Mike Lowry · Philosopher
10 callouts
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 24:42overturned
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
clarification (+1)
“That's a really good question. We should address that. But before we do, can I press you again to see what's your answer to specifically what I'm asking?”
Diogenes: Mike keeps the original question on the table instead of letting a counter-question displace it, while explicitly promising to return to Jay's point.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Mike opened by grounding his position in personal spiritual experience and coherence rather than formal argument, and here he is simply holding his own line of questioning open rather than seeking a definition, so the labeled fault-type is not actually present. The line is not a request for a definition or clarification of a term; it is Mike declining to let Jay's counter-question ("Don't you think we need to go back to those people?") substitute for an answer to his own prior question about what the apostles preached, and promising to return to Jay's point later. That is good practice (a question deserves an answer before a counter-question), but it does not fit the "clarification" element — nothing is being defined or clarified, a prior question is simply being re-pressed. No other listed philosopher label (direct answer, steelman, concession, evidence, explicit argument) fits this act either, since Mike is asking, not answering.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is S2 insisting that Jay return to and directly answer the original question ("what were they preaching") rather than being diverted by Jay's counter-question about apostolic tradition. It is procedural floor-management — asking to keep the question on the table — rather than itself an argument, a dodge, or a direct answer; no premises are advanced and no claim is conceded or refuted here, so it earns nothing on either ledger.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that his authority is personal/experiential and coherence-based, not a method of formal question-clarification; the called line is ordinary discourse management (holding his own question open) rather than the clarification-move the label names. Mike's opening framework is experiential/personal-revelation epistemology; he has not, at any point, staked out a practice of "asking for definitions/clarification instead of assuming" as a recurring rhetorical virtue. The quoted line is Mike simply re-asserting his own prior question ("what were the apostles preaching?") after Jay pivoted to a counter-question about apostolic succession, promising to come back to Jay's point later. That is a floor-holding move — insisting a question be answered before a counter-question is entertained — not a request for a definition or clarification of a term. Nothing in the quote seeks to pin down an ambiguous concept; it simply restates and defers. The label "clarification" does not fit the transcript action, and no other listed philosopher category (direct answer, steelman, concession, evidence, framework objection, fallacy spotted) fits either, since Mike isn't answering, conceding, or citing anything — he's managing turn-taking.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 33:48upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
explicit argument (+1)
“… it was that direct revelation to Peter that Jesus was referring to. He was making a remark on the fact that Peter had had a direct revelation through the father's spirit to him. And upon that, that individual relationship to the heavenly father, upon that, the brotherhood will be built.”
Diogenes: Mike argues his case from the disputed text itself, grounding the reading in the preceding verse ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you") rather than resting on personal experience alone.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike opened with a personal-experience epistemology plus "coherent, cogent" textual fit, and has held that position throughout; this line is him applying that framework to Matthew 16, deriving a plain conclusion (the church is built on the direct personal revelation Peter received, not on institutional/authoritative succession) from a stated premise (Jesus's remark following Peter's confession). The quote does lay out a premise (Jesus's statement following Peter's confession refers to Peter's direct inward revelation) and a conclusion (the brotherhood/church is built on that kind of individual relationship), which meets the bar for "explicit argument" even though the premise itself rests on Mike's experiential epistemology rather than independent exegesis; minor severity is appropriate since it's a single textual claim, not a fully developed case.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Lowry states a premise (Peter's confession was itself a personal, inward revelation from the Father) and draws a conclusion from it (the brotherhood/church is founded on that same kind of individual relationship to God, not on an office passed to Peter), directly engaging the Matthew 16 text Jay had earlier cited for apostolic succession. It is a contestable interpretation, but it is laid out as premises leading to a conclusion rather than a bare assertion or a fallacious move.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that inward personal revelation is the primary evidence and that revelation is credible when coherent with that inner acquaintance; here he extends that framework into a textual argument rather than departing from it. Mike lays out premises drawn from the text itself (Peter's confession following "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my Father") and a conclusion (the church is built on that individual relationship of direct revelation), rather than simply asserting his personal experience. This is a genuine explicit argument, consistent with his stated method of finding his personal-revelation epistemology confirmed/coherent with the text.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 35:58overturned
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
concession (+1)
“… you just correctly laid out the system by which we can look at the direct connection all the way back to the early church in Orthodoxy, let's say. And some others might disagree with you, but I don't. I don't have any reason to.”
Diogenes: Mike grants Jay's historical continuity claim outright instead of contesting ground he cannot hold, and relocates his objection to a specific point — Paul's reshaping of the message — which is the honest way to narrow a dispute.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Mike's declared position from the opening is that the Urantia Book is genuine revelation and that the gospel of fatherhood/brotherhood was later distorted by a well-intentioned Pauline error; this line does not depart from that but restates its precise boundary (agreeing to the historical mechanism while locating his objection specifically at Paul). Mike's opening framework already held that the historical/apostolic chain is real but that Paul introduced a "well-intentioned error" onto it — so granting that Jay "correctly laid out the system" of apostolic continuity is not a concession wrung from being shown wrong, it is a restatement of the very distinction Mike stated from the outset (continuity of institution vs. corruption of doctrine via Paul). No point of Mike's own that was actually in dispute is retracted here; he simply agrees to an uncontested premise before pivoting to his standing objection about Paul, which he had already flagged in his opening narrative.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Mike explicitly grants that Jay's account of apostolic succession and the historical line running from the apostles through the early church into Orthodoxy is correctly laid out, saying he has no reason to disagree with it; he then pivots to a distinct objection about Paul rather than disputing the succession mechanism itself. This is a genuine concession on the point actually put to him, not merely rhetorical throat-clearing, since he keeps the concession's scope (the mechanism) separate from his later, narrower complaint (Pauline content).
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike's opening and consistent position was that the early gospel of the kingdom/brotherhood is genuine but Paul's atonement theology is a later, well-intentioned error; he never contested the historical mechanics of apostolic succession itself, so agreeing to that mechanism here is not a reversal of any prior claim. A concession requires a real prior claim shown wrong; Mike never asserted a rival account of historical apostolic succession, so granting that Jay "correctly laid out the system" simply narrows the discussion to his standing objection (Paul's alteration of the message) rather than abandoning a position he had held. This reads better as a direct answer to Jay's earlier question ("don't you think we need to go back to those people?") than as a concession.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. Mike's opening statement (00:38-13:33) already staked out the position that apostolic historical continuity is real but that Paul introduced a "well-intentioned error" onto it, shifting the message from the kingdom-brotherhood gospel to atonement doctrine; the quoted line simply applies that same standing distinction, granting the uncontested mechanism while pivoting to his already-declared objection about Paul. Judged against that framework, nothing is retracted or shown wrong here, so it is not a concession but a restatement of a boundary drawn before the exchange began.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 43:05upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 2.4 points.
distinguo (+2.4)
“So prophesying that the Messiah would die, be buried, and he would be resurrected is different than saying when Jesus died and was buried and resurrected, the reason for that is that it took away your sins.”
Diogenes: Jay's Psalms evidence established a prophesied death-burial-resurrection; Mike splits the term, showing that the predicted event and the atoning interpretation of that event are two claims, so the evidence offered does not reach the doctrine actually in dispute.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that Paul introduced a "well-intentioned error" onto Christ's original message of the kingdom/brotherhood, and this move is a direct application of that standing thesis, distinguishing prophesied fact from Pauline interpretation rather than a new position. Jay had just built an evidential case (the Psalms pattern) for a prophesied death-burial-resurrection and treated this as proof that Paul's atonement doctrine was not an innovation. Mike's line splits the equivocation Jay was running together: prophecy of the event (death/burial/resurrection) versus the interpretive claim that the event's purpose was to atone for sin. The split lands — Jay's own next turns ("so for us though, that is the atonement... I'm not sure what... I'm not understanding") show he did not initially track the distinction and had to reformulate rather than directly answer it, evidence the distinguo had real force rather than being a bare assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Mike draws a clean, correct distinction between two logically separate claims that Jay had been running together: that the Messiah's death and resurrection were prophesied (a claim about historical fulfillment), and that this death specifically atones for sin (a claim about the meaning/purpose of the event). This is a premise-stated distinguo, not evasion, and it is what finally lets Jay see what Mike actually disputes ("I see the disconnect now").
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay had just argued (40:29) that dozens of Psalms prophesy Christ's death-burial-resurrection, and used this as evidence that Paul's atonement teaching is continuous with, not a departure from, what was "prophesied" all along; Mike's opening and consistent position is that the kingdom-gospel Jesus taught is genuine but Paul's atonement doctrine is a later addition of meaning. The quoted line splits Jay's conflated claim into "the event was foretold" versus "the event effects atonement for sin," which are not the same claim and Jay's Psalms citations only establish the former. This is a genuine distinguo: Jay had run together prophecy-of-the-event with the specific soteriological interpretation of that event, and Mike's line names and splits exactly that equivocation. The move visibly lands — Jay responds with real confusion ("I'm confused here... what do you think it did?"), and only a few lines later concedes "I see the disconnect now," reframing it as differing word-usage before pivoting entirely to a new line of attack (demanding Mike's epistemic basis) rather than defending the original Psalms-as-atonement-evidence argument further. That shift in Jay's own approach shows the distinction did real work rather than being brushed aside.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 47:07upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
clarification (+1)
“Before we go, you just labeled me as gnostic. Can you help me understand what that means?”
Diogenes: Rather than taking offence or accepting a label he does not understand, Mike asks for the term to be defined before the argument proceeds on it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike has held throughout that he is exploring/learning rather than debating on hostile terms, and this clarification request is consistent with that open, non-combative posture rather than a departure from it. Mike explicitly asks Jay to define "gnostic" before the argument proceeds on the label, which is a direct request for clarification of a term rather than an assumption or an emotional reaction — this matches the clarification category cleanly.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Rather than assuming what Jay meant by "gnostic" and either accepting or reacting defensively to the label, Mike asks him to define the term before proceeding, which is a legitimate request for clarification.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that his belief rests on personal experience and coherence rather than technical theological argument; asking Jay to define a term just used against him ("gnostic") is consistent with that stance and is a straightforward clarification request, not a departure. Mike directly asks Jay to define a term just applied to him before responding further, which is the textbook clarification move rather than assuming or reacting emotionally.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 48:52upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“I don't have any problem with that person if they're connecting with Christ. If their doctrine or their theology is wacky…”
Diogenes: Mike takes the Mormon parity case head-on and bites the bullet consistently with his own stated principle that inward communion, not doctrinal correctness, is what counts, rather than evading the analogy.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared position from the start is that inward communion and the fruit of the spirit, not doctrinal correctness, is the test of genuine religion, and this answer restates and applies that principle rather than departing from it. Mike has held since the opening that inward connection to the Father/Christ, tested by fruit of the spirit, is what counts and doctrine is secondary; when Jay poses the Mormon-parity case he does not evade it but bites the bullet in line with that stated principle, saying doctrinal wackiness doesn't disqualify someone who is connecting with Christ. That is a direct answer to the specific analogy put to him, consistent with his framework.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Asked point-blank how he'd treat a Mormon's competing subjective certainty, Mike answers plainly that doctrinal correctness doesn't matter to him so long as the person is "connecting with Christ," which is a direct answer that also faithfully expresses his recorded experiential framework (fruit of the spirit over doctrine), later restated consistently when he names "the fruit of the spirit" as his standard.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 declared from the opening that inward communion and personal connection to the Father-spirit are primary and doctrine is secondary, and this answer applies that stated framework directly to the Mormon analogy rather than evading it. Jay's Mormon burning-bosom question directly challenges Mike's subjective-experience epistemology, and Mike answers it head-on rather than deflecting, applying his own opening principle (inward connection/fruit of the spirit over doctrinal correctness) consistently to the parity case.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 1:05:31upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
concession (+1)
“There isn't any. It's not epistemic.”
Diogenes: Mike candidly admits he has no epistemic criterion for preferring the Urantia Book to the Bible rather than manufacturing one, which is honest even though it surrenders the disputed ground.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's declared method from the opening rejects external objective standards in favor of personal experience, and this line is consistent with that stance, but it also concedes a specific claim he had made moments earlier (that he could supply an objective/epistemic answer), which is a genuine concession rather than mere restatement. Earlier in this same exchange Mike had claimed "I can give you an answer. It's objective and epistemic, but it's not religious" (~50:34), implying he could supply an epistemic criterion; here, after repeated pressing, he instead admits "There isn't any. It's not epistemic," directly surrendering that specific claim rather than manufacturing an answer. That is an honest concession of the disputed point, even though it is also consistent with his broader declared framework of declining external objective standards.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Pressed directly by Jay's repeated question, "What is the epistemic criteria for you to know that the Urantia book is correct and the Bible's not?", Mike here plainly answers "There isn't any. It's not epistemic," admitting outright that he has no epistemic standard for preferring the Urantia Book over Scripture. Unlike his earlier evasions ("I'm not here to argue"), this is a straightforward concession of the very point Jay was pressing.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike's declared position from the opening is that his conviction rests on personal experience rather than an external objective standard, and here — rather than manufacturing a criterion he does not have — he candidly admits the absence of one on the specific epistemic question Jay posed, which is a genuine concession on that narrow point rather than a departure from or contradiction of his standing framework. Despite the transcript's imperfect diarization in this crosstalk-heavy stretch (the surrounding lines show speaker turns visibly jumbled, e.g. "Well, I'm not" trailing into Jay's reply before Mike's own "I'm not trying to do apologetics either" at 65:41), the content and response chain make clear that "There isn't any. It's not epistemic" is Mike's answer to Jay's repeated question about an epistemic criterion, immediately followed by Jay's pounce "You don't have an argument." This is consistent with Mike's declared framework throughout (experiential, not epistemic) and functions as an honest admission on the narrow point Jay was pressing, which is a fair concession even though Mike goes on to hold his broader position.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 1:30:11tied, awaiting the moderator
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
falsification test (+1)
“… if we found that it was also possible for people who were outside of that faith tradition to have that same experience, to go through that process that you just referred to? Would that discovery, if we found that it was true, would that change or negate things that you currently believe about the church?”
Diogenes: Mike asks precisely the right question of a presuppositionalist — what evidence would count against the paradigm — and presses again when Jay answers by definition rather than by evidence.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that inward, personal spiritual experience is primary and has repeatedly declined external objective adjudication; this callout does not depart from that — he is testing Jay's paradigm's claimed objectivity, not abandoning his own experiential framework. Mike's declared method is experiential/personal-revelation epistemology that resists a demand for an external objective standard; nothing in that stance forbids him from probing the internal coherence of Jay's presuppositionalist framework, and this thought experiment does exactly that — it asks Jay to state what, if anything, could count against his paradigm. That is a legitimate philosophical move (a real question put to test the opponent's framework), and Jay in fact engages it substantively (explaining that evidence is always paradigm-relative, that he is "not an evidentialist"), so this is not a case of an unanswered question being falsely credited; it is Mike's side of a live exchange that produced real argumentative content from both. The label "falsification test" is not one of the enumerated categories but fits the spirit of "clarification"/"explicit argument" — asking for the criteria by which a claim could be falsified is a recognized philosophical technique, not empty rhetoric.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Mike poses a good-faith counterfactual to test whether Jay's claim about deification is falsifiable in principle, and Jay directly answers it (deification is impossible outside the God-man's body, by definition of the paradigm). This is ordinary Socratic probing of a framework's boundary conditions, not a loaded or leading question, and it does not substitute for argument on either side; it is answered on the spot rather than dodged, so there is no fault or distinct named merit to flag here.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that his warrant is personal/experiential rather than an external objective standard, and Jay has held since his opening overview that any rival paradigm must supply an objective account or fail as a paradigm; this line is Mike applying Jay's own standard back onto Jay's paradigm, which is consistent with (not a departure from) the positions each has held throughout. Mike's opening declared position is experiential/inward-revelation epistemology, explicitly declining to supply an external objective standard; Jay's opening and repeated line since (esp. ~63-72min) is the TAG demand that any rival paradigm must give an objective, non-circular criterion or it isn't a rival at all. At 89-90min Mike turns that demand back on Jay by asking what would count as evidence against Jay's own claim that deification is only possible within the sacramental Orthodox Church — a legitimate probe of falsifiability that is new to this exchange (not a restatement of Mike's earlier admitted lack of an objective standard, which was about Mike's own paradigm, not Jay's). Jay's answer ("by definition of what we would say... no, there is no deification outside...", and later "the thought experiment is intended to get me to deny my paradigm and it's not gonna work") confirms the probe landed on a genuinely definitional/circular commitment rather than an evidential one, which is exactly what the callout credits. This is a real, on-topic philosophical move — not a repeated demand already answered, and not an attack that substitutes for engagement — so it merits a philosopher point, though "clarification" (pressing the opponent to specify what would count as disconfirming evidence, rather than assuming) is arguably the more precise enumerated label than the ad hoc "falsification test," and the severity reads closer to minor/major than flagrant since the exchange ends in mutual talking-past rather than a decisive concession.
- Thesmothetes leave: The tie is over whether Mike's counterfactual question is a genuine scoreable move at all, not over a fact any rule can settle — Aristotle and Plato treat it as a legitimate framework-probe (with Plato conceding "clarification" would be the more precise enumerated label than the referee's invented "falsification test"), while Socrates reads the same exchange as ordinary back-and-forth with nothing distinct to flag. Since "falsification test" is not itself one of the enumerated philosopher labels, and the disagreement is purely a judgment call about whether the move fits an existing category (clarification) or merits nothing, no written rule decides it and it is left to the archon.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 1:48:03upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 2 points.
explicit argument (+2)
“… if the gates will not stand against Christ's church, doesn't that mean that Christ's church will knock down his gates, setting the captives free? ... So it means that it doesn't mean that Christ's church won't fall. It means Satan's kingdom won't stand.”
Diogenes: Mike attacks the load-bearing premise of Jay's indefectibility argument with a real point about the image — gates are defensive works, so the promise is about Hades not holding out, not about the church never erring.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that inward communion and the fruit of the spirit take priority over doctrinal debate, and while he has often declined to frame the conversation as formal argument, engaging a specific textual point with premises and a conclusion here is a substantive move on the merits, not a departure that needs to be judged against a framework claim he abandoned. Mike lays out a clear premise (gates are defensive works belonging to the party under siege) and draws an explicit conclusion (the promise concerns Satan's stronghold falling, not a guarantee that the institutional church's doctrine can never fall into error) — a genuine textual argument with stated premises and conclusion contesting Jay's use of the 'gates of hell' text for institutional indefectibility.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay had used "the gates of hell shall not prevail" to argue the Orthodox institution itself cannot fail or fall. Mike offers a premise-conclusion challenge to that inference: gates are defensive structures that get stormed, not aggressors that "prevail," so the natural reading is that the church will overcome hell's gates (freeing captives), which does not by itself entail that the church-as-institution can never fall into error. Jay does not really answer this specific point but moves on to a different argument about Pentecost, leaving this textual challenge to his indefectibility claim unaddressed.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike's position throughout is that Christ's teaching was reinterpreted/added-to after the fact by the institutional church; this line is a fresh, specific piece of textual argument developing an exchange he had already opened earlier in the debate, not a restatement of an already-settled point, and it engages Jay's own proof-text on its own terms. Mike had raised this same "gates of hell" text at ~55:00 without full resolution ("do gates destroy people?"); here he returns to complete the point with a genuine exegetical argument: gates are defensive/static structures, so a promise that they "will not prevail" against the church implies the church is the attacking party storming Hades, not that the church itself can never err — which is a distinct premise-conclusion argument targeting the specific verse Jay had used as evidence for indefectibility, not a mere repetition of Mike's broader "Pauline error" framework.
- Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism at 1:44:35upheld
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“… technically, they are created through the Father…”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Asked the plain question "Was Jesus created?", Mike gives a clear, specific answer consistent with the Urantia metaphysics he had already laid out (Son and Spirit as derived, coordinated manifestations of the Father rather than consubstantial equals), rather than retreating into vagueness as he did earlier when pressed on "epistemic" standards. It is a direct answer to the question actually asked, which is why Jay is then able to engage it concretely and label it anti-trinitarian.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike has held since his trinity explanation at 59:01 that the Son and Spirit are derived, coordinated manifestations of the Father (not consubstantial); this direct answer to "Was Jesus created?" is consistent with and restates that same graded-emanation metaphysics. The question "Was Jesus created?" was asked plainly and Mike gave a specific, responsive answer consistent with his stated framework rather than deflecting, and the clarity of the answer is what let Jay immediately engage it and press the anti-trinitarian implication — this is a genuine direct answer.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "self-contradiction". Mike says in the same breath that the Son and Spirit are "coexistent with the father" yet also that they "come afterward" and are "technically... created through the Father" — coexistence and being created-afterward are in tension, and this also sits awkwardly with his earlier description (59:01) of the Son and Spirit as the very vehicle and conjoint actor through which the Father creates, rather than as creatures themselves. He does not reconcile or acknowledge the tension, only conceding afterward that he'll "have to think about that."
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike's standing position since the opening is the graded, non-consubstantial Neoplatonic triune manifestation (Son as vehicle, Spirit as conjoint actor, derived from the Absolute Father); this answer is a direct application of that framework, not a departure or a new position. Asked plainly "Was Jesus created?", Mike gave a specific, on-point answer ("created through the Father") that is consistent with his stated Neoplatonic-emanationist metaphysics (Son and Spirit as derived, coordinated manifestations rather than consubstantial), and it was concrete enough for Jay to engage and label it anti-trinitarian — a direct answer to the question actually asked.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: a slip of the tongue is not a self-contradiction. Socrates's overturn rests on finding a "self-contradiction" between "coexistent with the father" and "created through the Father" within the same single answer, but he does not point to an earlier claim Mike made and later reversed without acknowledgment — he only says it "sits awkwardly" with the 59:01 description, which is itself consistent (Son/Spirit as subsequent, derived manifestations of the Father). A paradoxical but singular articulation of a graded-emanation view is not the fault the self-contradiction rule targets, so that basis for overturning fails, and the direct, responsive answer to "Was Jesus created?" stands as called.