; therefore the Son has no beginning and is not a creature. Premises and conclusion are laid out explicitly and directly answer the question Mike had just asked, rather than deflecting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared metaphysics from the opening includes Nicene-Cappadocian trinitarianism with eternal generation from the Father, and here, pressed by Mike's direct question about what distinguishes "begotten" from "created," Jay gives a compact correlativity argument (eternal father presupposes eternal son) rather than merely repeating the creedal formula. The quote states a premise (to be eternal father presupposes an eternal son) and a conclusion (so Jesus is not a creature) in direct response to Mike's pointed question, which satisfies "explicit argument" regardless of whether Mike's subsequent reaction (ambiguously tagged in the transcript) counts as an explicit concession.
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.