Appeal: direct answer
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #62629:46upheld Muslim Lantern epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern earned 1 point.
“An attribute is something that does not exist in abstract, exists within something, and that something remains one. Nobody says that having attributes makes you more than one.”
Diogenes: He meets Jay's attributes-and-multiplicity charge head on with a stated account of what an attribute is, rather than deflecting.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's declared first principle treats attributes as inhering in the one subject without composition ("attribute-in-subject... without composition"), and this line is a direct application of that stated metaphysics to Jay's multiplicity charge from his opening, not a departure into evasion. Jay's opening posed the dilemma (dependent-or-self-existent, with "99 gods" as the cost of self-existence), and this line answers it in substance by asserting attributes exist only within the one subject rather than independently, directly engaging the charge rather than deflecting it; that Jay later presses for the specific term "asai" and finds those later answers evasive is a separate exchange from this one.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. S2 lays out a premise-conclusion argument for his view of divine attributes: attributes don't exist in the abstract but only within a subject, and the subject having them remains numerically one (illustrated by a person having love, hate, fear without becoming "100 or 200"). This directly states the metaphysic he committed to (attribute-in-subject without composition) rather than merely asserting the conclusion.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's opening-stated challenge was specifically about "the dependence relationship of the attributes on Allah's essence... are they then asa or self existent" — the record shows Jay pressed this exact self-existence/dependence question immediately after this line and for many exchanges afterward, repeatedly saying Muslim Lantern never answered it. The quoted line answers a narrower question Muslim Lantern posed to himself ("where is the fallacy" in equating attribute with part), not the self-existence/dependence question Jay had actually put in his opening and continued pressing directly afterward for several more exchanges without resolution; the transcript itself shows this was not treated as a direct answer to the live question.
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.