Debate Teacher Reacts: Epic Debate Over God's Existence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- On this episode of Debate Teacher Reacts, we're looking at one of the most viewed apologetics debates of all time on RUclips! This is the Epic Debate Over God's Existence. Who did a better job? The Christians or the Atheists? Find out in this video!
Link to the full debate: • Epic Debate Over God's...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
That “debate” was a train wreck for the Christians involved. Your assessment was spot on from where I'm sitting.
From my perspective, as well.
It felt embarrassing to see the way these Christians handled themselves.
The "don't know, don't care" comment was crushing.
Pray for these Christians. Pray for these atheists as well. The spirit may be stirring.
I think what you missed is Durbin did not bring up eating babies out of nowhere. In the atheist's opening statement he said "atheists don't eat babies".
I greatly appreciate your honesty and transparency in your videos. I feel a kinship with you because you're "real" and don't fall back on platitudes, double standards, or religious rhetoric.
I think we can see your real personality and character through your videos, and it's refreshing that you're never a flat caricature of Christianity
I agree with this.
Totally agree. Also, it’s kinda spooky how your syntax makes me feel like I’m reading a comment that I posted.
@@GeetarAdam I'm honored! Thank you - I've never had a comment like this lol. But great minds think alike...
@@3irdcity902oooh
Great video, brother. I am a reformed believer, am becoming more presuppositional, and general fan of Apologia and much of their work. However, my mouth dropped with yours when Sye, a professing Christian, said "don't know, don't care" about a tragic event in the atheist's life. Completely unacceptable. Christ was not in that statement. If engaging in debate tempts you to interact with people in that way, you need to stay away from debate and repent.
And in general, presuppositional apologetics can be effective in some cases, but those who use this method need to be extremely careful and wise about how they present themselves. I don't think that was done here, unfortunately.
Love the content, keep up the great work. I seriously enjoy your commentary and insights. God bless.
sad... that's why we need a balance of empathy and head knowledge...
@@ROMEYYOUROCK The most charitable guess is that the atheist's story unrelated to the topic.
@@mariembuenaventura1278 I think you mean compassion, or sympathy.
I start with Evidentialism, usually. Why? Because Verificationism is where most internet atheists reside. The first step is to get them to admit that they presuppose naturalism. Atheist generally hate admitting this, bit it's easily identified contextually. They will say things like "Only naturalism can explain phenomena", or "I need demonstrable/sufficient/extraordinary evidence", "You can't demonstrate God" etc. These are all admissions to a naturalistic preuspposition.
Once you get them to Verificationism, switch to presupp and "demonstrate" that their naturalistic presupp is usually justified by emotion, incredulity, and precieved abuse from the church.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Great insight, brother.
Here is a good case for why presuppositional arguments cannot be the ONLY tools at the apologists disposal... Poor approach by sye especially, I agree this should have been a 1 v 1
I would consider myself presuppositional but watching this debate in its entirety was extremely difficult. I think you can be presuppositional while still using tools that are classical to get to a point. As the other commenter mentioned, it can be done well as Bahnsen demonstrated.
presuppositional arguments shouldnt ANY of the tools at the apologists disposal
If you think presuppostional is not a good method go follow frank turek as an evidentialist when he face silverman. Then you will understand.
This is presuppositionalism not done properly. Check out Eli Ayala’s RUclips channel if you want to see proper presupp.
Definitely not a case for this at all. In fact, many of the evidences that classical apologists appeal to only make sense in a presuppositional framework.
I think one of Durbin's major mistakes is that a lot of his questions commit the fallacy of the complex question (or what lawyers call "assuming facts not in evidence"). He also uses loaded language. If I were an atheist, I would probably find him manipulative and dismiss his arguments as sophistry. He is a smart guy, though. I've watched his RUclips channel lots of times.
Sye is the Arron Ra/ Lawrence Krause of Christian Apologetics. No business engaging in debates. I’m sure he’s a great man but this doesn’t seem like a space where he’s best suited to share the gospel. He’s far too emotional and pompous while neglecting sound structure.
Comparing Sye to Lawrence Krauss? Hilarious. Sye is more like a two year old.
@@anthonymitchell9793 lol Lawrence Krause had the buzzer thing with William Lane Craig. Both are immature and unnecessarily hostile.
Great review I really enjoyed that. Even though you more or less scolded it, this is what Christian debates need, a solid dose of iron sharpening iron! I hope in the future you have some of these speakers on for a discussion. This debate really springboarded my interest in a lot of Christian content on RUclips back in the day.
Sye: “This might be helpful to you”
Narrator: “It was not”
I only recently discovered your channel, and I am hooked! Thank you so much for your interesting, intelligent and thought-provoking comments about these debates. Very much appreciated!
I can’t speak clearly to Sye’s heart in that moment, but I know I’ve gone into flesh-mode before when conversing with unbelieving friends and making comments I really regret (I remember spitefully telling a close atheist friend in high school that I felt sorry for him one time, yikes). What tends to happen is I hit a point when I’m struggling to answer a difficult question, and because I’m afraid of looking silly or I’m a bit unprepared for the question or just frustrated that my conversation partner can’t see my position the way I would present it if I could, I resort to trying to prove my intellectual superiority in a way that ends up just demonstrating my pride, rather than leaning on the Spirit for my assurance and demonstrating some humility. I hope that Sye sought forgiveness and repented after this, but it definitely reminds me that we all, Christian and non-Christian, need the grace of God.
Thanks for this video, it was thought-provoking and helpful. I agree, I really like watching Jeff debate but I kind of wonder if the awkward tension coming from his right threw him off his game. At least Sye didn’t demand the atheists drink antifreeze though :)
Well said, it makes me look at how I talk to unbelievers. Like Nate said where is Christ in that statement. Thanks for your comment because it resonated with me. God bless you and I pray that you are well a year after your comment.
I think it could’ve been said better and if it wasn’t a debate could’ve been talked about more but the story was irrelevant to the argument. This was clearly seen when he says he didn’t think about God and therefore seems that he’s made a point that God doesn’t exist. Sye, understanding this, cut through the emotional language to address the here and now and show the invalidity of the position. I think Sye’s major issue is tone.
Unsurprisingly, it was Sye who at one time convinced me that Matt Dilahunty was a proficient debater through his performance. He is possibly the worst Christian apologist I’ve heard.
The moment he said "dont know dont care" the others immediately knew they lost because of him.
Thing is, only a Christian can point out why it is wrong to say that. An atheist can take issue with him saying that, but they literally cannot explain why it is wrong. According to their worldview, it is not right or wrong for Sye to not care-it just _is._ For any unbeliever to get upset with him for it is to appeal to an external source of morality, which is contradictory because they do not believe in God.
What a disappointment. Christians did such a poor job defending their points and being so disrespectful. Thank you for reviewing debates. It’s so educational and entertaining.
Not that I could add anything to the great perspective WD always brings to these debates, but I think having a precise, well defined debate topic that all interlocutors agree on would help mitigate some of the pointless dialogue.
This! ^^^
@@WiseDisciple I would love to see your reaction to David Silverman vs James White on "Is the NT evil?" - it is a very long time of cross examination, but very useful and engaging nonetheless.
Can we appreciate how it looks like they got 3 atheist stereotypes for this?
- Middle parted mid length gray hair
- Oversized 90s goatee
- Angsty youth
“This is very frustrating to watch.”
Welcome to every time Sye Ten Bruggencate interacts with anyone. 🤦🏼♂️
YES
I do wonder why you did not cover the one good point Sye scored on Bruce when Bruce said does not have faith, he has confidence and Sye revealed that confidence is latin for with faith.
Because they clearly had different definitions for confidence. So his “point” didn’t matter to anyone but the Christians in the audience
I would never want Sye beside me on the Christian side of a debate. Gosh the cringe!!
Would love to see James White Vs. Bill Shishko partially because it is an internal debate on baptism and would be a little different flavor than Christians vs. non-christians
Asking “what’s the atheistic perspective on eating babies?” Is like asking what’s “what’s wrong with eating babies from the rock climbers perspective?”…….. it has nothing to do with it. It’s a very weird question as there is no “atheistic perspective”. Perhaps he could ask from the “materialistic perspective” or “naturalistic perspective”
In seeking common understanding, theists almost universally frame atheism as a faith system mirroring their own. If your entire world view is rooted in a faith proposition, stepping outside that epistemological framework is much harder than simply hacking away at opposing epistemologies until it resembles your own.
Same thing happens when sola scriptura Protestants debate muslims and think the Quran is the only authoritative text in Islam.
Nate you are my new favorite apologist. I'm stuck on your channel. Your reaction to the 'dont know don't care' and the look on your face was such a righteous anger, it made me admit that I completely missed this the first time I watched this debate way back when. As Christians, we need to approach non-believers with compassion and humility and sometimes I forget this. God bless and God speed.
One of the more important things I've learned in apologetics - and even your debate reviews- is knowing how to communicate effectively. Its very easy to speak Christian jargon. Ot takes more effort to communicate the same ideas of our jargon un such a way the non-Christians can mutually understand.
That problem with what you said is that is not biblical. What you called "Christian jargon" is what will convert a non christian. No philosophy, or humans words will convert someone, but only God throught his Word.
@@thomasglass9491 , wholeheartedly agree that faithful preaching of the Word and the move of God's Holy Spirit are what change hearts.
My main point was that the Word still requires faithful preaching which often requires effective communication and exposition.
@@thomasglass9491 If i quote John 1 in Spanish to a German non-believer, do you think that will help to convert him? Not at all. There is nothing wrong with translating truth into language that will be properly understood by the hearer.
@@cambridgehathaway3367 I agree! That has nothing to do with my point.
I agree totally with Seth, where is Christ in that disgraceful "don't know, don't care" statement? That was utterly embarrassing. He should be ashamed. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
33:25 I totally disagree. Durbin gave a totally coherent answer (even though he was cut off). His point was that the presuppositions and claims the atheist made cannot be used as tools for atheism unless he can justify their existence. And the atheist had no answer for that. Jeff said you’re appealing to and using things you have no basis for - that’s not just restating your claim, that’s making the framing of the entire situation clear.
37:20 I don’t think “don’t know don’t care” is an inherently unchristian response. Sy makes it clear that he doesn’t know or care in regards to the debate and whether or not it proves anything - and he’s right. This is like me saying, “you think I love hamburgers. When my best friend died, if I loved hamburgers, do you think I’d crave one for comfort right then?” And you respond don’t know don’t care. Correct. Because whether or not I craved one in that moment is both unprovable and irrelevant to discovering whether or not I love burgers.
Man, this debate ain’t the best but this review is… also not great.
I bet Durbin wishes he had different debate partners.
Definitely. The hairs on the back of Durbin's neck were standing up in astonishment over Sye's comments. Gross.
To be an effective interlocutor it takes so much practice. This was just practice round that got published by mistake. 😉
😉
43:20 - that Atheist seemed (I don't know for sure) to be open to what the Christian's had to say. At that point, he let himself be a bit vulnerable in his thinking and wanted to hear real reasoning - potentially a soul saving moment and the Christians just made jokes, talked over him, insulted. This is the exact way you lose people to Hell. This was beyond frustrating to watch, I almost didn't make it through the video.
Good lord this was a train wreck.
Saying GL is blasphemy.
@@opalbeauty1578 No it isn't. You are trivializing blasphemy.
Hello. Sad to say it it seems you don't know Christ if you think that is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is NEVER trivial. It's a SOLID COMMANDMENT that everyone is to obey. I point it out to others to let them be aware they are sinning against the God that made them (and you) and the Lord Jesus that died on the cross for them to save them from the pit of hell. All blasphemy, along with every other sin, will counted to us in judgement and if someone hasn't repented of sin and trusted in Jesus alone for salvation they face a wrathful God and they will be justly punished. Jesus does love us but he came out of love not for love. Jesus came to die that none should perish but all have everlasting life. I suggest being on the side of righteousness. Reading the book of John in the New Testament is a good place to start. Peace be to you.@@cambridgehathaway3367
Well, Sye certainly isn't known for being polite or coming across with any degree of humility in debate settings. However, in some interviews he's done he seems kind of sweet actually.
Interviews with Christians or secularists? Because if it's the former that doesn't prove much. It shows he is tribal. If you're going to get on stage with your enemies you better be ready to show the love of Christ to them.
@@keepclimbing2015 Christ was not always polite.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 Christ was never unnecessarily cruel to the degree of Sye's comment "Don't know, don't care." That was said with the clear intention of meanness, not with edification in mind, which was always the goal of Christ.
@@cambridgehathaway3367 Yes it was edifying to call people white washed tombs and pit of vipers? This weak version of Christianity some propose is ridiculous.
I'm generally not impressed with Durbin or White in a debate. This shouldn't be a huge surprise given Durbin learned everything he knows from White.
I find they often obfuscate or avoid points. While their questions are often good, their answers are normally terrible.
"Don't know and don't care..." I had to pause the video to comment, in shock. Wow! 😅 Nate's face! 😂
The cringe 😬...
😬😬😬
Just based on this cross examination, this is one of the worst performances from Christians in a debate I have ever seen… wowzers 🤦♂️
As bad as this was, I've seen way worse debate performances from presuppers
It's difficult for them
They dont have much of a case
I understand interruptions when one is not answering the question posed by another Durbin and his team need to learn restraint and patience /self control instead asking question, making a statement and then a question before a response is given for what was asked and presented from the first question.
I think this is the hard part, when it turned into some subjective, experiential appeal, Sye comes back with a very "unChristian" response. At that point, you stopped judging a debate and judged Sye, rightly or wrongly. I no longer keep up with Sye, but this is what he constantly appeals to in his methodology. He believes that we are often competitors, and enlightened, aspiring sophisticates, when we should be evangelists and those who hold people to the standards they continually appeal to. So, yeah, he's raw, but I believe he is offended by deception, the destruction of humanity, and blasphemy of God, while many others tend to be more offended by intellectual and emotional harm of neighbor. In the end, winsome pontification with bait-and-switch arguments is what drives presuppositionalists nuts, while many others are awed by this method. I think Sye's often too coarse, while a large majority of other apologists on the planet tilt the other direction. Just my $.02.
@Ryan P Sye was apparently forced to step down from his position, because he had an affair of some sort 😕
@@brando3342 Yep. He definitely misrepresented God in his actions. The ultimate reason that adultery is wrong. He definitely acted hypocritically, which is only damnable if we bear God's image, which bestows dignity and accountability.
@@brando3342 yes! I read about it. He had to leave for having s3x with a vulnerable woman. That is the only info I can find. He was always a bit aggressive and that is not how we are called to reach people. Giving someone a bloody nose turns them away. We need to give them the truth but do so lovingly.
@@brando3342 he was repentant, stepped down, and was restored
@@JoyInFreedom
But you are giving them the truth, the real truth. Sye's behavior, by far, isn't the only thing that turns people away.
If this is the worst you've seen I'm guessing you haven't seen many of Sye's debates. And, Nate, your characterization of Sye's "I don't care" is spot on. Also, another debate I saw comes to mind. You should checkout the debate between Sonny Hernandez/Theodore Zachariades and Leighton Flowers/Johnathan Pritchett. I can pretty much guarantee that it's one you won't forget!
For those who have a major issue with Sye on this one, I'm wondering if you've pondered Durbin's poignant, two word reply to Bruce the Atheist, or simply seen the t-shirt that he wore during the debate. In my opinion, Sye is much more of a bull in a China shop than Durbin, but I wonder how much more uncouth we would deem many saints of yesteryear if we witnessed their engagements with God mockery (whether the passive or active type). Especially since secularism has now produced its own fundamentalism and pharisees. May iron sharpen iron as grace and truth collide in the body of Messiah.
Hmmmm well, no one says mockery or verbal assault has no place. Jesus calling the pharisees a brood of vipers is about as bad as it gets for that group because He was calling them the children of the serpent. Satanists. But it requires enormous dicernment to know when it will be effective. When someone opens up about a possibly traumatic event(whether you know the ulterior motive or not), it's probably not the best time to be the hardened badass fighting satanists. The goals is souls as it were. We bear God's image. Bear it not in vain. Bring the love of God to the table.
I’m so glad you were unbiased on this one. I think you were too nice, to be honest. I cringed all through this one.
I think the presup is good for Christians. It is a good fall back on why we believe what we believe. I don’t think it is an apologetic that is effective or transforming when dealing with an atheist, and it is very ineffective for other theists in my opinion.
Thanks again for your objectivity. The atheists handled themselves better.
This is a really bad example of presup, and we ought to decide on the merits or otherwise of presup on the basis of what it looks like when done well rather than on the basis of what it looks like when done badly. A better example of presup approaches being used in debates can be seen in other debates Nate has reviewed (the Bahnson debate and any of the debates with James White).
The only effective way is God's Word only.
To be fair I don’t think presup is even effective for Christians to hold their own faith. I don’t think anything about presup adequately even points to christ, nor any specific God, because no premise about it entails the god of the Bible. Plenty of other dieties can occupy Presup requirements.
But other dieties cannot explain the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I think that makes evidentialist claims much stronger.
I think you might be misrepresenting sye when he said he doesn’t care, it’s not like he was saying he doesn’t care about the fact he almost died, instead he doesn’t care about the story in regards to this debate.
No, he said explicitly I don't care about YOU then. This is a classical example of someone getting wrapped up in a debate and their goal of winning rather than actually caring about the other person's soul. But that's Sye in basically every "apologetics" situation.
Watching some Christian’s and Muslims debate and use the argument “what is wrong with not eating babies?”…… shows me all the more that a lot of believers really have no moral or ethical foundation such that if they did see that their god doesn’t really live up to their expectations will become the most horrific people on earth. Really revealing their hearts.
No offense, but you don't get the point if that's your conclusion.
@@xravenx24fe You're the one who fails to see the point. If you cannot come up with any good reason to be a decent human being other than "one day I will receive immortality" ....then you have no sense of humanity. And if you getting these ideas from your religion then religion has destroyed you and its not worthy of being dignified as morally informative.
"Nice" to people openly rebelling... 🤷🏼♂️ Not sure why it bothers folks so much. He even clarified that he wasn't saying he didn't care about the man. He says he doesn't care what the man was thinking as it pertains to God. The answer was obvious that he didn't think about God...
Cringey and painful to watch. I'm Christian, but as far as THIS one debate goes the Christian side was just embarrassing.
I would like to see you review the 2004 debate of James White v Doug Wilson “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?” It’s witty and fun and the debaters actually like each other
“Don’t know. Don’t care” really shook me. That’s such an apathetic response, even in a debate. Yikes. You have to think of the unbelieving audience outside of the debate that will hear that and likely no longer desire to listen. Come on man…
I'm hoping Sye has come a long way after 7 years, I think he has but not sure
In that vehicle accident, he might not have been thinking about God, but God was thinking about him and protected him.
I think presup is the scriptural way for Christians to view the world, but it doesn't work in a debate setting because the presup Christians would have to argue from a neutral ground, which goes against the entire presup structure.
Is not every apologetic encounter a "debate," i.e., a defense of answer of the faith? This is simply why presuppositionalism doesn't actually work at all (unless you do it acting like a classicalist). The neutral ground is called general revelation, including a person's conscience and mind.
The fact they were saying there was no atheist perspective immediately means they were obfuscating..
A Christian Apologist’s desire should be the conversion of those they debate, over winning arguments. When I first saw this full debate it seemed as if Sean Taylor just needed a tiny bit of evidence for God’s existence to believe. However, the presuppositional side continued with the T.A.G and as one who holds to the presuppositional methodology myself, I remember hoping that maybe for the sake of Sean Taylor the other side would give any evidences. He seemed so close. After I finished watching I assumed a classical approach is what Taylor needed, until I found a dialogue he had with Sean McDowell called “Easter with a skeptic”. After a 40 minute conversation saturated with evidences, Sean Taylor still rejected God. Therefore, leading me to conclude it was not an information issue, rather, a suppression in unrighteousness issue.
Been binge watching your videos since I found you several days ago. Love all of your work!
Fun fact, Sye blocked me on Twitter years ago. Before I got banned.
That snide “I don’t care” remark was unconscionable. I think a darkness in the depths of his soul was revealed in that instance lol. Great vid tho!
Jeff’s first debate. You can tell that he learned from his mistakes in this one.
Definitely not his first debate. You can find some much earlier ones with athiests out there
You cant have a debate with Jeff. When pressed he always goes back to: in order to have the debate you must believe what I tell you about my belief.
I think Sye clarifying about the “don’t know don’t care” was pretty clear. He could have certainly worded it better but I understood his point. I love Sye. Hope since this video you have gotten to watch more of his debates and understood his personality more. He’s very good at presupp. This wasn’t his best showing but I’ve watched countless debates of his and he has put many smart atheists into pretzels.
No. Sye is horrible.
Sye is horrible. His guilts the unbeliever for not knowing everything as if by not knowing everything he can know nothing. But they do KNOW things therefore Sye reasons with them all the whole trying to convince them they cannot trust their reasoning. His apologetic is to argue apologetics turn people into deists because everyone knows the truth anyways so you don't need to prove it. It's self defeating. And down right arrogant and sinful. "Oh you admit that you're not all knowing? So you can't justify your reasoning but you want to bring objections against me? You're clearly not worthy of the gospel. I don't have Bible studies with unbelievers."
There's a question I haven't heard anyone ask is if we as humans are naturally inclined to be moral and good then why is it that children have to be taught the difference between good and bad, what to do and what not to do? Children will do what they are told not to do and have to be redirected via discipline. People are not inherently good
Presuppositionalism done wrong, when done right it is a good tool. But when used this way the other methods are more appealing. Thanks Nate for reviewing this, I watched this debate when it first came out and couldn’t understand why so many liked it. This was an interesting conference after the debate.
The Fallacy of Division is strong on the theistic side. "How can particles/stardust be... etc"
I think there's merit to questioning the secular foundations of morality, but yeah, it was done in a very unsophisticated way in this debate.
I Enjoy your videos and analysis on this topics and debates. I don't like those types of men who claim to be Christian and person of faith, love and so on.
Guy in the middle on the Christian side came off like he had something personal against the Atheists.
Is it true sye get exposed for a moral failing with a vulnerable female not long after this ?
This is why Jeff Durbin never invited the "nice" Canadian to another debate, ever! Now he debates with James White. Thank God for this duo
Just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't necessitate cannibalism. Durbin is being foolish.
I'd like to see a panel of Orthodox Christian apologists with philosophical background like Jay Dyer having a debate with a panel of atheists
I'm totally with you on basil and pizza. But I'm also a fan of Basil Pouledoris, or however you spell his name.
This was painful to watch. 🙈 Good on you for sticking through this one.
Can you imagine the explosion if Sye debated Greg Clark
Basil, meat, mushrooms, tomatoes, garlic and marinara belong on pizza! A close second would be pineape, depending on other ingredients.
You missed Syes bright moment. He made a strong point about the word confidence. It was classic.
It wasn’t though. They had a VERY different definition for the word and he didn’t define it before questioning. It only appealed to the Christians in the room
@@austincook5475 I'm not a big fan of symantical argumentation. On a brute fact level Sye was right. Most dictionaries do mention the word faith. If they had meant something else they could have used a different word.
The English language is entangled with it's Christian heritage one would be hard pressed to get around it.
These types of informal debates are made to the audience. So I agree with you that the largely Christian audience was tickled. However, the opposition (the atheists) set the ball by using that word, and Sye spiked it. So yes, it was a bright moment for him.
Have a great day.
wait are you trying to dunk on me now? Im a bit confused but no it really was not. If he wanted it to land he needed to lead them to admitting that confidence was equivalent to having faith not that the latin form of the word means faith. If you cannot define your terms ahead of time then using the definition in another language does not do a single thing and only serves to aggravate the other side. If it was successful they would have admitted they had faith in something and they did not. That is like us having a conversation on whether hotdogs are better than sandwiches and then you slamming down "BUT THE LATIN DEFINITION OF HOTDOG IS SANDWICH!" I didn't know that and we BOTH know that I am not referring to the definition but which one I like to eat more. @@rkirkpatrick01
i dont think Sye has ever debated formally
Quick correction, the Atheist did in fact appeal to preference as why we should not eat babies when he made an appeal to humanity surviving, and Durbin pointed that out and connected those dots a few times in the form of questions.
The guy on the left and Durbin are a bit more reasonable, but Sye just annoys me. I have watched his whole documentary exposing other apologetics and I have to say that I'm ok with presuppositionalism. I don't agree with it's perspective as it is a reformed apologetic and I'm not reformed anymore, but it's fine. However, I can't stand Sye's use of it.
As soon as you have presuppositionalists in a debate it is a waste of time. When you start with a baseless premise that God is proven to be true nothing can be gained.
I'm going to continue to post the same response to all your videos:
Theist: God is real.
Me: Do you have any evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
Theist: No.
Me: I only believe things based upon evidence. Come back when you have some and we will talk.
If Sye Ten gets you worked up (and I dont blame you at all for feeling that way Nate) then never ever ever review a Darth Dawkins debate.
Unless you like going bald from pulling out all your hair in exasperation.
Duly noted!
You're right on that one!
May I not pass this mortal coil before we get the Dilahunty vs Darth call on the Atheist Experience
Being a good debater tells you nothing about the validity of the arguments they put forward. Durbin is a combination of sophistry and Gish galloping. He believes that because he has developed an internally valid argument that if therefore defeats any external argument, just because it does. There is no future for the Church disappearing down the rabbit hole of presuppositionalism. It sounds clever and no doubt gives some a warm feeling of self-satisfaction, but it is in fact the Church in full retreat.
I have seen this debate more times than i can count. Sye has a wild style and ive seen a ton of his debates and videos. I couldn't stand his style for the longest time and one day it clicked and can totally tell you he is a 4d chess grandmaster. If you are patient with him he is an honest gem. Man he used to make me so mad at how he approached the argument.. glad i was patient because now he is one of my absolute favorites debaters.
You didn't show the end of the debate friend and i find that sad.
As we Christians start to go on the offense and get our arguments in order, in recent years and going forward, it’s really important to hone our rhetorical abilities and learn about optics. This was a textbook moment of bad optics regardless of the quality of the rhetoric. It’s definitely saying something that you hated Sye at first because that’s how audiences will perceive him, and we can’t expect random people to be patient, watch multiple debates, and allow debaters to grow on them. I don’t want to see Christians make the same mistakes that led Atheism into being this target of mockery and memes that it became.
Sorry, whatever goods points he made after the emotional suicide bombing would basically fall on deaf ears. I think he is suited to Christianity vs Islam. They understand aggression better.
Sye is not a 4d chess master. His apologetics is to deny apologetics. He's just a walking contradiction. "You don't know everything so you can't know anything yet by me talking to you I'm assuming you are capable of knowledge but my goal is to convince you that you can't know anything all the while expecting you to understand and agree with me and if you don't I'll judge you as unworthy of the gospel because I don't do Bible studies with unbelievers. Loser." - Sye
Love this channel and these debate critiques
I think Sye forgot the “gentle as a dove” half of Jesus’ admonition.
Do you recommend any good books for basic apologetic subjects and arguments?
"Tactics" by Greg Koukl, “En Garde" or "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig, "Cold Case Christianity" by J Warner Wallace.
The Folly of Unbelief by Daniel Akande, Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen
You should look at Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate with Eric Hernandez.
This is one big criticism I have of Jeff Durban, as much as I actually think he's a great teacher: he comes into any conversation with an implied foundation and cannot adust when he's told that foundation doesn't exist. I guess that makes sense when a hallmark of your viewpoint is presuppositionalism, but if I understand correctly, in a debate, you have to start with the idea that there is no foundation, or at least that whatever foundation you build on can be explained when questioned. That, to me, is a major weakness in his debate presentation, and it implies an arrogance that I don't think he has. It's on full display here, and Si(gh) shows the weakness in full effect. If you're going to teach where Step 1 can't be questioned or there's no reason for explanation, the student isn't going to learn how to talk about Step 2. If Step 1 is questioned, all you can do is do Step 2 in different ways to get a reaction. That's exactly what Si(gh) did, and I think the blame outside of his own action kinda lies at Apologia's feet.
The Christian's questions about why is something wrong if we are just stardust seems malformed. Because we can reflect on the consequences of our actions, that makes us moral agents no matter our origins.
40:28 I'm going to save this. When I challenge people on the nonsensical concept of "nonbelief," I am told that what I've said is "word salad."
*This* is actual word salad (intentionally used, though it may have been). Sye needed one of his fellow Christians to make the point clear, but he did have a one.
if he genuinely had a near death experience and says he didn't think of God hes lying. in fact, how would he even know to bring that up if he didn't think of God? when you are faced with death and the human mind has exhausted every single other possible solution, the thought "God?" will be the last thought that runs through every persons mind. it is beyond our control
He was just trying to walk his statement back. That's all it was. He was trying to provide context to it knowing Christians and atheists alike know good and well what he meant 😂
Sye Ten Bruggerncate is proof that not all Canadians have a nice, pleasant personality. 😲
The question "what would it take to prove God's existence" is funny, since God has been assigned the ability to literally do anything by those who have posited "his" existence. That's super hard to prove without multiple amazing feats that show each ability, in view of all, over and again. The real question is: Why would you posit the existence of something like this without already supplying a test everyone can agree on?
How about the big bang? Or for a literal test, drop your keys and see if gravity always pulls them to the floor.
The claim is that God can do anything. So, no reason to think the big bang is proof of God. Literally anything is proof of God. Stick is proof of God. So is shoe, or fudge. If you drop your keys, God. So silly.@@Shane_The_Confessor
Jeff was attempting to argue presuppositionally as opposed to evidentially. It sounds like you believed that unless a Christian argues like William Lane Craig then they didn't answer the questions.
I think there should be no more that two interlocutors on each side. More than that, unless there is a lot of structure to the debate, lends itself to this kind of a mess.
There’s definitely room for classical apologetics in unison with presuppositional apologetics.
Most importantly is that the gospel is presented to those in the room who have never heard it. That’s the power unto salvation. That’s the only thing that can take a sinner from death to life
presuppositional apologetics. is BS
So God made it that the only way to be safe from eternal torment is to hear about a book revealed to only one culture that languished in obscurity for like 2,500 years and that still hasn’t been translated into every language?
That’s an objectively great way to send lots of innocent people to hell.
@@jonathan4189 Atheists say "innocent people to hell" all the time but fail to realize these people are not innocent. They all sin. All of us do. Some of us just have to find a way. I do question why so many who don't know God go to Hell when they haven't been given a choice, but Hell is really a world absent of God. It's a dark void rather than the fiery hell people typically say. It's a place of silence, and its only thought of as a ball of fire because of the misinterpretations of Jesus' parables.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT why did Jesus make his parables so ambiguous that the majority is Christianity got it wrong? How do you know you got it right? Why is it fair that people without a choice are sent to this state of nothingness? How do you justify calling eternal solitary confinement something other than an unimaginable torture?
@@TheSpacePlaceYTIf all of us sin why don't Christians get punished for it too?
God punishing himself in order to avoid punishing guilty Christians is a miscarriage of justice.
We’re not from star dust. We’re from the dust of the earth before stars were even made.
I'm curious to know if anyone thinks Durbin is a good debater because any debate of his I've seen he's genuinely bad at it, and I feel embarrassed.
This is why I'm not the biggest fan of Jeff Durbin. He always seems to start off strong, only to get completely derailed by whoever he's debating. He basically allows the atheist to get away without answering any of Durbin's questions or redirecting his own questions to fit his own purpose.
I honestly think Durbin makes some really good arguments, but he focuses so much on the "shock value".
"Don't know, don't care." That's how you lose a debate. More importantly, that's how you fail to reach a person with the Gospel.
Durbin could also rephrase the question to put a finer point on it, negating the ostensible merit of the "survival" argument. "What is wrong with eating only a few babies?"
41:31 - Another moment that made me cringe was when you took the Lords name in vain.
You should watch the debate where Sye literally walks off the stage in the middle of a debate. That man has annoyed me since the first time I listened to him. Horrible example of a Christian.😢
Would love for you to review the debate between Sean Griffin and Anthony Rogers titled "Does The Father Have A Body?" !
At 23:02 the atheist’s remark about Mountain Dew vs Dr Pepper is a subtle hint that he knows Durban is ripping off Doug Wilson (who used the term “brain gas” on the Book Expo panel debate with Christopher Hitchens)
Its a common presup argument. I don't think Wilson originated it.
Sye is horrible. His strategy is essentially admit you know nothing or you're not worth the gospel.
Presuppositionalism is on full display here. Admittedly other presuppositionalists are better but here it is most consistent. It is one strategy that must ignore everything the other person actually says, contort it into your prearranged plan, and when it doesn't work or isn't even understood by the other person, declare yourself the winner and move on.
Nate, Sye was merely following Romans 1 in testifying to the innate revelation of God’s existence in every human! He’s not being “Snarky”! Why would you see it that way? Doesn’t Paul’s observations about innate knowledge of God have a claim on the conscience of atheists? How is Sye’s contention inappropriate?