Appeal: clarification
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7222:40:29upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 1 point.
“I believe that there is no shared reality between my hand and Jay's hand. I don't believe that there is this thing called handness which is partially or fully identical in my hand and Jay's hand or my knowledge and Jay's knowledge. Everything that exists is a particular. So there's nothing unique about this when it comes to Allah or human beings.”
Diogenes: This meets Dyer's disanalogy objection directly: on his nominalism no two creatures share ontology either, so the created/uncreated gap requires no special exemption — the position is general rather than invented for the divine case.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's standing nominalist metaphysics, declared explicitly in his opening statement ("Every object, including its essence and attributes, is particular and not universal... there is no ontological sharing between God and creation"), is restated and generalized here, not introduced as an ad hoc exemption for the divine case. This is not a request for clarification but a plainly stated premise-conclusion response to the disanalogy objection: since nominalism denies shared ontology between any two particulars whatsoever, the created/uncreated gap needs no special pleading — this fits "explicit argument" better, but is a genuine, substantive, and consistent application of his standing position.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Addressing the audience's challenge about predicating "foot" of Allah without likening him to creation, Jake gives a direct, consistent answer by extending his nominalism uniformly — no shared universal exists between any two particulars, human or divine — rather than treating divine predication as a special, ad hoc case.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's opening statement declared consistent nominalism — "every object, including its essence and attributes, is particular and not universal" — and this Q&A answer applies that same general thesis to explain why his paper/forehead example is not uniquely deficient for the created/uncreated case: on his view no two creatures share ontology either. This is not a request for clarification (the "clarification" label doesn't fit), but it is a substantive and consistent response addressing Jay's disanalogy objection by showing the nominalist thesis is general rather than ad hoc to the divine case; "direct answer" better captures the move.
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.