2nd time listening. You frustrated the living CRAP out of Sye. That in and of itself makes my day. You turned the tables on him as this is what he does to most everyone he debates. You knew the answers he wanted, the answers he DEPENDS on in order to force you to play his game. Absolutely brilliant. Guaranteed he will refuse to debate you ever again.
1)Can you both know but not know the same thing simultaneously (in the same time) in the same way. 2)Can something exist and not exist as the same thing. 3)can you claim and not claim at the same time. 4)Can you know and not know at the same time? 5)Can you know and not know the same knowledge? 5)Can you can't can and can with can as you can. Answer you can't. Finally, When you know at that very points you cease from not knowing. 2) When you claim at that point you cease from not claiming. 3)When you claim knowing then at that very points you cease from not claiming. 4)When you claim knowing then at that very points not knowing is not your claim. Finally when you claim to know something and not know something you have lyed.
29:36 I tip my hat to you for continuing to hold back on Sye after he threw that condescending insult at you. You did well demonstrating the foolishness of the presup approach by using logic, reasoning, and I think I'll finally subscribe. EDIT: Wow, that last part really struck me.. how can he not see that if you were wrong about existing then you wouldn't even exist to be wrong in the first place?
The problem with debating people like Sye is that when you are intellectually honest in your responses and they are not, they have an advantage because they can make claims they do not feel they have a responsiblity to justify.
Why would anyone answer yes to the question "Could everything I claim to know be wrong?" The answer is no. Furthermore, you're correct about everything you claim to know or you wouldn't hold that belief. Even if this is a game and you're just a video game character, this video game world is your reality. Anything else wouldn't be your reality because you wouldn't exist in that world.
Actually, you are incorrect. There are two easier instances which invalidate Syns nonsense. 1) The act of responding to a question validates the claim of personal existence. 2) Sy insists that Knowledge is justified true* belief. But his definition is not that it is a belief held as justified as true but a belief pointing to something factually absolutely true which is justified to be so. It slips in a lot and fsx23 missed it and failed to see that that is where Sy is dishonest about terms.
What's incorrect? Most Atheists answer his initial question with a yes because they could envisioned this world being a video game, the matrix, a dream, etc. I'm saying regardless of what this reality might be you exist in it and therefore you can not be wrong about everything you claim to know. This won't stop Sye and he'll keep going with his script but no one should be answering yes to that question. To your first point - he can claim crazy people respond to voices in their head all the time. And he'll say "How do you know your not one of these people"? To your second point - Sye wasn't dishonest about that. Everyone knows what he means when he says justified true belief. We just disagree with him. The way best way to deal with Sye is by attacking his own circular reasoning that he claims is virtuous and therefore okay. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning; he pulled "virtuous circle" right out of his ass. Finally, Sye's world view leads to more uncertainty. If I drop my keys I know it will hit the floor because of the consistency of nature. In Sye's world, if I my drop keys I can not know what will happen because according to his bible god can manipulate nature anytime he wants. God may choose to intervene and make the keys go up, go sideways, stay still, etc. Nothing is certain.
1) Responding to the question of Sy's itself, is itself a clear declaration to the correctness of the claim 'i believe I exist'. One single claim which cannot be wrong is enough. In this case Sy's question is defeated, or he is speaking to a nonexistant being. 2) Watch it again, fsx23 did not* see that Sy was shoehorning in South America in his label of 'Made in America'. Sy is being dishonest by clearly and repeatedly not pointing out a clear and distinct difference in his definitions meaning (vs the letter of the definition) and did nothing to clarify it to fsx23 when he clearly did not see the difference. Like most apologists, he is dishonest about the holes in his logic and the sad pat is that when people read apologetic nonsense they see nothing but supporting documentation vs skeptical analysis.
1. If you agree that everything you claim to know could be wrong then he will and can dismiss all of your claims including any response to his questions. How can you be sure you're even responding to him if you can be wrong about everything? You put yourself in a much harder position. 2. I only watched the first five minutes of the video. That's all I can tolerate of Sye. If he changed definitions then he was being dishonest. But at this point most people should know what he's talking about when he says justified true belief. Sye will admit there's holes in his logic. He justifies them by calling them virtuous.
1) It's not a claim of responding, it's a claim of perosnal existence. If I don't exist then I cannot respond, if I am not responding to him but what I think is him than I am still responding. I cannot know if I am responding, only that an action itself is enough for the claim of personal existence. If I don't exist then I could neither respond nor be approached. 2) Not everyone listens to him. I certainly don't. Sy can call them virtuous, but in a debate it's an act of dishonesty.
You can justify your senses and reasoning by having other people's senses and reason validate your own. We can demonstrate our reasoning to prove its validity. Sye cannot demonstrate his revelation, or that it is true, which also happens to invalidate that his revelation is knowledge.
I laughed so much when I first watched this upload, mostly at the utter frustration in STB's voice when you didn't stick to his script! But importantly, it was also when I started to unravel the dishonesty in this version of presuppositionalism: he calls the atheist position one of absurdity, but admits the very first question he poses to the atheist to show this absurdity is itself absurd (if you ask someone an absurd question, and they think you are asking an honest question, it is not that their position is absurd, but that you have tricked them into this absurd position). Counter apologetics quickly picked up on all this deception and look what has happened to these types of presuppositionalists...they took their ball and went home.
Totally "pwnd" him with the distinction between know and claim to know. He dodged it but it exposed the absurdity of his question which he has to concede should be correctly phrased: "could you be wrong about everything you know?" or "if you can be wrong about everything you claim to know, then you can't claim to know anything." Neither of which support his argument. Excellent opening, well done fsx. The guy is nothing more than a flat track bully who has learned a few philosophical terms and likes to use them as a stick to beat the unsuspecting with. He has no idea what he is talking about and that's why he wont go anywhere near Ozy. My god the pwnage would be on a biblical scale if he agreed to "chat" with Ozy! (or anybody else with academic experience in philosophy for that matter)
Excellent debate. Dont think ive seen sye get so stopped in his tracks in a debate. He tried hard to pull you back to his script many times. Well done.
In a way, Sye's argument is an answer to the question: If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it really make a sound? He is arguing that an authority on the subject has told him the answer is definite "yes". Is sound defined as the objective fluctuations in air pressure, or one's subjective experience of them? I would argue that if you accept the inherent level of uncertainty in answering "no" under the second definition that it provides you with the basis for presupposing "yes" under the first definition.
One is always right about one thing, that they exist. Everything else one needs to demolish Ten Bruggencate follows from that truth. As often as Ten Bruggencate's presuppositional apologetics has been hashed out on various forums one would think more people would avoid the trap Ten Bruggencate sets.
Dude, you totally turned those word games around on him. This is perfect. For your first debate, and it being with this guy of all people, you've gotten further with this guy showing why his argument ridiculous than everyone else I've seen debate this guy. Hopefully Matt Dillahunty sees this and takes note of Sye's exposed weak points.
Keep up the good work. And when someone questions your "world view" it may be wise to clarify by referring to it as your "perceived reality". Because by necessity, it is through your perception that you communicate and interact with the reality you perceive.
If you want to understand sye tens argument visually, simply find a live of artwork that shows... The artists hand is DRAWING something, and the creation is drawing the artists hand.
Knowledge is not based on if you happen to be right or not. Knowledge is assumed to be actually true. If someone says they COULD be wrong about everything they claim to know they don’t KNOW anything. If they know one thing they are not wrong about everything. Why is that so hard? God help us, literally.
"Your reasoning was not redeemed" ROFL Reasoning is the method of justification and it depends on what kind of standard you chose to have a valid reasoning. There are many standards[1], for example Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief. Sye Ten is using a standard of Coherentism, whether or not his believes are compatible with his believe in the bible. It's not a question if the reasoning is absolute valid or not, it's a question on whether or not we can agree to one common standard. For example, I don't believe the bible, so the reasoning Sye Ten is using to justify his believes are not valid for me. If Sye Ten wants me to adopt his reasoning, then he must argue that his standard is better then mine. For that Sye Ten must answer my question: what benefits his standard offer that my standard denies me? Sye Ten tries to justify his standard of reasoning by claiming that his reasoning leads to a better justification, that somehow god or the scripture puts any weight on the scale of whether or not a claim is justified. For anyone who does not believe in a god or the truthfulness of the scripture, those are empty arguments. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
FSX, great work. Keep going. I wouldn't bother to argue about the bible or the existence of god. After all that's not the problem. It's someone's concept of god, and perceived obligation to it where the trouble starts. Graphic I know but I usually ask "why does god enjoy watching child rape porn?". As you reason it out with them, either god does not interfere or god is evil. So they can still have god, just not as they describe it.
Referring to @6:10, and this is an extremely minor point, but it always irritates me when people react like that when confronted with a name they're not familiar with. "Where's that from?" "What nationality is that?" "How are _you_ spelling that?" (as opposed to 'how is that spelled?'). Jeez, it's just a goddamn name. Occasionally in your life, you may find uncommon or non-anglicized names that you haven't encountered before. Not worth making a song and dance about it. (Thus sayeth the white British guy called Ezekiel.)
oh my God! this guy has exposed himself as either a person who has no "knowledge" about philosophical concepts or he is being fesicious. either way, this was a complete waste of time. he doesn't get the clear and concise delineation that was made by Sye. He doesn't understand that someone who has agreed that they could be wrong about EVERYTHING they claim to know, it doesn't matter whether they end up accidentally being right about it, the point is they can't simultaneously claim to have knowledge (justified true belief) about the thing they are claiming to know, they could be wrong. being accidentally right can not be a claim to knowledge, only a coincidence even if they are right about it. He wasted so much time because he realized at some point that Syes critique about this view is right. "Could be wrong" is an admission that you can't have "knowledge" which is justified true belief. Could be wrong is an admission that you don't have justified true belief about anything you are claiming to know, and thats why admission of "Could be wrong about everything" equates to giving up knowledge. a complete waste but i learned something about this guy. he hasn't any knowledge about epistemology. a complete waste of His and my time
Good lord! Sye keeps asking the same question over and over again when he didn't like the answer and made him defend a position that wasn't really his. Because someone could be wrong about everything doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything.
I just did a quick google search for the "knowledge definition", this is what I got: noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. "a thirst for knowledge" synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; expertise, skill, proficiency, expertness, accomplishment, adeptness, capacity, capability; savoir faire; informal: know-how "his knowledge of history was small" learning, erudition, education, scholarship, letters, schooling, science; wisdom, enlightenment, philosophy "people anxious to display their knowledge" familiarity with, acquaintance with, conversance with, intimacy with "National Trust staff develop an intimate knowledge of the countryside" information, facts, data, intelligence, news, reports; lore; informal: info, gen, low-down "it is your duty to inform the police of your knowledge" antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy the sum of what is known. "the transmission of knowledge" information held on a computer system. Philosophy: true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the programme had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, recognition, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; formal: cognizance "he slipped away without my knowledge" antonyms: unawareness Firstly, it seems that the definition of the word knowledge is much more nuanced than Sye acknowledges. Secondly, when the term justified true belief is used it doesn't mean what Sye asserts it does, it refers to a claim that we have sufficient justification to accept as true, it could however, in fact, still be wrong: for example we have ample justification to believe Hitler was already the chancellor of Germany before January 1st 1934, we could be wrong about this but it's incredibly unlikely that we are, in fact it's so unlikely that we're wrong that we're justified in believing this to be true.
One thing I've never heard someone point out to sye.. he refuses to go into it if you hypothetically view it from a different world view.. and yet he always does that very thing with solipsism. When neither HE or the person hes talking to believes it. Why should you entertain it when no matter why, he doesn't believe it to be true himself
I realize it's been 6 months since you posted this comment. I as well had a hard time watching this like you. Everyone else thought that this dialogue went in favor of fsx23. What made you see differently? Or am I wrong on the translation of your comment?
I think I (ironically considering how long ago it was) finally got it - Sye thinks something is justified or not, black or white, and doesn't think you can say "I know this [with x% of confidence]".
Ultimately, a "percentage of confidence" is ~not~ "knowing"; and absolute truths ~are~ what you call 'black or white' (100% lol). Your quote, ""I *know* this [with x% of confidence]" IS an oxymoron.....(the qualifier negates the premise-claim).
justified is irrelevant agreed,using the term justified implies that you may be wrong but had legit reasons to believe it. he can't say that's the definition of knowledge but should say that is what i mean by knowledge in context of discussion.
Where does Sye Ten Bruggencate goes with his argument? If somebody could be wrong about everything, it does not mean that he is wrong about everything. He could be right about something.
***** No. As fsx23 pointed out, I could be wrong about everything, but I still would be right that I exist. Or as others pointed out, I could be wrong about everything, but I know that I'm not an omniscient god, because there are some things that I don't know.
***** Unless you understand the Gettier problems, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Certainty does not make a proposition true and uncertainty does not make a proposition false. The definition for knowledge Sye uses has nothing to do with certainty. Hopefully, he'll learn philosophy and epistemology, but I doubt it.
michael castner It is not false if the proposition is in the bounds of the uncertainty. If I say my height is 2 meter +/- 0.5m then it's true. But if I say my height is 2 meter +/- 5cm then it's false.
"Justified" in Sye's 'view' is subjective. "Absurd" is also Sye's subjective view. His view is god's existence is _his_ view is that it's 'inate.' Evidence? None at all. SMH
If you claim to know something and your knowledge is not true then you are either a lier or you're deceived. It therefore followers that your knowledge is not that you know but that you are deceived. If you don't have knowledge then what do you have ignorance, which is what fools call knowledge.
knowledge ˈnɒlɪdʒ/Submit noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. "a thirst for knowledge" synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; More learning, erudition, education, scholarship, letters, schooling, science; wisdom, enlightenment, philosophy familiarity with, acquaintance with, conversance with, intimacy with information, facts, data, intelligence, news, reports; lore; informalinfo, gen, low-down antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy the sum of what is known. "the transmission of knowledge" information held on a computer system. PHILOSOPHY true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion. 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the programme had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, recognition, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; More antonyms: unawareness 3. archaic sexual intercourse. Origin I hate philosophy when it is employed by this clown Sye. His philosophical ramblings spill over into practical reality in the most silly ways. Sye still can't prove his religion or god is true. Can't listen to Sye anymore without punching an inanimate object. Fuck you Sye, you infantile fuck pig.
I've watched this Sye guy in three or four debates on this rainy afternoon and it's very, very, VERY clear that he's following a script. He re-asks the question until he gets the answer he wants. It's that simple, and he re-defines words to mean what he says. It's clear when he gets very frustrated when you lead him off script and he gets very frustrated when you don't give him the answer he wants. He also claims that his questions are "very simple" and "yes or no" questions, which they aren't. He also twists answers to mean what he wants them to mean and outright deliberately misrepresents answers given to him (i.e. lying.). He's a charlatan of the worst kind and is to be ignored. According to the dictionary, knowledge has NOTHING to do with "belief." knowl·edge noun 1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It doesn't CARE what you believe. You can believe the sun rises in the north and sets in the south, the sun doesn't give a damn.
I thought you did great.I noticed he started preaching when he was getting frustrated with you..I bet that was Eric on the phone telling him to start preaching.lol.
Sye Ten can not win a debate simply becasue he is on the wrong side, he is simply a liar no matter how good a person is at confusing the issue you can't win when you are defending mythology. Sye doesn't understand shit, you can't be wrong about everything it's impossible you know your age you know your sex you know your name you know math 1+1=2. The question could you be wrong about everything is simply a dumb question. Sys's position is viciously circular not ours we can use the scientific method to justify our reasoning by comparing it with others people. Sye says the bible is true because the bible is true therfore god is real and he has absolute truth.
My question for evolutionists would be do you believe some people are more evolved than others now in 2015. Or are all billion people on the same "evolutionary level"
***** Is a falcon more evolved than a worm? I don't accept the assertion that there is an association between evolution and biology. You would have to prove that. Can you prove that it is possible for a human being to be reproduced biologically by anything other than a human man and woman, in a hypothetical past. You are claiming evolution is true. SO you are claiming at some point in history non-human biological life forms reproduced the first humans. What is your proof for that claim? Also you are claiming that natural processes of nature can create life at least one time. What is your proof for this claim?
***** According to the theory a worm and a falcon have been evolving for the same period of time. Evolution is a theory within biological sciences. That's how it is described, and that's where it's taught. You are free to disagree with that, but that's how it is. Evolution is a theory. Science does not deal in absolute "proof". That is left to philosophy and mathematics. Evolution is predictive, it explains observations of life on Earth, and it is consistent with what we see. It is always possible (however unlikely) that the theory is incorrect. If a better theory comes along that better explains the diversity of life on Earth I would be happy to embrace it.
***** Your assertion is that there is an association between evolution and biology. You can't prove this assertion without proving evolution exists. You admit you cannot prove evolution exists. So therefore your assertion that evolution is associated with biology is false. You claim evolution is predictive. You can't make the claim until proving evolution exists. SO that assertion is invalid. You can't claim evolution is consitent with what we see because you have not proven evolution exists. And said that it is not possible to prove it. Evolution is not consistent with what we see. We observe people reproducing people. Evolutionists claim people come from biological life that is not human. Yet we do not observe this ever happen. As well evolutionists claim nature creates life,yet we do not ever observe nature creating life. So we don't observe evolution. Why can't science deal in absolute truth. Who said so? So its not absolutely true that the Sun emits heat?
***** "Science does not deal in absolute "proof". Is this claim sometimes true or always true? And this is not a trick question , but rather showing the absurdity within your statement.
No, it's just a word trick when Sye says 'claim to know' and then changes it to just 'know', he's a very dishonest person but he's a Christian so that's not surprising.
How do I know I'm not one of those people? I can ask you, since you can appeal to God. AM I ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE?! No... So what the fuck are we talking about.
Interesting. Every time I watch this, it's not only funny to see Mister Bruggy Owens get his ass kicked but how he always exemplifies why it is his position that actually leads to absurdity. One thing that is the most common subtlety is this video is how he loves to equivocate incorrect/uncertain information ("if you can be wring about everything you know") with learning disability or impaired judgment ("than you don't know anything"). Beware of this tactic. Also, the impossibility of "giving up knowledge" when you never had the knowledge or the correct one to begin with. More word games. Also, that there is actually a way to justify reason with reason, in a way that actually breaks the circularity. Zero focus on validating the tool and full focus on the task. When finished, step back, take the information in through your sense and process it through your reasons. Circularity broken and nonexistent. Hahaha, Sye is a complete joke.
god either exist or he doesn't, and although i don't hold this view but i can be the most unreasonable person who doesn't know anything, that still says nothing about theists position.
Ok, Sye. Show your beliefs to be true and justify your belief, before you can call it knowledge. That includes your "knowledge" of a creator and THEN any revelation you "know" because he revealed it. Special pleading to the extreme which YOU say is a fallacious argument.
He (as you know, unless this the first time you've seen one of these lol) doesn't waste his breath and others' time 'proving' what people already know themselves. Your ~religious~ thumbnail there is an 'inductive proof' that *you* know your Creator exists (and you're just all pissed off about it for whatever reason[s]). You know (as well as everyone else who's considered it) that ~logic~ and ~inductive/deductive reasoning~ are NOT a result of your fabled "BigBang/Random 'Evolution' " version of History, but of your actual situation as a rebellious creation in a Purpose-Built Environment, who was Given the very faculties of reason he/you pretends to have invented his/your self. I'm sure your anger is genuine, but your feigned naivety about yourself and your environment makes you look silly at the same time.
I’m wondering if you have hit your knees and prayed to God to grant you repentance yet? I’m praying for you…. If you’d like to reverse engineer proof for the existence of God, consider looking into the occult.. They know God exists but deny him for temporary power on earth… Just be careful. No joke
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
"If you can't answer my misleading questions the way I want than I'm leaving! *pouts*" -Sye Bruggencate 2014
I don't think they fixed the echo because I keep hearing Sye say the same thing over and over.
No, I think they set his brain on stun.
That's hilarious. Well played sir
LOL!
Damien Borden, EXACTLY, lmfao!
Sye repeats his statements to make a point. Atheists can't concede the point because doing so would admit failure in their atheistic worldview.
You are, officially, the most patient person I know.
Lol. Ikr. I'd wanna punch him
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Discussion starts at 6:05
If you say you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, keep in mind you could be wrong when you make that claim.
2nd time listening. You frustrated the living CRAP out of Sye. That in and of itself makes my day. You turned the tables on him as this is what he does to most everyone he debates. You knew the answers he wanted, the answers he DEPENDS on in order to force you to play his game. Absolutely brilliant.
Guaranteed he will refuse to debate you ever again.
The guy who thinks the president's initials are B.O. does know it according to Sye's definition. It's justified. It's belief. And it's true.
You were brilliant EfEsEx, one of the best sye debates.
It's a shame Sye is a madman.
1)Can you both know but not know the same thing simultaneously (in the same time) in the same way.
2)Can something exist and not exist as the same thing.
3)can you claim and not claim at the same time.
4)Can you know and not know at the same time?
5)Can you know and not know the same knowledge?
5)Can you can't can and can with can as you can.
Answer you can't.
Finally, When you know at that very points you cease from not knowing.
2) When you claim at that point you cease from not claiming.
3)When you claim knowing then at that very points you cease from not claiming.
4)When you claim knowing then at that very points not knowing is not your claim.
Finally when you claim to know something and not know something you have lyed.
29:36 I tip my hat to you for continuing to hold back on Sye after he threw that condescending insult at you.
You did well demonstrating the foolishness of the presup approach by using logic, reasoning, and I think I'll finally subscribe.
EDIT: Wow, that last part really struck me.. how can he not see that if you were wrong about existing then you wouldn't even exist to be wrong in the first place?
The problem with debating people like Sye is that when you are intellectually honest in your responses and they are not, they have an advantage because they can make claims they do not feel they have a responsiblity to justify.
Why would anyone answer yes to the question "Could everything I claim to know be wrong?" The answer is no. Furthermore, you're correct about everything you claim to know or you wouldn't hold that belief. Even if this is a game and you're just a video game character, this video game world is your reality. Anything else wouldn't be your reality because you wouldn't exist in that world.
Actually, you are incorrect.
There are two easier instances which invalidate Syns nonsense.
1) The act of responding to a question validates the claim of personal existence.
2) Sy insists that Knowledge is justified true* belief. But his definition is not that it is a belief held as justified as true but a belief pointing to something factually absolutely true which is justified to be so.
It slips in a lot and fsx23 missed it and failed to see that that is where Sy is dishonest about terms.
What's incorrect? Most Atheists answer his initial question with a yes because they could envisioned this world being a video game, the matrix, a dream, etc. I'm saying regardless of what this reality might be you exist in it and therefore you can not be wrong about everything you claim to know. This won't stop Sye and he'll keep going with his script but no one should be answering yes to that question.
To your first point - he can claim crazy people respond to voices in their head all the time. And he'll say "How do you know your not one of these people"? To your second point - Sye wasn't dishonest about that. Everyone knows what he means when he says justified true belief. We just disagree with him.
The way best way to deal with Sye is by attacking his own circular reasoning that he claims is virtuous and therefore okay. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning; he pulled "virtuous circle" right out of his ass.
Finally, Sye's world view leads to more uncertainty. If I drop my keys I know it will hit the floor because of the consistency of nature. In Sye's world, if I my drop keys I can not know what will happen because according to his bible god can manipulate nature anytime he wants. God may choose to intervene and make the keys go up, go sideways, stay still, etc. Nothing is certain.
1) Responding to the question of Sy's itself, is itself a clear declaration to the correctness of the claim 'i believe I exist'. One single claim which cannot be wrong is enough. In this case Sy's question is defeated, or he is speaking to a nonexistant being.
2) Watch it again, fsx23 did not* see that Sy was shoehorning in South America in his label of 'Made in America'.
Sy is being dishonest by clearly and repeatedly not pointing out a clear and distinct difference in his definitions meaning (vs the letter of the definition) and did nothing to clarify it to fsx23 when he clearly did not see the difference.
Like most apologists, he is dishonest about the holes in his logic and the sad pat is that when people read apologetic nonsense they see nothing but supporting documentation vs skeptical analysis.
1. If you agree that everything you claim to know could be wrong then he will and can dismiss all of your claims including any response to his questions. How can you be sure you're even responding to him if you can be wrong about everything? You put yourself in a much harder position.
2. I only watched the first five minutes of the video. That's all I can tolerate of Sye. If he changed definitions then he was being dishonest. But at this point most people should know what he's talking about when he says justified true belief.
Sye will admit there's holes in his logic. He justifies them by calling them virtuous.
1) It's not a claim of responding, it's a claim of perosnal existence. If I don't exist then I cannot respond, if I am not responding to him but what I think is him than I am still responding. I cannot know if I am responding, only that an action itself is enough for the claim of personal existence. If I don't exist then I could neither respond nor be approached.
2) Not everyone listens to him. I certainly don't.
Sy can call them virtuous, but in a debate it's an act of dishonesty.
Sye needs to get his definitions right: Know- "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information."
Your patience is admirable.
I wish the audio were better. This is a riot! It should be set to music! It's like "who's on first".
You can justify your senses and reasoning by having other people's senses and reason validate your own. We can demonstrate our reasoning to prove its validity. Sye cannot demonstrate his revelation, or that it is true, which also happens to invalidate that his revelation is knowledge.
it was cool Sye helped you out with the new setup.
I laughed so much when I first watched this upload, mostly at the utter frustration in STB's voice when you didn't stick to his script! But importantly, it was also when I started to unravel the dishonesty in this version of presuppositionalism: he calls the atheist position one of absurdity, but admits the very first question he poses to the atheist to show this absurdity is itself absurd (if you ask someone an absurd question, and they think you are asking an honest question, it is not that their position is absurd, but that you have tricked them into this absurd position).
Counter apologetics quickly picked up on all this deception and look what has happened to these types of presuppositionalists...they took their ball and went home.
Great debate, fsx23! Given the circumstances, you managed to throw him off his game. Kudos!
This is the best she video on RUclips. Hilarious. Finally someone tangles up his brain for once instead of the other way around 🤣
I never believed that one could beat some sense into anyone , but I would like to try it with Sye
Totally "pwnd" him with the distinction between know and claim to know. He dodged it but it exposed the absurdity of his question which he has to concede should be correctly phrased: "could you be wrong about everything you know?" or "if you can be wrong about everything you claim to know, then you can't claim to know anything."
Neither of which support his argument.
Excellent opening, well done fsx.
The guy is nothing more than a flat track bully who has learned a few philosophical terms and likes to use them as a stick to beat the unsuspecting with. He has no idea what he is talking about and that's why he wont go anywhere near Ozy.
My god the pwnage would be on a biblical scale if he agreed to "chat" with Ozy! (or anybody else with academic experience in philosophy for that matter)
sye got fucked with his own definition :D that was great. thanks fsx23 you did so good at showing how flawed he is.
Excellent debate. Dont think ive seen sye get so stopped in his tracks in a debate. He tried hard to pull you back to his script many times. Well done.
Word games. This reminds me of "Who's on First".
I claim to know that "I am not omniscient" is a true statement about me.
In a way, Sye's argument is an answer to the question: If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it really make a sound? He is arguing that an authority on the subject has told him the answer is definite "yes".
Is sound defined as the objective fluctuations in air pressure, or one's subjective experience of them?
I would argue that if you accept the inherent level of uncertainty in answering "no" under the second definition that it provides you with the basis for presupposing "yes" under the first definition.
if i could be wrong about everything means i potencially dont know nothing, including the existence of god. i dont know that god exist
fsx23 , i think you did very well in this dbate, you got sye frustrated.
Melvin Bryant lololol I'm surprised this comment doesn't have an echo 😂
fsx23, props for trying to debate Sye, but man this is sad to watch.
You can reason to an absolute truth, because God created the ability to reason. And God exists because you can reason to an absolute truth.
One of the best exhibitions of rope-a-dope ever.
He could be wrong about everything he CLAIMS to know, but not about everything that he actually knows.
you "know" that you might be wrong about everything. so in the end you still know something.
One is always right about one thing, that they exist. Everything else one needs to demolish Ten Bruggencate follows from that truth. As often as Ten Bruggencate's presuppositional apologetics has been hashed out on various forums one would think more people would avoid the trap Ten Bruggencate sets.
Im a christian and i like you fsx23 although we are at complete opposite it would be cool to sit down and chill with you ha Grace and Peace bro
Dude, you totally turned those word games around on him. This is perfect. For your first debate, and it being with this guy of all people, you've gotten further with this guy showing why his argument ridiculous than everyone else I've seen debate this guy. Hopefully Matt Dillahunty sees this and takes note of Sye's exposed weak points.
using reason to validate your reason is indeed circular. but using reason to 'invalidate' reason is like a divide by zero error,
How do you know your reasoning is justified I'm alive and I get through my days without others taking care of me :-)
Keep up the good work.
And when someone questions your "world view" it may be wise to clarify by referring to it as your "perceived reality". Because by necessity, it is through your perception that you communicate and interact with the reality you perceive.
If you want to understand sye tens argument visually, simply find a live of artwork that shows...
The artists hand is DRAWING something, and the creation is drawing the artists hand.
Knowledge is not based on if you happen to be right or not. Knowledge is assumed to be actually true. If someone says they COULD be wrong about everything they claim to know they don’t KNOW anything. If they know one thing they are not wrong about everything. Why is that so hard? God help us, literally.
"Your reasoning was not redeemed" ROFL
Reasoning is the method of justification and it depends on what kind of standard you chose to have a valid reasoning. There are many standards[1], for example Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief. Sye Ten
is using a standard of Coherentism, whether or not his believes are compatible with his believe in the bible. It's not a question if the reasoning is absolute valid or not, it's a question on whether or not we can agree to one common standard. For example, I don't believe the bible, so the reasoning Sye Ten is using to justify his believes are not valid for me. If Sye Ten wants me to adopt his reasoning, then he must argue that his standard is better then mine. For that Sye Ten must answer my question: what benefits his standard offer that my standard denies me?
Sye Ten tries to justify his standard of reasoning by claiming that his reasoning leads to a better justification, that somehow god or the scripture puts any weight on the scale of whether or not a claim is justified. For anyone who does not believe in a god or the truthfulness of the scripture, those are empty arguments.
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
FSX, great work. Keep going. I wouldn't bother to argue about the bible or the existence of god. After all that's not the problem. It's someone's concept of god, and perceived obligation to it where the trouble starts.
Graphic I know but I usually ask "why does god enjoy watching child rape porn?". As you reason it out with them, either god does not interfere or god is evil.
So they can still have god, just not as they describe it.
Referring to @6:10, and this is an extremely minor point, but it always irritates me when people react like that when confronted with a name they're not familiar with. "Where's that from?" "What nationality is that?" "How are _you_ spelling that?" (as opposed to 'how is that spelled?').
Jeez, it's just a goddamn name. Occasionally in your life, you may find uncommon or non-anglicized names that you haven't encountered before. Not worth making a song and dance about it.
(Thus sayeth the white British guy called Ezekiel.)
Ha ha ha ha. That was funny. Give Sye a taste of his own twisted illogic.
oh my God! this guy has exposed himself as either a person who has no "knowledge" about philosophical concepts or he is being fesicious. either way, this was a complete waste of time. he doesn't get the clear and concise delineation that was made by Sye.
He doesn't understand that someone who has agreed that they could be wrong about EVERYTHING they claim to know, it doesn't matter whether they end up accidentally being right about it, the point is they can't simultaneously claim to have knowledge (justified true belief) about the thing they are claiming to know, they could be wrong. being accidentally right can not be a claim to knowledge, only a coincidence even if they are right about it.
He wasted so much time because he realized at some point that Syes critique about this view is right.
"Could be wrong" is an admission that you can't have "knowledge" which is justified true belief. Could be wrong is an admission that you don't have justified true belief about anything you are claiming to know, and thats why admission of "Could be wrong about everything" equates to giving up knowledge.
a complete waste but i learned something about this guy. he hasn't any knowledge about epistemology. a complete waste of His and my time
Good lord! Sye keeps asking the same question over and over again when he didn't like the answer and made him defend a position that wasn't really his. Because someone could be wrong about everything doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything.
Jesus has to do a work in this guy's heart.
If you ever need help with hangout let me know
I just did a quick google search for the "knowledge definition", this is what I got:
noun
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms:
understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; expertise, skill, proficiency, expertness, accomplishment, adeptness, capacity, capability;
savoir faire;
informal: know-how
"his knowledge of history was small"
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, letters, schooling, science;
wisdom, enlightenment, philosophy
"people anxious to display their knowledge"
familiarity with, acquaintance with, conversance with, intimacy with
"National Trust staff develop an intimate knowledge of the countryside"
information, facts, data, intelligence, news, reports;
lore;
informal: info, gen, low-down
"it is your duty to inform the police of your knowledge"
antonyms:
ignorance, illiteracy
the sum of what is known. "the transmission of knowledge"
information held on a computer system.
Philosophy: true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the programme had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms:
awareness, consciousness, realization, recognition, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation;
formal: cognizance
"he slipped away without my knowledge"
antonyms:
unawareness
Firstly, it seems that the definition of the word knowledge is much more nuanced than Sye acknowledges. Secondly, when the term justified true belief is used it doesn't mean what Sye asserts it does, it refers to a claim that we have sufficient justification to accept as true, it could however, in fact, still be wrong: for example we have ample justification to believe Hitler was already the chancellor of Germany before January 1st 1934, we could be wrong about this but it's incredibly unlikely that we are, in fact it's so unlikely that we're wrong that we're justified in believing this to be true.
One thing I've never heard someone point out to sye.. he refuses to go into it if you hypothetically view it from a different world view.. and yet he always does that very thing with solipsism. When neither HE or the person hes talking to believes it. Why should you entertain it when no matter why, he doesn't believe it to be true himself
God Bless Sye for this one...I personally wouldn't have the patience to endure this kind of obstinance...It's like pulling teeth...very hard to watch.
I realize it's been 6 months since you posted this comment. I as well had a hard time watching this like you. Everyone else thought that this dialogue went in favor of fsx23. What made you see differently? Or am I wrong on the translation of your comment?
I think I (ironically considering how long ago it was) finally got it - Sye thinks something is justified or not, black or white, and doesn't think you can say "I know this [with x% of confidence]".
Ultimately, a "percentage of confidence" is ~not~ "knowing"; and absolute truths ~are~ what you call 'black or white' (100% lol). Your quote, ""I *know* this [with x% of confidence]" IS an oxymoron.....(the qualifier negates the premise-claim).
justified is irrelevant agreed,using the term justified implies that you may be wrong but had legit reasons to believe it.
he can't say that's the definition of knowledge but should say that is what i mean by knowledge in context of discussion.
I love how FSX made him work hard. Lol
Try plugging in your head phones
Where does Sye Ten Bruggencate goes with his argument? If somebody could be wrong about everything, it does not mean that he is wrong about everything. He could be right about something.
*****
No. As fsx23 pointed out, I could be wrong about everything, but I still would be right that I exist. Or as others pointed out, I could be wrong about everything, but I know that I'm not an omniscient god, because there are some things that I don't know.
Sye doesn't understand the *Gettier problem* with knowledge. Certainty is not necessary.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
***** Unless you understand the Gettier problems, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Certainty does not make a proposition true and uncertainty does not make a proposition false. The definition for knowledge Sye uses has nothing to do with certainty. Hopefully, he'll learn philosophy and epistemology, but I doubt it.
SpaceTimeMachine That would be a good question to ask Sye.Does uncertainty make a proposition false.
michael castner
It is not false if the proposition is in the bounds of the uncertainty.
If I say my height is 2 meter +/- 0.5m then it's true. But if I say my height is 2 meter +/- 5cm then it's false.
"Justified" in Sye's 'view' is subjective. "Absurd" is also Sye's subjective view. His view is god's existence is _his_ view is that it's 'inate.' Evidence? None at all. SMH
If you claim to know something and your knowledge is not true then you are either a lier or you're deceived. It therefore followers that your knowledge is not that you know but that you are deceived.
If you don't have knowledge then what do you have ignorance, which is what fools call knowledge.
knowledge
ˈnɒlɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; More
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, letters, schooling, science;
wisdom, enlightenment, philosophy
familiarity with, acquaintance with, conversance with, intimacy with
information, facts, data, intelligence, news, reports;
lore;
informalinfo, gen, low-down
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
the sum of what is known.
"the transmission of knowledge"
information held on a computer system.
PHILOSOPHY
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the programme had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, recognition, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; More
antonyms: unawareness
3.
archaic
sexual intercourse.
Origin
I hate philosophy when it is employed by this clown Sye. His philosophical ramblings spill over into practical reality in the most silly ways. Sye still can't prove his religion or god is true. Can't listen to Sye anymore without punching an inanimate object. Fuck you Sye, you infantile fuck pig.
I've watched this Sye guy in three or four debates on this rainy afternoon and it's very, very, VERY clear that he's following a script. He re-asks the question until he gets the answer he wants. It's that simple, and he re-defines words to mean what he says. It's clear when he gets very frustrated when you lead him off script and he gets very frustrated when you don't give him the answer he wants. He also claims that his questions are "very simple" and "yes or no" questions, which they aren't. He also twists answers to mean what he wants them to mean and outright deliberately misrepresents answers given to him (i.e. lying.).
He's a charlatan of the worst kind and is to be ignored.
According to the dictionary, knowledge has NOTHING to do with "belief."
knowl·edge
noun
1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It doesn't CARE what you believe. You can believe the sun rises in the north and sets in the south, the sun doesn't give a damn.
Well done fsx23 good job at pissing STB off. Nicely done.
Good Job. You didn't let him patronise you.
Sye is such a one trick defective My Little Pony
I thought you did great.I noticed he started preaching when he was getting frustrated with you..I bet that was Eric on the phone telling him to start preaching.lol.
LOL @ the row of shiny 'religious art' behind the ~atheist's~ head.....
assume the position...
LOL
Sye Ten can not win a debate simply becasue he is on the wrong side, he is simply a liar no matter how good a person is at confusing the issue you can't win when you are defending mythology.
Sye doesn't understand shit, you can't be wrong about everything it's impossible you know your age you know your sex you know your name you know math 1+1=2. The question could you be wrong about everything is simply a dumb question.
Sys's position is viciously circular not ours we can use the scientific method to justify our reasoning by comparing it with others people. Sye says the bible is true because the bible is true therfore god is real and he has absolute truth.
My question for evolutionists would be do you believe some people are more evolved than others now in 2015.
Or are all billion people on the same "evolutionary level"
More or less evolved isn't really a concept in biology.
***** Is a falcon more evolved than a worm?
I don't accept the assertion that there is an association between evolution and biology.
You would have to prove that.
Can you prove that it is possible for a human being to be reproduced biologically
by anything other than a human man and woman, in a hypothetical past.
You are claiming evolution is true. SO you are claiming at some point in history non-human biological life forms reproduced the first humans.
What is your proof for that claim?
Also you are claiming that natural processes of nature can create life at least one time.
What is your proof for this claim?
***** According to the theory a worm and a falcon have been evolving for the same period of time.
Evolution is a theory within biological sciences. That's how it is described, and that's where it's taught. You are free to disagree with that, but that's how it is.
Evolution is a theory. Science does not deal in absolute "proof". That is left to philosophy and mathematics. Evolution is predictive, it explains observations of life on Earth, and it is consistent with what we see.
It is always possible (however unlikely) that the theory is incorrect. If a better theory comes along that better explains the diversity of life on Earth I would be happy to embrace it.
***** Your assertion is that there is an association between evolution and biology.
You can't prove this assertion without proving evolution exists. You admit you cannot prove evolution exists. So therefore your assertion that evolution is associated with biology is false.
You claim evolution is predictive. You can't make the claim until proving evolution exists.
SO that assertion is invalid.
You can't claim evolution is consitent with what we see because you have not proven evolution exists. And said that it is not possible to prove it.
Evolution is not consistent with what we see.
We observe people reproducing people.
Evolutionists claim people come from biological life that is not human. Yet we do not observe this ever happen.
As well evolutionists claim nature creates life,yet we do not ever observe nature creating life.
So we don't observe evolution.
Why can't science deal in absolute truth.
Who said so?
So its not absolutely true that the Sun emits heat?
*****
"Science does not deal in absolute "proof". Is this claim sometimes true or always true? And this is not a trick question , but rather showing the absurdity within your statement.
You lost this debate, because, you believe that if you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, you can still know things. That's absurd.
No, it's just a word trick when Sye says 'claim to know' and then changes it to just 'know', he's a very dishonest person but he's a Christian so that's not surprising.
How do I know I'm not one of those people? I can ask you, since you can appeal to God. AM I ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE?! No... So what the fuck are we talking about.
Farid doesn’t get it😂
Interesting. Every time I watch this, it's not only funny to see Mister Bruggy Owens get his ass kicked but how he always exemplifies why it is his position that actually leads to absurdity.
One thing that is the most common subtlety is this video is how he loves to equivocate incorrect/uncertain information ("if you can be wring about everything you know") with learning disability or impaired judgment ("than you don't know anything"). Beware of this tactic.
Also, the impossibility of "giving up knowledge" when you never had the knowledge or the correct one to begin with. More word games.
Also, that there is actually a way to justify reason with reason, in a way that actually breaks the circularity. Zero focus on validating the tool and full focus on the task. When finished, step back, take the information in through your sense and process it through your reasons. Circularity broken and nonexistent.
Hahaha, Sye is a complete joke.
All this philosophical mumbo jumbo from a guy that doesn't know that the bible is not just a book in the matrix.
Please do well to keep track of the details that take palce in the argument. In this debate you did not do a good job. I say that to help you think
god either exist or he doesn't, and although i don't hold this view but i can be the most unreasonable person who doesn't know anything, that still says nothing about theists position.
Whats wrong with this Farid dude lol It doesnt matter if the claim he makes ends up being true or false, he didnt know
Ok, Sye. Show your beliefs to be true and justify your belief, before you can call it knowledge. That includes your "knowledge" of a creator and THEN any revelation you "know" because he revealed it.
Special pleading to the extreme which YOU say is a fallacious argument.
He (as you know, unless this the first time you've seen one of these lol) doesn't waste his breath and others' time 'proving' what people already know themselves. Your ~religious~ thumbnail there is an 'inductive proof' that *you* know your Creator exists (and you're just all pissed off about it for whatever reason[s]).
You know (as well as everyone else who's considered it) that ~logic~ and ~inductive/deductive reasoning~ are NOT a result of your fabled "BigBang/Random 'Evolution' " version of History, but of your actual situation as a rebellious creation in a Purpose-Built Environment, who was Given the very faculties of reason he/you pretends to have invented his/your self.
I'm sure your anger is genuine, but your feigned naivety about yourself and your environment makes you look silly at the same time.
I’m wondering if you have hit your knees and prayed to God to grant you repentance yet? I’m praying for you…. If you’d like to reverse engineer proof for the existence of God, consider looking into the occult.. They know God exists but deny him for temporary power on earth… Just be careful. No joke
Please stop repeating, instead point out why nobody can have absolute knowledge, (this was painful...)
Terrible mic and you stepped in with a giant and you were a fly. Worse atheist debater I’ve ever seen. God have mercy on you soul sir
lol 19 minutes to admit you can't know something to be true that's not true