Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Refining Reason Debate: Matt Dillahunty VS Sye Ten Bruggencate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2014
- On May 31, 2014 at the Marriot East's Grand Ballroom in Memphis, TN, atheist Matt Dillahunty and presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate took the stage before a live audience for a formal debate, which was moderated by David Smalley of Dogma Debate.
This is the video of that exchange. It has not been edited for time or content and represents the full debate as it happened.
“I believe God is real because it’s true.”
Thank you for listening to my TED talk.
I've been searching for Sye supporters in the comments and hitting them with:
"I claim that you *already know* that Matt in fact did win and you are merely suppressing this truth. I know this because a magical entity, that you *also* know of, reveled it to me in such a way that I cannot be mistaken.
Quit suppressing this truth."
Can't wait to see how they handle arguing against their own position.
dementare Oof haha. When religious trolls come on RUclips I always am like, “Your god revealed to me that you’re going to hell if you don’t stop trolling.”
Prove him wrong then.. that’s the problem lol
Define truth???
Then answer if you can actually “know” it in your worldview????
@@jerardosc9534 you already know what truth is since the magic spaghettie monster already revealed to you what it is your just supressing what you actually believe.
"i dont do bible studies with non believers" "everyone believes"
Xd
you have low comprehension skill level. A Believer and Sinner are different. All humans know there is a God. That's not belief in Jesus as your Saviour. Vast difference. Like in eternal life or eternal death. Choose life! :)
TOJOADAMS I honestly don’t know if god exists. I’m not saying I’m certain he doesn’t exist. I just don’t know what to believe anymore.
@@mr.joesterr5359 "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Spartan 300 I dunno. I mean I wish there was a god to come and make me a happy person and make my life feel like it’s worth living. Any evidence that there is something to live for at all I guess. Whether it be a god or something else.
Matt spoke more in Sye's opening statements than Sye himself. Love how Matt immediately roasts him for it.
It's a failed attempt at being roasted himself...by his own mouth he contradicted and flip flopped all over the place because his idea of truth is only in his brain...
but you are always right as is Mattie boy, yet you will accuse Christians of being arrogant and thinking we have monopoly on truth...
Stop the nonsense...truth is monopoly...it stands on its own...God is and there can be no other God!
Unless you ask an atheist, and he blurps endless possibilities...
@@vjohn1464 “there can be no other god” ok cute, proof?
@Druid75 God, by definition, is uncreated and eternal. How do we know this? Creation gives us a hint as we observe the vastness of the universe, but we know it for certain by God's special revelation, i.e., Isaiah 45:5-6.
We don't just observe the material reality, though. Should I prove that we are more than mere chemical reactions? Can you prove that our life only encompasses the material? Can you prove that the universe and life on earth are mere chances? Can you prove that the genetic codes are random? Can you also say your phone is random chance? Can you prove that all life came from a single cell, that you are essentially highly evolved goo? Can you explain how the earth hangs in the atmosphere by chance? Can you explain how we got a complex self-replicating cell and how long it took for that cell to evolve so it can repair itself? Do you understand the irreducible complexity of a cell? How about the fine tuning of the Milky Way and earth's atmosphere to sustain life and breathtaking nature? If you're going to fill in the gap by billions of years that is not science, that is science fiction and faith.
How come we only have about 6000 years of recorded human history? Coincidence that it is also the Biblical record of human history?
Science is not personal and does not do anything! Scientists created in the image of God are able to observe, hypothesize, test, reason....but you can't trust science fully as you can't trust any human fully...we are all biased in some way, have very limited understanding and capacity to observe everything. We assume so much in our hypothesis. Do you know why gravity works?
I am an A-Atheist because no one in their right mind assumes things just popped into being out of nothing and without agency and intelligence into being...in all their complexity and synchrony.
God is!!!
@@Druid75i expect you're gonna be waiting for quite a while for a response.... I'm sure he is just busy and can back up what he is saying
The bible.@@Druid75
Holy shit. I think I've been an atheist for a while and didn't know it.
You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate.
Ya matt was the only one willing to admit anything. Sye just tiptoed around all questions and did not answer a single one.
@@Favorline pathetic really isn't it?
James Laverick it's frustrating how someone can be so clueless. yet think everything he says is true. when he never even got close to proving his position.
Rather he sorts to rejecting reality how everyone on the planet has come to know it. to be able to use his lame for an excuse of an argument.
But expect matt to provide absolutes and facts. when the only right answer is (I Don't know)
Like matt tried to explain to him. just because something can't be disproven does not make it true.
And until evidence has been shown to support the claim people should not believe in it.
But Sye does not except this. he just claims everyone knows God. and sais even babies know. wtf is he high or something. I started at an early age of 7 not believing in religion. since no one had any answers to my questions.
The most used answer was. God works in mysterious ways. what in my eye's = I don't know.
@@Favorline It is difficult isn't it to believe that anybody can actually believe that. I've always wondered if he just plays up to it so that he can get debates. If he does believe it then I'm sure he thinks he wipes the floor with the opponent in every debate he has. There is no point whatsoever debating such people, waste of oxygen.
James Laverick ya, if he actually believes what he is saying. then there is no way you can convince him otherwise. not way in hell. you could discover what came before the big bang and he would just say God created that.
Infinity Gods of the gabs problem.
there would be no discoveries that would convince such a person to change his mind. none. since he believes in fiction and anything can happen in fiction.
But some people are easier to brainwash then others I guess.
I used to think Kent Hovind was an idiot. Sye Ten Bruggencate makes Kent seem like a rocket scientist.
Your boy Matt got killed in this debate. I guess you're as stupid as he is, pretending like he didn't, what a joke. Matt straight forfeited this shit one hour and twelve minutes in.
Matt is not my boy. But if Matt had 90% of his brain removed he would still slaughter Sye Ten Bruggencate in a debate because Sye is a pretentious fucking idiot.
Not really. Sye Ten keeps being wrong because he starts with a presupposition. Kent starts with the same presupposition *and* acts as if he knows what words with more than three syllables mean.
@Dallas I think Matt was running away tho 🏃🏾♂️
@Dallas I would submit to you that Matt dodge some questions. He may have thrown some nice intellectual words in there, but u don't think he answered all questions. Why do you say God delusion tho 🤔
1:18 Sye opening statement
11:19 Matt opening statement
21:00 Sye rebuttal
26:14 Matt rebuttal
36:54 Sye questioning Matt 1
46:50 Matt questioning Sye 1
57:35 Sye questioning Matt 2
1:09:00 Matt questioning Sye 2
1:13:19 Audience Q+A
1:47:32 Sye closing statement
1:52:07 Matt closing statement
Credit goes to user Sunshine lollipops for the timestamps.
*sye preaching
*sye bitching
*sye preaching
You’re a hero
@@ThisOldHelmet
Thanks for saying that, but user Sunshine lollipops is the real hero. :)
1:40:45 Godless Engineer
@@billymanilli I'm not sure what you mean. Can you please elaborate? Thanks.
Sye: “point 1: I’m right
Point 2: I’m right because I’m right
Point 3: I’m still right”
Right according to whom?
Something something something we all know he exists, something something something insult for the opponent, something something something you all know he exists.
@@draftsman3383to Sye…himself
A mediocre parody for a mediocre debater
I mean he’s not wrong.
"I don't do bible studies with atheists."
Translation: "I understand the bible does not hold up to any level of scrutiny and I'm not intellectually honest enough to admit that."
Coming from someone who can not account for their own utterances I understand why would you would foolishly say that. Your are a product of your own environment.
Would you care to explain what you mean or was this just a drive-by comment with no depth or meaning?
@@Cocytus127 The meaning of what he said was self explanatory. If the bible actually held up to any level of scrutiny we wouldn't have these debates.
But I cannot determine if his comment was for or against my statement. It is grammatically inept and therefore, nearly impossible to properly interpret.
@@Cocytus127 Apologies, I mistakenly replied to your comment when I meant to reply to Tom Brooks. I'm in agreement with you.
I misread and thought you were referring to the original comment about the bible not standing up to scrutiny being a drive by comment. Sorry bout that bro.
As for Tom Brooks
He used the endlessly annoying pseudo-intellectual practice of unnecessarily using "big words" to sound intelligent when his actual statement was completely nonsensical and didn't mean anything. Which is why he didn't reply or even attempt to back it up.
2:03 Sye's premise 1: It's reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise 2: It's true that God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it's reasonable to believe that God exists. Dillahunty won the debate without uttering a single word.
It really was over that quickly wasn't it? Absolutely nothing but a list of assertions with ZERO really anything else.
Is that what begging the question is?
Ross Carlson
I’ve been stuck on identifying that particular fallacy
@@Casual_Lifestyle Me too
I think it's similar to begging the question
I know begging the question is assuming the premise you are trying to prove true to be true, in order to prove it true
Which is clearly illogical
I'm not sure though if that's what that was
All Sye is confirming is that the truth gets laid on the table for everyone to choose. We are a part of God’s creation acting out God’s image so while we live in and walk as God’s creation we turn around and deny the truth. There’s no justification for anything in Matt’s worldview. Everyone already sees all the evidence and you can run from the truth while in the truth but you can’t claim anything. There’s no reason for anything otherwise. The evidence is displayed within ourselves and we are alive because of God so if the evidence is all laid on the table then you can choose to accept the truth or suppress the truth and make an absurd claim living in a worldview where nothing matters including your own life. In short humans continue to do what was done in the garden where Satan convinces man that man’s understanding is better than God’s understanding. Evidence and truth is all on the table then they go back to where they were examining evidence and choosing absurdity.
I cant be the only one who lost brain cells listening to Sye's "argument" "I'm right, but im not gonna provide any evidence and act like a child"
Sye was using an argument called "Being Matt Dillahunty but not hanging up or storming off the stage".
congrats sye, you just made my S tier. you're right up there with ray comfort and kent hovind on my all time unbearable apologetics
Don't forget Matt "the air in space" Powell.
Nah, in Reality they are all the same
It doesn’t matter whether it’s Hovind or Craig, they basically say the same BS every time
Presuposionalists are actually the best of the bunch, because they don’t try to ground God in anything, they just say „he is! He is! I know he is and you know it too!”
Which is the most sincere statement of Christian faith ever uttered.
Damn you really had me in the first half
So your faith of a perfect being is based on imperfect humans who make mistakes. That's where your mistake lie
@@guciowitomski3825that's fine. People like you don't deserve to know and enjoy what Christians do. Move along, you troll, with your great and all-knowing life.
I came here after hearing Matt telling Sam Harris that his debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate was a waste of time. I wanted evidence, so I came here. I wasted my time.
Mission failed successfully.
I hope Sye appears more frequently. He is a great argument against religion
He is also a great argument for abortion.
@@tommystyx kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk is true
@@colinernest3925
What's a reatrd? Have I missed a new word? I looked in the dictionary and it's not there. Is it from a foreign language that I am unfamiliar with? Please let us know what you're talking about.
phenyl alanine you are a great example of foolish absurdity to deny the creator you know exists but your suppressing the truth and JESUS CHRIST IS ALL TRUTH!
phenyl alanine 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Psalm 14:1 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
"I wrote this rebuttal ahead of time" absolute savage!!!
Lol you know it's bad when you already know what the apologists are going to say so therefore can write a rebuttal ahead of time lol. They need fresher and better arguments.
Too bad he didn’t rebut what Sye said though 🤣
@@michaelmannucci8585 he did, you didn’t watch the debate
@@Druid75 Sure he did bud!
@@michaelmannucci8585 ofc he did, you’re just having a hard time coping with it. Thats all
And just like that, Sye was so utterly *annihilated* that no one has ever heard of him ever since
How?
@@ballecerdigitalturn on your ears when you watch the debate and you'll find out how
Sye is more popular than ever in apologetics, last I checked matt was rage quitting over "twansphobia" or some BS LMAO good try buddy.
@@dited358 If this is true (only in your fantasy land, but let's entertain it) then it really says a lot about the sad, sad state of christian apologetics.
Destruction 100@@GamePlayMetal
This was painful to watch. Sye is a horrible debater, gave no valid arguments for his position other than "I'm right because of God", and was generally a douchbag to everyone in the room. Well played Sye- I'm positive your powers of persuasion were in full effect. :/
My biggest problem with Sye was his whining. It's like he realized he wasn't dealing with an agreeable crowd, sat down in the corner, and pouted like a spoiled kid at a birthday party for the rest of the afternoon.
Another Ken Ham or banana tard
Sye believe in an angry God - lol.. I actually believe in one as well, but the world is what you make it not what God made it. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough to know him/her/it. God that is..
JeremyMWest-Esquire, I totally agree with you. I'm a committed Christian, so whenever I see a debate, I want the Christian side to win (no point trying to deny that bias), but this was honestly pathetic.
Given the debate question, Sye didn't even have a particularly difficult job ahead of him. He didn't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If by the end of the debate sufficient reason had been given to say that both theism and atheism are plausibly true, that would still qualify as saying that belief in God is reasonable. Seriously low bar, and Sye stubbornly refused to take any steps to clear the bar. Instead he simply declared victory and called everyone a fool for not seeing that he had won.
Matt was far more reasonable, thoughtful and honest, and although I disagree with his belief that, as is, belief in God is unreasonable, I certainly appreciated what he brought to the debate and, on the whole, agreed with the things he said far more than Sye.
I agree... It's sometimes painful to hear an opposing view. Your premise of an invalid reason as you already know yields no results. I guess my question of you would be this: What debate point would you have liked to hear?
If Sye called into the show, he'd be dismissed as a prank caller.
no bc sum ppl called in with his debate
Matt got killed in this debate as does everyone else against Sye. I give him props for lasting as long as he did but at 1:12:00 he straight up forfeits the debate.
Matt forfeits the battle because Sye Ten says: "I'm right because I'm right"?
Sam P ....Matt could literally teach algebra to a groundhog... but Sye won’t even come down to reality long enough to get his lesson.
@@BrokenContracts Sye is an insane person. Word salad. Proof of God? Nowhere near.
"I don't do bible studies with nonbelievers"
Translation: I can't defend the bible so I won't even attempt to.
At least Sye is "somewhat" honest about something in his life.
Did you catch the wonderful rebuttal from the audience at that point - "Jesus would."
Actually he means talking to non believers is a waste of time. They love their sinful worldview too to even speculate about anything that goes against it.
@@fletcher373you mean like the time he said to another christian he wouldn't do a bible study with him?
@@fletcher373they love their sinful world view.
oh , do you mean reality?
first describe what a sin is.
can you do that without using your book of fables ?
nonbelievers know more about the bibles than most theists. It's actually funny.
Matt recently said he wouldn’t debate this guy again no matter what the subject. I’m thinking, “Eh he can’t be THAT bad can he?!” Then I watched this. Jesus.
"Matt owns the next 10 minutes."
Hate to say it, but Matt owned every minute
You could be wrong about everything you know though
@@LBizKid04 I could be a brain in a jar. I could be a babbling psychopath in an insane asylum writing this response with my own feces. It's irrelevant that I could be wrong about everything. What matters is that the truth exists regardless of anyone perception of it, and that without people around, the truth has no inherent meaning.
Truth is not the same as belief about truth. It is utterly impossible for any human being to open a jar of truth and look inside to see what it is. What matters about truth beliefs is that they contain predictive capability. It is true that buses weigh thousands of pounds. It is true that buses exist on streets. It's true that if I were standing on a street in front of a bus, the bus will run me straight the hell over and kill me.
Now, I could be wrong about EVERY. SINGLE. POINT about buses. The only way I could know for certain is to stand on a street and get hit by a bus. Maybe I should hold the truth belief that buses will magically phase through me and warp around me, harry potter style, how long will I last in that world?
Could be wrong, is not the same as IS wrong.
@Christopher Koester State a supposed "Contradiction" that Matt made--- dipshi*... I'll correct you on the actual logical aspect of it-- then I'd recommend that you go back to school... after I "school" you...
@Christopher Koester He did not made any contradictions. The other guy did not understood or did not wanted to address what matt said.
Search here a video of thunderfoot with the son of kent hovind. It is the same stuff, cant say more retarded as hovind and sye have about the same iq , maybe thunderfoot can illustrate better for your understanding.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 Well put. And even if one is a "brain in a vat", there are certainly still rules/laws you have to follow. And with-in whatever world you find yourself in (vat or otherwise), your best chance of enjoying yourself (in your vat), is by correctly sussing out what those "rules" are. Understanding your inescapable reality...
ug, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pre suppositional apologetics is simply an attempt to force a no-score-draw.
Force the argument into pointless Matrix style thesaurus discussions about 'truth' 'objective' 'knowledge' 'reality' and so forth until everyone gets bored and drifts off.
Also, so much discussion about 'logical fallacies'... which in most cases is utterly pointless. Like for instance 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Meanwhile in reality, our entire educational system is built on appealing to authorities, because, all things being equal, they are more likely to be right. Same thing with bringing experts in.
Indeed I would go so far to argue that 'appeal to authority' is necessary in a technological advanced civilization where the amount of human knowledge greatly exceeds what an individual can acquire or process. Delegation of decision making to those with a better knowledge base to make those decisions is most likely your best option.
A civilization built on a 'logical fallacy' works better than one not?
But that is not what the logical fallacy is about. An appeal to authority is roughly.
X is true because Mr. Y said so.
The reasons for the truth of the statement can be examined, as opposed to just ending it at the authority.
If Mr. Y is an expert, it can still be problematic. For instance it could be that Mr. Y holds a fringe view, in which case the fact that he is an expert does not determine the truth of the statement, and consensus flies in the face of that.
Informal fallacies have grey areas, so focussing to heavily on that just ruins discussion. Apologists love to cite fallacies in order to shut down their opponents, even if the fallacy is false, a new discussion erupts about whether it is a fallacy or not which directs the discussion away from the weak points of the apologist and makes them look good to the dimwitted simple minded followers that hang on t their every utterance.
Tjaart Blignaut right, so basically the whole 'logical fallacy' is pointless in real world decision making. As you state:
"X is true because Mr. Y said so."
Or somewhat more optiminiscally rephrased, 'even experts can be wrong'
But so what? How has this helped at all? Why go to a doctor for medical advice? They might be wrong? Just an appeal to authority! Or a mechanic to get your car fixed.
If you want to know if something is absolutely correct.... then sure, logical fallacy away...and dont go to the doctor when you get sick.... its just not terribly useful or practical for making real world decisions which frequently go down to things like preponderance of evidence.
***** yeah but if you're an apologist like Sye your primary goal is to create FUD. If you don't have the facts on your side you want to do everything to undermine the certainty of your opponent. It's a cheap strategy, and it often works to scare people away from looking into what opponents are saying. It is just meant to keep christians thoroughly cemented in their beliefs and afraid of doubt.
***** Did you hear the bit where he wants a Theocracy? I've been waiting ages for him to admit to being a Reconstructionist.
Forget the pseudo-philosophical bollocks, the batshit desire for a theocracy is the real issue here.
my opinion on the appeal to authority is this: I had a guy tell me that the freemasons are most assuredly in power and that they believe in christianity therefore christianity is correct... even though they are apparently satanists...
you know looking at this I see a lot more wrong than just "appeal to authority" but my point is that even if all of it is true it would be a fallacy because the freemasons can be just as wrong about religion than anyone else...
Matt checkmated Sye so many times in a row and sye tried to move his king to a different board and got checkmated again.
Sye literally rejects reality. He doesn’t think things like stealing and murder are bad because they harm us, thats irrelevant to him. He thinks they’re bad because “god said so”. He doesn’t think logic can work if it’s a product of the brain, as the actions of his brain cause him to believe that. Man’s a joke. Matt ate as always.
I watched 10 minutes and I'm already fascinated how much this guy misinterpreted Matt's beliefs
@Christopher Koester even though he objectively won the debate and Sye argued like a 5 year old.
@Christopher Koester Are you claiming Sye won the debate? Please explain yourself. Matt is an intelligent, rational and well spoken man. Why does that bother you? Does rational thought offend you?
clearing skies 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Psalm 14:1 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
@@jeff1992000 "It's the questions we can't answer that teach us the most. They teach us how to think. If you give a man an answer, all he gains is a little fact. But give him a question and he'll look for his own answers."
I can quote fiction books too.
How were they misrepresented? Would it not lead to a logical conclusion that if we can't know something for sure outside our own experience we could not make a calm to the existence or non-existence of anything other than we have to exist? It may not be the conclusion Matt wants to come to or he even believes (I didn't finish the full video yet), but I don't see where Matt's perspective could actually defend against someone you believes that which is why he hangs up on the guy who calms to believe that.
"If the Quran is true, then the Bible is true, and that means the Quran is false."
This man is a genius.
I love it. Furthermore the Bible is false because the Qur'an says the Bible is true, but the Qur'an is false.
Wrong, Quran doesn’t say the Bible is true lmao
Can anyone give me the time when that happens? I completely forgot about that
@@St-ef9ru 1:20:11
@@justjucc5655 thanks
„It’s not special pleading, because this is a special case”
Can that guy even hear himself?
Heathens will hear themselves in hell.
@@mikerodgers7620 are you trolling?
The guy literally said that it's not special pleading because he's right, and then that "he's not an atheist towards other gods, because other gods don't exist".
Im pointing out an obvious problem with his reasoning
@@guciowitomski3825 Don't say a damn thing to me, stupid delusional heathen.
@@mikerodgers7620 If you don't want to get into interactions with people who think differently from you, then just don't bother them.
@@guciowitomski3825 They bother me. You fallacious heathen.
Matt's closing was EPIC! All Sye did was belittle Matt and I am glad Matt responded the way he did.
It's hard not to make fun of a solepsist though..
Mic drop on Sye's face. These religious zealots are insane
Now I believe in God.
Because the only way Matt Dillahunty could have had this level of patience and composure is with the help of something EXTREMELY powerful.
A bottle of Xanax is not god. lol
Argument from ignorance
... have you heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
@@slartibartfastm9714 no it's not..lol
@@sylvilaguscunicularius3155 The Argument Ad Populum? Yes.
"Everyone knows that God exist" From that point on his argument is invalid.
1.) God is a proper noun. It is spelled God.
2.) I never said God did not exist.
3.) The statement "Everyone knows that God exists" is a childs argument.
4.) Believing in somethig is not proof. This is why you have faith. The dictionary definition of faith is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
I'd go with Mr. Spock.
+Mike B, his argument was invalid before that. He said it's reasonable to believe that which is true. That's not the case. It's reasonable to believe that which seems true. Could you be wrong about your beliefs? Yeah, but it's still *reasonable* to hold them.
ASKING FOR EVIDENCE PROVES THAT GOD EXIST.
John Laun how?
I’m shocked by the “Philosophy hasn’t advanced human well-being at all” question and answer. As if re-assessing human rights, and who should have freedom to vote/freedom to own land/freedom from tyranny, isn’t a philosophical advancement.
This is one of my favorite videos on RUclips. The concept of logic itself gets roasted and flayed in an incredibly rare way.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thing. I feel like i deserve a medal or something.
Oh jeez, was it that bad? I’m just about to start watching it, I just wanted to take a quick gander at the comments beforehand. Well, here I go…
We only have cookies here in hell. Feel free to make a medal out of your cookie, though!
@@overthemoo That’s good to know, I thoroughly enjoy eating cookies! 🍪🥛👍🏻
And just a quick addendum to my previous comment to anyone reading this before watching, yes, it really was that bad.
@@overthemoo ahhhhh I was just going to say cupcakes. I think I’m in the wrong hell 😂
Here’s your prize🏅
I'll be honest, I stopped believing in god not because of the arguments of atheists, but because of the arguments of apologists.
That is probably the best thing I've ever heard, and completely understandable. I hope it wasn't too rough of a change for you :)
@@NickKzig thanks, yeah I don't think enough attention is given to what it's like becoming an atheist. There's the obvious social implications but internally it's been kind of a rollercoaster. I honestly went through a bit of depression as I've invested so much time and energy into being a Christian.
@@Jadinandrews So true. It's like having the ground drop out from under your feet. There is no longer any god that will fix everything. There's just humans, and they tend to fuck things up.
I stopped believing after trying to defend my beliefs to atheists.
As an agnostic, try me.
Did God WANT fallen angels to be able to reach Earth?
Matt sounded like an honest, rational person whereas Sye sounded like a deranged cultist.
Sye is an excellent example of the arrogance of faith..
His opening arguement was priceless. "God does exist" Arguement..."God does exist because it's true that god exists, therefore god exists" "That's an arguement??
Better than saying he doesn't know anything 1:07:00
Mortal Kombat Reconciliation how do you know?
Nothing holds water like a shape with no holes! Keep your circular argument water tight!
te ui arii Tane Because no one truly knows anything. By saying that you do, for a fact, know that a god exists, that is you being incredibly ignorant. Anyone with half a mind would look at the evidence and say that it is not sufficient to believe the existence of a god. There, however, is not enough evidence to say that a god does not exist. Which is why matt holds the position that he simply does not know whether or not a god exists, but until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, theres no reason to assume that a god does exist.
Sephing
All arguements must be based on the assumption that reality exists. Sye Ten's arguement is "Your world view doesn't prove you aren't a brain in a vat, therefore all of your arguements are false, and my worldview is true" Sye then excludes himself from his own standard. Sye laid down his rules that "You can't know anything" Then says "I know god exists" These double-standards are extremely easy to see, yet somehow Theists don't see them. It's these double-standards which are the bricks in the wall of theistic dogma.
Sye only played word games with Matt to dodge his questions, this debate was a joke.
Sye: "I know I am right because God reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that God reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He reveals it to you"
Sye: "Because He does"
Everyone Else: "How do you know that He does?"
Sye: "Because He reveals it to me"
Eh, I mean it's not inherently illogical, since it's subjective.
It would be like if you asked someone, "how do you know that you've experienced pain?" The only reasonable response would be that you in fact felt pain.
What he's implicitly claiming is that revelation from God comes bundled with the knowledge that it's revelation. There's no third party verification. There can't be.
How do you know anything? *Crickets* the point is not having all of the answers. The point is that what atheists truly believe does not support their use or dependence of any logic, knowledge or any absolute that they depend on to question God’s existence. You can not use truth to debunk truth. TRUTH is the absolute source of ALL things and all knowledge. He cannot ask a question because he does not believe in an absolute truth.
elcuban903 the evidence is that without him, you can know nothing.
@@pimpinkentdotnet can you prove that?
DBZM1k3 sure. Do you believe in absolute truth?
Best moment of the debate:
Sye: She started it!
Audience: erupts in laughter
2hrs debate and that was your best take? He was actually making a valid point, stating that he asked for a free flow conversation but it was denied by the "moderator/organizer"
@@qoako9695no he wasn’t. He already made it clear earlier that the debate organizers are at fault. Him bringing it up again and literally like a child going “she started it.” Is childish, idiotic and unnecessary. That’s not a point. That’s called whining, and he rightfully got ridiculed for it. A child will bring something up multiple times when upset, an adult will make it clear they’re upset and rightfully so usually, assume the other adult parties got it.
Sye implying he lost the debate bc of the structure and not because his “argument” was stupid as hell
I'm a Christian but presuppositional apologetics is cringe like the rest of reformed theology.
what apologetics and theology do you prefer?
@@astroza_science Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy is his youtube channel) isn't half bad. He does well in meshing science with scripture.
He's the kind of apologist that will tell you that "Noah's flood" wasn't a literal global flood (because science), and he dissects scripture to make his points by explaining how the original Hebrew texts did not literally mean "water covered the whole earth". He suggests the "whole earth" phrase in Hebrew is hyperbole to imply "as far as the eye can see". Essentially he convincingly argues that Noah's flood was a LOCAL flood, and in his view the scriptures align with that belief.
It's extremely refreshing to see a half-sensible Christian, for once.
Mike Winger is also a decent apologist, I enjoy listening to his apologetics as well.
Although I'm an atheist, I believe Matt is a saint.
He has the patience for it.... An exchange of words with sye that long and sye's balls went unkicked? Impossible.
True lol! I feel similarly
Everyone does.
Career ending to Matt
@@kentonbaird1723 I don't know how he did it. I'm less than 40 mins in and I've already had to take 3 breaks to watch something else because I keep getting a headache listening to Sye
I'm actually having trouble believing that a person like Sye even exists. I've never encountered this level of narcissism before in my life. Why would anyone even bother talking to him?
the majority of religious people drop to his style of logic when they're being questioned about a multitude of things.
That's the thing, why should we keep questioning religions when we get the same preaching dribble that just makes us frustrated.. it really is best not to debate or argue with these people. I have religious friends, but I won't go into it. I'll like that person for other reasons
@@luegardener5921 it's smart to call out the absurdity so others who dont see it are able to realize the error of it.
well you must have never heard of Darth Dawkins.
@@fatman957 Is this a poor attempt at humour?
Sye, playing the ultimate con.
“Your reality isn’t what you think” con. The first thing a con man must change for you to go his way.
41:40 STB claims that Matt is using a fallacy of irrelevant thesis, but the example that he gives perfectly illustrates why Matt's response _wasn't_ an example of the fallacy.
Note, that STB asked Matt how he knows his reasoning works. Matt's response regarding his continued survival does indeed address how he knows it works because it follows that if his reasoning didn't work, he almost certainly wouldn't survive.
But the example STB gives of an irrelevant thesis is slightly different. In his plane crash scenario the question asked of the survivor isn't "how do you know that you survived?" (which would be analogous to the question asked of Matt) rather the question was "how did you survive?" which is very much _not_ analogous to what was asked of Matt. If we rephrase the question to make it analogous, we get the aforementioned "how do you know that you survived?" and sure enough the reply given in STB's example would actually be a relevant response to the question.
“But how do you know that” - a fucking square
Technically a circle but you get it
Do you believe in democracy? Sye: no I want Christian theocracy. That should terrify anyone in the room.
Religion is the antithesis of freedom. The United States of America was founded as a secular nation and it must remain as such. Should the Christians try to install a theocracy here, then we freedom-loving Americans must rise as one to protect our liberties.
Brad H agreed, and I say this as a Bible believer. The founders created this nation to protect us from the tyranny of not only kings, but of any church too. Anyone who claims this was founded as a “Christian nation” clearly hasn’t read up on the deism that many of the founders believed in.
@@Charles-jj2su Well said, sir.
Agree. Look at Theocratic/Religious nations, the best example is Iran, Saudi Arabia isn't far behind. These are Muslim nations that want Sharia Law instituted throughout the world. From what I have read, Leviticus law isn't much better - Which is Old Testament law. I'll stick with the normal Equal under the Secular Law, not Religious law - because if you don't believe bye bye.
Secularism is scarier, hence Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin.
I've had more meaningful conversations with my toilet. Gotta give it to Matt for holding it together.
You are so right. I struggled with this video. The only reason I stuck with it was my appreciation for how Matt deals with this and despite his clear frustration he only "almost" lost it, I think twice...
forreal man lol i was almost throwing punches at my laptop
Dys_function T you personify inanimate objects? get help
Tommy Dolan The term is "anthropomorphising," and just about everyone does it at some point. Ever stubbed your toe and cussed out a chair? Well, that one-sided conversation consisting mainly of obscenities was more meaningful and logical than most of what Sye said here.
At least when the toilet is full of shit you can flush it. :)
I became an atheist way back in 2015., a month or two before I turned 16. I am turning 25 later this year and this has been sitting in my Watch later playlist for around 8 or 9 years, almost a full decade. I finally got around to watching it in May of 2024...
Sye Ten Bruggencate is the last apologist you should send into a debate with an atheist.
I am appalled by his snarkiness and inability to answer questions thrown at him. Most of all, the lack of ability to speak the truth with love.
love doesn't mean you're effeminate though cuh
@@Th3BigBoybasic levels of respect and the capacity to act professionally for one hour isn’t effeminate cuh
@@asyetundetermined I couldn't agree more blood!
@@Th3BigBoy good talk fam
Is like he is 5 years old... I really don't know how Matt can have so much patience.
It's a brilliant way to present your case. Give evidence and then patiently sit back and let the other guy sabotage themselves. Matt could have phoned in the debate, gave it 25% of his effort and attention and Sye would have still lost on an epic level through self sabotage. When debating a kook, let them be a kook. The audience is what matters, not trying to convince the other person of your case.
sye used money from churches for a museum, there is a creation museum because of him. that right there gives you, the idea of how much people waste their life for "shit" like this. could be much more productive, like giving that money to charities or really for anything else but a creation church.
I'd almost go to that place, just to knit pick everything and make fun of it. But since they charge you, and the money goes to fund their crazy ass nonsense I wont.
but you're here... watching.
yaowadeez snm
Next time name your target, could get confusing if more people were commenting and no one knew who you were even talking about. But since your response makes the most sense when applied to my last comment I shall assume you meant me.
If you're going to troll, you should at least learn the basics. You sound like a bored housewife trying to be a bulldog. Like your "fight me bro" attitude alone will get a rise out of me.
You must be new at this. You're supposed to, as a troll, make a real remark about how someone of a set race is to blame. Or that God loves cancer babies since he created cancer and babies and that he jerks off to the family's tears.
It is the very first time I see an audience actually mock a speaker. This was humiliating.
I feel that Sye brought it on himself with his double speak... I agree though that it wasn't very cool and I'm glad that Matt said something about it.
@@vinnytaranova6163 no, bullshit. If you're going to make ridiculous arguments be prepared to be laughed at. Nobody censored him.
It's almost certain that Sye will take being mocked as evidence in his favour - the Bible says he will be mocked, after all.
MIkey Wares Why does it matter if he is fat? The fact he is an arrogant piece of shit who dispenses false information and probably scares little children into believing his shitty views by fear of hell is good enough
SadamYT I agree that we should not be mocking people... it’s just rude and hurtful, and it makes the person less likely to open their mind and get free of their brainwashing ( over time).
Who in their right mind would want to spend an eternity stuck with people like Sye? Sounds like he’ll to me 😶🌫️🥴
Sye: I don't do bible with atheist.
Sye: Literally debating Atheist Matt 💀 💀 💀
Matt isnt an atheist, he's agnostic, he's a solepsist. Lol how do you not even know that?
@@dadush4have you not watched anything involving Matt before? You can see and hear him say he’s an atheist on hundreds of different videos
@@Theproclaimed and you can hear and see him say he is a solepsist and defending the solepsist position. Over and over again. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and claims it s a dog. That s a duck mate. He may cosplay as a dog, but that s a duck. Why do you think he keeps debating theists with the same question "is there good evidence for God?" Over and over again?? He sits back, crosses his arms and goes "nope nope nope" as if that s some sort of a victory. And theists keep pushing him towards solepsism because of that. Didnt you see the part with Daniel Haqiqatjou where he said the law of non-contradiction might be false??? Who, other than a solepsist, rejects such a basic notion?
Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit which is God's word
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than a two edged sword
Sye: I don't don't do bible studies with atheists 🤪🤪🤪
You start off thinking that Sye is a bit of a nut. By the end, you realise that he's a dangerous, totalitarian individual.
Yep, STRAIGHT FROM HIS OWN MOUTH!
@@noonespecial6537 thus far God hasn't made an appearance. Ever.
So what you are left with is a group of dangerous totalitarian individuals running things on the basis of what they claim their imaginary friend wants.
Not a strawman.
You sound even dumber than Bruggencate.
@@noonespecial6537 any evidence the celestial mystery man ever showed up?
No, thought not.
After typing all that bollocks you're still a fucking idiot.
@@noonespecial6537 any evidence for your magic sky dictator yet?
No, thought not.
Marxist shill? Interesting. What do they do?
Fuck me you make Bruggencate look smart.
Did you have some sort of brain trauma in childhood?
@@noonespecial6537 I can think for myself very well thanks.
I leave make believe and magic for gullible, credulous morons like you.
Your comments are amusing though. I asked for evidence and I got what? Pre-prepared, entirely unrelated gibberish. You really are as thick as mince aren't you.
“I don’t do bible studies with atheists” - Sye. In other words... “You aren’t as ignorant as my followers, because you actually think and I can’t tell you fairy tales”.
Atheists are pretty weak on their twisted interpretations of the Bible. It is like accomplished musicians typically only play with other good musicians.I get it
@@markclark2288 It's heartening to see a theist avoid generalizations and stereotypes. Most theists have very little familiarity with any thoughtful person who's heard every claim for a divine being's existence and found them wanting, so they use stereotypes in their place. It makes things a lot easier than admitting many non-theists know the Bible better than most theists. Your open-minded outlook was very refreshing.
@@Gokulosestoavirus I just took Mark Clark to task for his thoughtless comment. Now let me do the same to you, and no I'm not the 'comment police'.
Your snide retort was childish in the extreme. You sound like a kid in junior high who can't make a cogent argument who just hurls invective in its place. As an (weak) atheist, I'm embarrassed to read your drivel. Make a thoughtful, compelling argument or please don't comment at all because you just cause the theist to self-righteously shake their heads and reinforce their deeply-held stereotypes.
I'm expecting a reply along the lines of, "I don't give a @$#! what you think," so anything else will be a pleasant surprise.
Bjorn, the Bible was started over 3500 years ago, covered 1500 years and is 66 books, 40 different authors. It is the most published and sold book ever and has never been proven wrong by hundreds of thousands of people who have tried. That is not weakI imagine atheists do study Bible harder because their brains recognize the evidence is there but they cannot feel or mentalize God. That is their burden. My analogy would be a person with taste buds accepting ice cream as wonderful but not caring too much on the recipe or trying all the flavors. An atheist cannot taste and keeps trying to understand what everyone loves about ice cream.
Bobby hates. Religious people love life and God. Religious people have the power and money. Bobby just hates.
"I don't do bible studies with non-believers"
AKA
"I don't do bible studies with people who aren't already brainwashed into beleiving everything the bible says."
Ya Sye is embarassing. No wonder Matt won’t debate him again
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Mathew 7:6)
@@terarmy4767 good one: imagine actually addressing it rather than spreading more bible nonsense
@@mikemcmike6427 Jesus praying to The Father, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
“But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12:36)
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)
“But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” (Romans 2:5)
Ya know Mike, why don’t you actually give the Bible a read for yourself? Sincerely…Ask God to reveal Himself to you? He may just do it…Evidence for His existing may come in ways you thought not possible…Initially it may not be a pleasant experience. I kid you not. He’s not a celestial butler, but if He takes an interest in YOU, what do you think that may look like. Again, I kid you not.
Matt believes HE COULD BE a brain in a vat! Honestly, how foolish is that? That’s what Atheism offers your intellect!
Do you believe that YOU COULD BE a brain in a vat? Do you? Enquiring minds want to know my friend…Be specific and directly answer that question. A Christian would never believe such a thing and you think the Bible is somehow stupid, silly, foolishness? Let’s see how this fleshes itself out, eh?
@@terarmy4767 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah quoting the bible to say it’s true.
I’ve read the. Unless many times clown: try again
Yea you can’t prove you aren’t a brain in a vat: this is basic logic. Which you lack.
I love how you think you are smart, and yet say some of the dumbest things I’ve ever read
You are an embarrassment to humankind
The whole audience turned against Sye. And Sye was swinging around punches against everyone like a cornered wild animal.
What a disgrace... All that Sye did was pull bits of video out of context and play it in an order that suits his argument.
Then when he got his ass handed to him he started the threat of hell ; "Oh well, I tried, don't blame me when the magic sky-daddy burns you for all eternity!".
*What a truly disgusting and disingenuous way to debate.*
It all felt like ad hominems against Matt...
@@tastyloaf5487 Sye and his buddy Eric Hovind are some of the most dishonest, arrogant imbeciles I have ever seen, and what's worse is they don't even have the intelligence to be embarrassed by their actions.
I was going to post the same . Cherry picking quotes out of context is an despicable way to 'debate'.
Only a child, or a criminally deluded theist, wouldn't see straight through that.
@@paulbuswell6566 Funny you should say that as cherrypicking is the basis of creationism. All you do is read the bible, determine what you want your conclusion to be and then cherrypick whatever science you can to support your predetermined conclusion while you search for ways to discredit any science that refutes the conclusion you want.
@@spaceace4387 You realise I'm an atheist?
"god exists because god exists, and i im right because i know im right and so does everyone else." Sye's argument in a nutshell.
HappyHippieGaymer did you ever make anything in life??? well if you did I dont believe you so prove it to me then?! thats what your doing! utter foolishness!!!
jeff carlson
Meds. Take your meds.
@@jeff1992000 I'm scrolling through the comments and you seem to have something to say to everyone else's comments however when someone responds with their own question you don't reply. Pretty telling. Don't you think?
@@jeff1992000 projection much?
Is it Sye or Sigh.
That dude literally spent his 10 mins not even debating the actual topic but spent it using, probably out of context clips, to show his dissatisfaction with matt. Lol
I think Matt lives (or lived) rent free in this man's head. More likely though, he just knew he had nothing to bring to the table, so he has to jab at his opponent and not discuss the topic at hand.
When you get laughed at several times during a debate when you weren't attempting to be funny, you should reconsider your entire form of argument.
That depends on how biased and blind the laughers are.
James Emerson can you back up your implied claim of the biases of the public ?
Dirk Plankchest Christians have verses in which it says they will be mocked, so he prolly thinks that and it strengthens him. It’s a lose lose.
Summary of this debate:
Sye: “I know what you believe and how you think.”
Matt: “Demonstrate that please.”
Sye: “I don’t have to because I’m right.”
I don't have to because I'm right
... You're also a brain in a vat
@@forsakenguitar1364 "you need God to doubt the existence of God" -Sye
Good summary
I agree with your premise about Sye’s techniques. I AMA Christian but believe we can reason about why God exists.
Ultimately though people won’t believe the argument if it’s not revealed to them by God.
@@danielwarton5343 And since there is no god the only way it can be revealed to you is by hallucinating.
When I saw this debate I was a Christian. In the end of this debate I was already turning atheist.
Sye might be even a bigger liar than Ray Comfort.
Definitely not a bigger one than Matt
listening to Sye would lead Jesus himself to deny christianity
Kwaaaahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sye embodies Jesus
@@markclark2288 - Please, Please, cease and desist. This a serious comment body.
lol
@@markclark2288 So Jesus was a dishonest asshole then. Good to knoe.
What a massive amount of meaningless word salad by everyone's favorite clown Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Brian Tyler If Sye is the clown in this circus, then you are the fire-eater because that is what you'll be doing for eternity when you find out he was right, and you were wrong.
Repent...it isn't a threat to your manhood.
tigerlilly66 I very much doubt the all-loving god that created the entire universe would stoop to such barbaric ultimatums as "Love me or burn forever!" And if such a sick and twisted god existed, one that would actually send people to an eternal place of torture for the "crime" of not worshipping him, I would reject such a god. Such a being would not deserve my nor anyone's adoration or worship.
Brian Tyler Just a quick question for you...who is your final authority for what you believe? Okay...I'll admit to a rhetorical question. Since I get them from you guys all the time, I like to return the favor occasionally.
You're intelligent enough to know the obvious answer is "me", or some variation of it that allows YOU to weigh the evidence and pound the gavel accordingly.
Just like Dilly-bar, you mock and scoff at the authority ANY so-called god might proffer, much less the only big-G God there is for us to discuss.
You make Sye's case better than he made it himself...thank you for 100% confirmation about the mindset of atheists like yourself. Evidence? Any no such thing that will ever change your mind.
Repent...there is STILL time for your eyes to be opened...you will NOT enjoy your stay in Hell
+tigerlilly66 what evidence is there that there is a hell? don't dodge the question like sye and say I don't do bible study with non believers
ballard827 I won't duck the question and neither would Sye. One needs to know the difference between an apologetic and an answer to a straight-up question.
Yes, Hell (proper noun) is as real as the sunset, the sunrise, Heaven (proper noun), you, or me. I'll anticipate your follow-up...what is my authority for making such a statement? The AV 1611 King James Bible, written by the inventor of both locations.
Clear, or am I being obtuse ?
The christian apologist was a rude, arrogant, accusatory jerk who took may things personally.
Matt's closing statement was all you needed to hear. That Sye guy spent all his time burying himself.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'" Hey, if even a fool can figure that out, why can't Sye?
I love that comment.
@@jgrtrx Same, I just cracked up
The part I think is funny is when the bible tells you not to listen to fools. Wait so I am ONLY allowed to listen to you, and you will not listen to me? Interesting, sounds like you can selectively choose what you hear...
Psa. 14:1, the fool is a person who is morally perverse, not mentally deficient. The term is synonymous with sinner, and describes everyone who has no place for God in their life. The fool's problem is that his heart refused the knowledge of God. To be sure, he is not an intellectual atheist, denying the existence of God, but a practical atheist, living as if there were no God (Psa. 53:1; 74:18, 22; Isa. 32:6). S. Lawson
@@drakekay6577 can you reference where? I have a friend with developmental issues and schizophrenia, he would in many instance be considered a fool.
His belief is I am on fire, everyone else we come across do not panic nor attempt to extinguish me. So the reality is either A I am not on fire or B everyone we meet is in my mind.
Religious people like this sye are hilarious and scary.
Nobody:
Sye: I'm about to end my whole career
I believe he still has a promising career within the circus as a clown.
@TheRealMrMcCoy You know you can only know what you know you know, you know? the same way
I know I can only know what I know I know, you know?
@TheRealMrMcCoy the problem is, the "how do you know" count adds up just right. A solipsist could use it as cannon fodder.
Only too a fool like u who regrets the truth
TheRealMrMcCoy You neglected to mention that the cat is on a Matt.
The extreme self-confidence of idiots always amazes me.
how does "you can't know anything" help Sye's argument it is reasonable to believe in God?
It doesn't.
It's actually really simple, here is how Sye's strategy works:
If the atheist answers "we can't know anything", then Sye can say "Well, I DO know that god exists".
If the atheist then tries to say "no, you don't know that" or "no, you can't know that" Sye will respond with "How can you say that? YOU just admitted that you can't know anything!"
And that's "check mate", essentially. At least in his mind. Because yes, on some level, if you admit to clearly that you can't know anything for sure, then he can say whatever he wants, and you won't be able to say that he CAN'T know that.
That's the entire game. The atheist says he can't know anything, Sye claims he can know stuff, and from there on he'll just pretend that him claiming to know stuff is the stronger position, because the atheist has just given up any position on knowledge.
It's not ACTUALLY a valid argument or form of arguing. Because (as Matt does well in this debate) all you have to do is point out, that Sye just asserting that he DOES know stuff for sure doesnt actually mean that he does.
Matt: "So you deny what the sociologists who went down there who studied these people said?"
Sye: "Exactly."
Dunning-Kruger at its finest ^^
105 billion people were religious in the world.An atheist goes to find a few people and twist their answers to say they are not religious and concludes whle world is naturally atheists.Of course he would deny the conclusionNice try
@@markclark2288 No amount of followers lends any credence to an idea, even less so to the gullability of bronze age peasents. Belief warrents evidence to justify it. Had i never known truely good people, my faith in people would be unjustified.
Spirituality is innate and unrestrained, religiosity is learned behavior, hijacking spirituality to conform it to its doctrine. How come selling cigarettes to kids is amoral, yet get them while they're young is the bread and butter of every organized faith?
I'm so getting off point here, sorry...
There was no taking out of context or misrepresenting the facts here. Matt asked Sye if he disregards a professional opinion because it doesn't lead to the conclusion he prefers and Sye concurred. If that isn't a poverty stricken position then i don't know what rational argument can be had from that. Please correct me if i didn't adress the issue you were raising.
@@markclark2288 in addition to Friedemann Kindt's response... I'd like to add "Holy shit dude, are you deliberately trying to be cringier and dumber than Sye ?!?"
They didn't have a concept of God, so the missionaries beat the idea into them.
"God exists because God exists."
er...
He can do that, because he can do that. Lolol
really... which god?
Because WE exist, dear girl
@@markclark2288 It's a quote from the video...
Vulpine , God exists because 105 billion people that ever lived tapped into him with our God given senses
You would think sye faith would make him happy, but it doesnt, he is only happy when he forces others to believe his view.
It’s painful listening to Sye. “Matt could just be a brain in a vat, so I’m right because I’m right, so I win.”
Sye answers 90% of the questions by saying he'd be happy to answer, then refusing to answer....seems legit
He answered them
All I heard you say was terminology to explain why Matt was logically defeated and we know that by the look on his face, his sweaty face and blood pressure. Fallacy, straw man...are all terminologies to hide behind fact he was outdebated
Yep, Sye pretty much tore him apart logically. Matt tried diversions but remained one of those guys who clings on to something bizarre like saying we are just probably a brain in a VAT when the likelihood is very remote.Sye showed Matt as what he was, pretty ridiculous on almost every point
Jr, Matt was absurd, Sye told him direct and you say someone committed a fallacy, half strawman and a pinch of argumentum popularem.....To even try and pretend that this serious conversation of philosophy should be entertained with "maybe we are all in the Matrix, Dude" is just infantile. Matt could not answer this. He said a stupid thing in the past, tries to double down and becomes a joke. He knows it. He wanted out fast. He lost
@@markclark2288 you've clearly watched it with incredible bias
Sye basically said ( around the 57:00 mark) that this isn't a case of special pleading because this case is special.
It's virtuously circular.
Special pleading is a fallacy when you're falsely treating a case as special. There are actual special cases (also called exceptions to the rule).
For instance, follow this dialogue:
"It's wrong to kill others."
"I agree."
"That police officer who shot the guy with a grenade in the airport, he was wrong."
"But he was literally going to mass murder a bunch of people. He was even preparing to explode it."
"OOOOOHHH SPECIAL PLEADING"
"But this case is different. You can't treat it the same."
"SEE YOU EVEN ADMITTED THAT YOU COMMITTED THE SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY"
"..."
The reason your example seemingly works is only due to a lack of rigour.
Saying: "It is wrong to kill" in any setting outside of formal debate will be taken to mean "it is generally wrong to kill."
If the dialogue started with:
- "It is ALWAYS wrong to kill."
it would indead be a case of special pleading, but it would also mean that no one but the most extreme pacifist would agree.
@@perwrede9891 The fallacy is derived from the reasoning of the exception (or lack thereof), not the degree of universality of the rule.
@@Nathan-tg4gu Sure. I'm just saying your example would imply that either
1) it is in fact a special pleading fallacy since the assertion "it is wrong to kill" is later contradicted by "it was right to kill him"
2) it is not a special pleading fallacy because the assertion was not strictly "it is always wrong to kill"
But I don't disagree that exceptions are necessarily special pleading fallacies, obviously, except in such cases where a premise is predicated on no possible exceptions. Such as using god to avoid infinite regresses in cosmological arguments for instance.
Edit: Just looked up the definition of the special pleading fallacy. I always assumed it was that it led to internal contradictions within an argument that made it a fallacy. I stand corrected.
Matt was masterfully succinct. Sye Ten was pitifully inept. Matt schooled Sye Ten. Sye Ten flunked the exam, because he hadn't even cracked open his textbook.
The Sye guy goes in circles more than a merry go round.
Matt you have 10 minutes.
Matt: “didn’t I just get my ten minutes?”
😭❤️🤣
Fatality.
Wasn’t that a clever rebound attempt after just being 🔥roasted🔥 by his own video footage of contradictory claims? 😳💔😢
Twelve Dozen you can make anything look the way you want when your taking only a few sec. clips and putting them together however you want to fit your position. I’m not saying Matt is perfect, but I do have common sense... so I understand how it can seem contradicting without hearing the full conversation before and after the comment you clip.
Theodore Robinson And this Sye dumbass is using his own logic, which apparently is faulty by its very nature, to “know” that God exists and the Bible is true. The man is simply a fuckwad who has no business being in a debate with a 4th grader, much less Matt.
Fatality to the foolish who hve no wisdom to see it is inconsistent picking and choosing what he likes
I always thought reading the bible was the fastest way to atheism.
I was wrong.
Listening to Sye is even faster.
I wouldn't sic that onto someone that's just starting to question it. They'd get whiplash from th sheer bloody shock of exposure.
@@ConceptCollection
I go for:
1. Sye is human
2. All humans are idiots
3. Conclusion: therefor Sye is an idiot
Although the conclusion is correct, I've got the feeling it is not sound reasoning.
@@ConceptCollection
Thanks for the clarification. And at least my conclusion stands without a doubt.
Matt made a big mistake with his past comments and Sye trapped him
@@ConceptCollection A rock is a rock there is no reason to think otherwise there is no reason to think you are a brain in a vat
1:16:45 What did that audience member shout out to Sye?
Couldn't make it out. Matt seemed pleased.
“Jesus would”
Sye: “no he wouldn’t”
@@santa_christ thank you
You can tell this guy thought he had a masterful argument put together, but it was really two hours of arguing “you can’t really know everything, therefore god.” An old and tired debate tactic.
`im not an atheist towards other gods, there are no other gods!` facepalm
That line is perfect. Maybe this is an Andy Kaufmann thing and Sye's living a life of art and we're all falling for it.
Yea, lol, reminds me of a girl who said, "im not an alcoholic I just drink alot,"
Correct!!
This is my facepalm pick too.
can anyone explain what sye meant when he said "if the coran is true then the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, then the Coran is false". either I'm mentally challenged or this makes no sense.
So wait, Sye’s entire argument is “Matt is wrong, therefore God?” Ridiculous. 😂
You don't know, therefore no God exists. That is exponentially more absurd.
@@Chris-zd8cs The atheist argument is not asserting that no God exists. If that idea is lost on you, then there is no purpose in even talking about it.
@@chrisducharme1729
If you are saying that there is no way to know one way or the other, you are making the agnostic argument.
Atheists believe there is no God.
If you just choose not to know one way or the other, that is a argument from a lack of knowledge. Not knowledge, no gnosis, agnostic. I don't know how else to break it down for you.
@@Chris-zd8cs You really aught to look up the definitions, because you are not using them the way most atheists do. It is a response to a claim of believe. You say "God exists" and we say "I don't believe that". Saying I don't believe in god is not the same as saying* I believe there is no god, just as saying I believe the defendant is not guilty is not the same as saying I think the defendant is innocent. Notice the difference?
@@chrisducharme1729
We would both likely strongly agree that it depends who is giving the definition.
I don't believe your position is correct. I'm not stating your position is wrong. I just don't believe in it's correctness.
You see there is a binary option in reality. In reality, either there is a God or not. Either the person is guilty or innocent. There is not a third option.
When it comes to limited knowledge, you can believe in one option or the other, or you could not know. If you are saying atheism is not a position that believes God doesn't exist, atheism is the same as agnosticism.
did Sye the guy just escape preschool.... why cant he debate as a grown man but instead pull quotes out of context and slinging mud. reminds me of a scared animal lashing out in defense.
It is a shame that this man watched this much Matt and still holds his ridiculous beliefs.
Sye is making me Sigh.
Good one!
Nice Alucard
+007MrYang Sye is making me want to gouge out my Eys.
+007MrYang Eat him.
+007MrYang Why is Sye making you sigh? Criticism is a sign a person's personality has force!
So Sye uses God to justify his belief in God, and yet he has the nerve to accuse Matt of circular reasoning.
How do you prove rationalism or empiricism without a circularity? The ultimate authority is always circular. The problem is that the atheist has no foundation as to why he should rely on your empiricism or rationalism.
@Oliver Jonathan Atheist circular reasoning www.godorabsurdity.com/uploads/2/6/2/2/26223370/8393257_orig.png
God is the only authority that can make circular argument
Let's be cool and pretend the atheist could not answer a simple question. Yup
@Oliver Jonathan try reading a book on logical fallacys my friend if your making an arguement then if you want it to be reasonable and logical then you should try its best to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Reasoning is usually refined using external and internal facts, proofs or at the very least evidence which are further restricted and refined using what are known as fallacys which are to be avoided.
Sye Ten is trying to win an argument. Matt Dillahunty is debating. The result is actually quite irritating and painful to watch.
I can’t believe anyone finds Sye convincing. He just states he’s right because he can’t be wrong.
I literally spent all 1:55:56. It honestly was a waste of time, all that happened was:
Matt Dillahunty: Please give me evidence
Ten Bruggencate: GWAD!
Matt Dillahunty: Please support your claim
Ten Bruggencate: JEEBES!
Matt Dillahunty: Please try and answer the question
Ten Bruggencate: I wont, because your makin fun of my Gawd!
Thats all this debate was, a right wing nut job who couldn't answer a question with anything other than GAWD.
+thatoneirishkoreaguy How do you know that?
youmu970
because I watched it....thats how I know.
How do you know that you watched it?
youmu970
Because I clicked the play button. I watched the video with my own eyes and I listened to the debate with my own two ears.
And then you say...well how do you know that you saw the video?
Because I am certain that I clicked the play button with my own two fingers and observed/heard what I meant to watch.
And then you say back....then how did you know that you clicked on the video?
Because of the nerves inside my own fingers send an impulse to my brain to alert me allowing me to be notified of the action that I took with my own fingers.
And then you say....how would you have known that....etc etc etc etc. Maybe It will be different, maybe it won't but this circular reasoning is not what I'm going to get myself involved with as of right now, because we could go on and on and on and on with this but its not worth anyones time. Consider this: winning an argument with you is no different then winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics, no matter what, your still going to look retarded at the end of it all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean at the end there. That sentence is a contradiction.
There's just _so much_ wrong with Sye's opening argument. He makes a glaring error before the end of minute 2 of the debate.
His first premise would get him laughed out of a logic or critical thinking class. He states as his first premise is that, "It's reasonable to believe what's true." Believing the truth is _why_ we value rationality, it's _not_ what constitutes rationality. Rationality and reasonableness describe _how we arrive at_ what we believe, not the veracity or falsity of what we believe. This is why we can (and do) say that a person can be unreasonable or irrational in what they believe if they have reasoned poorly to their conclusion even if they have happened upon a correct conclusion. And the corollary of that is that one can even be reasonable and rational in a belief even when it's false, if one's reasoning has been valid but one has the misfortune of having a false premise in one's argument. Rationality and reasonableness describe _how we arrive at_ our beliefs. Indeed, that's part of why the concept of epistemic justification is so often included in the definition of knowledge, because how you arrive at your beliefs is what makes your beliefs reasonable, not whether or not they happen to be true. Believing what is true, for all the wrong reasons, doesn't make you reasonable or rational, it makes you lucky.
So, not only is Sye's second premise ("It's true that God exists.") dubious, but his first premise is just flatly and hilariously wrong.
Cheers,
- Ozy
_"Rationality and reasonableness describe how we arrive at what we believe,"_
That'd be nice Ozzy; but on Sye's showing here I fear you may have overgeneralized "we" :)
I really, really want to thank you for that comment.I read it before actually starting to watch the vid, and it allowed me to stay sane through all this...whatever it was, even though I still had to drink Sye's kool-aid in small sips.
I can't help but sound like Ozy as I read this :(.
I'd much rather see Ozy debate Sye but Matt did a great job considering logic and philosophy isn't really his thing. I think it's telling Sye wouldn't agree to debate on biblical contradictions because he knows Matt would take him apart. This whole bullshit about not doing bible study with atheists is pathetic, and it says more about how much faith he really places in the bible and the bible alone than anything his worst critic ever could.
Jim Gardner I don't think so. Debating this guy (and many other Christians) isn't about who's the brightest on the subject or who has the best argument. It's *everything* about the delivery and Matt is pretty good a that. I think Ozys too nice a guy! :D.
Matt always kills it in these debates. I’d feel embarrassed to be in sye’s position, how did he think that editing a series of clips of Matt and arguing against that straw man was a good idea, like Matt is right there lol. Loved to see how the crowd was getting tired of syes bullshit by clapping every time he got owned, shit was sick.
Christians are so goofy all sye has to do is act like he won, thus a next goofy debate.
Fact: The letters in "Sye ten Bruggencate" can be rearranged to spell "Cayenne bugger test".
Also, "Cute Betsy gangrene."
Guitcad1 lol - I tried Matt dillahunty and got "human dayittt ll" Matt has to be the 2nd coming..haha
How do you know that?
That presupposes that god exists because without god, it wouldn't be objectively true that sye is a cayenne bugger.
Therefore, god exists and created Mr cayenne bugger test.
"Sye ten Bruggencate"
Anagram of "urgency begets ante," which describes every presuppositionalist to a tee.
Desperate apologetics give rise to presuppositions.
If this was a boxing match the referee would have stopped it to protect Sye from too much punishment.
***** In some parallel universe there is a RUclips out there which will say just the opposite. That Sye destroyed Matt, however comments and ratings will be disabled, thus it ever was and always will be.
"If this was a boxing match," the referee would've stopped the fight to prevent Sye from punching himself in the face.
Peace.
How would they be able to diagnose brain damage?
"I'm right 'coz I'm right"?
If this was a boxing match it would have been forfeited in the first round when one of the boxers decided to go to a bar instead and beat up everyone there, claiming he was the best.
If this was a boxing match, they would have never made it to the ring since Sigh wouldn't pass the "brain damage" portion of the physical exam.
"I wrote this rebuttal ahead of time"😂
Tye simply has about six rehearsed answers and goes through them :
- “how do you know”
- “for a reason that is perfectly acceptable to god”
- “knowledge presupposes truth and truth supposes god”
- “how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat?”
- etc etc
After an hour of Sye saying "God exists because he does and we all know it."
Me: "My question is for Sye. Sir, are you aware you're at a debate?"
It could just be a debate in a vat!
It's because of this, science, modern science which is accredited to Judeo-Christian worldview inspiration, makes no claim to truth....every unbeliever has their atheism rooted in moral reasons, not science, never science...and all of humanity throughout history has posited a God because it's too obvious on account of all the design and order around us and on us...and hide behind ScienTISM..not science...people who have repressed their minds to deny logical consistency in matters of creation, now turn to atheistic thought for intellectual rationalization of their position....you have denied truth so much you no longer recognize it.
He’s already won by showing up at the debate lol
🤔🤨😉😆😘
Do you? That's the question.