Matt's only mistake was accepting an invitation to debate Sye. Sye is a giant troll whose ego is self fertilized when ever anyone pays him any attention.

Sye's "case" boils down to I am right, I cannot possibly be wrong, even challenging my position requires that you hold my position, and you all hold my position, anyway. What kind of debater thinks this way, let alone TALKS this way?

A good, balanced analysis of some of the high and low points of the Sye Ten Bruggencate / Dillahunty debate where, to his credit, Dillahunty includes his own missteps and missed opportunities. A good portion of this video is devoted to clarifying the confusion that results from people using casual idioms such as 'my reality' and 'your reality', when what people mean literally is 'My _model of_ reality' or "Your _model about_ reality'. When the word 'reality' is used figuratively to refer, not to reality, but to our beliefs, models, perceptions, or representations _of and about_ reality itself, it engenders all sorts of semantics confusions. Such semantic confusion can be avoided by bearing in mind that the concept of reality is the _object_ or _target of_ one's inner model; it's not constituted by our beliefs, perceptions, or representations of reality. If our inner models _about_ reality actually constituted reality, we could never be mistaken, since the model would _be_ the reality. Talk of 'my reality' or 'according to your reality' or 'in your reality' is figurative language and forgetting that fact commonly leads people to confuse the map with the territory. Cheers, - Ozy

I did watch this one, but I've got to say I had a really hard time finishing it. Sye was really making me upset with his flat out lying!

Premise 1: "It is reasonable to believe that which is true" Premise 2: "It is true that I am god" Therefore: It is reasonable to believe I am god.

Awesome video Matt. Been wanting to see rundowns or reviews of debates many times. Glad you decided to make one for this one!

This is a fantastically made video, and I can't wait to go through all of them. Very well done.

Next time anyone has a debate with a presuppositionalist I propose there be a third debater who simply copies everything the presupper says but argues in favor of some other god, Odin perhaps. "Well of course Odin exists, in fact, you all know he exists and merely deny it." "1. It is reasonable to believe that which is true 2. It is true that Odin exists. 3. It is reasonable to believe in Odin." "I don't have runestone studies with those who don't believe in lord Odin."

This is a nice deconstruction. It seems I've forgotten how a proper, sober argument unfolds and it's nice to have a slow A/V tear-down of a painfully obvious argument as a refresher. Thanks for taking the time to make this.

Great job, Matt. You should do more of this. Perhaps even evaluate and analyse other people's debates.

I have watched this debate a couple of times .. and really enjoying matts commentary :)

I love that 5 minutes into this video he absolutely destroyed Bruggencate’s faulty argument. The video could stop right there and it would still be a great rebuttal.

Great walk-through Matt!

it realy helps me a lot to understands this things about this arguments. because i dont have idea knowledge in understanding the complexity of argument in debates. thanks Matt.

I absolutely love this deconstruction/review style. Just a great vid! :)

Your statements about reality match my own thoughts perfectly. I was actually unsure about the rationality of them, but this was reassuring to hear.

Bad ass as always Matt. I really appreciate you doing these types of videos.

I am so glad you deal with Sye's first premise "it's reasonable to believe true things" in this video. Watching you pass that up was a very trying part of watching that debate.

A great video. Looking forward for more.

I argued with Matt Slick of carm recently, and he tried to pull the same shit with the "ultimate reality VS experienced reality"

Matt did a great job I think. I don't think it's possible to actually win a debate like this. It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

found the review after i watched the discussion >20 times to understand *every* point, could have saved lots of time. thumb up

I've been waiting for this

Great video Matt. Arguments expertly shredded by the king of debates.

"Jesus Christ is King" Why is it that Christians worship the supposed half-man Jesus. Should they worship only their god? Is it that they feel more comfortable with the philosophy expounded by JC as detailed in the bible and sticking to Jesus allows them to partition the abhorrent god of the Old Testament in their minds?

I'm glad you made this video. As a philosophy grad, I thought you did a good job during the debate, but you didn't really analyze the nitty gritty. I was ok with that, because it was a live debate situation, but I'm glad you have taken the time to go over it now.

Some of your best work Matt.

Some things you will see in these comments: - Creationists in love with Sye because they think his arguments mean they don't have to present evidence for their crazy ideas anymore. - Creationists calling this video "damage control" and laughing it off without addressing any of the points made in it. - Some Syeclones copypasta-ing some argument's out a script and then not bothering to reply to any responses. - Syeclones claiming they can read your mind. Turn back now.

Awesome. This was much more interesting than I thought hearing about Sye again would be :p

Although there were times in the past, (Atheism+ scraps) that I did not enjoy your positions, you have completely won me over and it is entirely agreeable to be learning rather than rejecting. Thanks for this upload which I enjoyed. As an unbeliever (covering my ass), I am confident that the atheist views you publicly express in debates, speeches, etc. will largely mirror my own, and I am happy to have such a spokesman.

trolls on here are pretty funny... imagine the mindset of someone who witnesses sye's pouting, babyish performance in this debate and thinks "that! I wanna be like that!"... it's not easy :)

@15:08 I LOVED this part and wanted so badly for this to be said during the debate 😮‍💨

I've heard many objections to the Sye version of the presupp, but I have to admit that's the first time I've heard or considered an objection based on their use of the word "absurdity". And yet now you mention it, it's so obvious. I mean, if his definition of absurdity is a world where hard solipsism cannot ever be disproved, but that is in fact how it truly is, then all he's claiming is reality is absurd, in his less than humble opinion. First, I'd say he's got a strange definition of absurdity. And second, so what; 'you can't always get what you want'. :) I'm happy to live in a world where hard solipsism will always remain a question.

That was great. Way to nail the format.

As always Matt, you are extremely careful and thorough in your analysis and much admired. Ultimately though, I feel there is an inevitability about debates with people who have strongly held beliefs. They won't listen to you and you continue to be frustrated by their abstinence. I feel they are only debating to boost their status and therefore their hold on power and finances. I would ask them if they obey Jesus when he said things such as sell all that you have and give to the poor and if you do not hate your family then you cannot be my disciple and give unto him that asketh of thee etc. Good luck, be free and godless.

When I first watched this debate I got so thrown by his first supposition that I couldn't concentrate on the rest. Thanks for clearing it up. That guys arguments reminded me of Religious Instruction lessons in my Catholic school.

A good demonstration of whether it is reasonable to believe something that is true is to look back in history. If you told a medieval monk that it is possible to build a 442 tonne machine that could fly around the world, would it be reasonable for him to believe that? Of course not! The fact that it is true, and humanity now takes it for granted, does not make the monk's disbelief unreasonable.

Will you be including any material from the post-debate interview in this review? I was astonished that both Sye and Eric acknowledged receiving contradictory 'revelations from God' regarding baptism; yet failed to realize the implications of this.

Nice. i see the way it works, i too did not realize P1 was flawed..

I'm glad Matt presented an analysis of Sye . It's not about the best facts it's the character that matters .

Good explanatory video

the reason i hate turn based debates is because it's easier for people like sye to dodge questions/arguments and use all kinds of absurd apologetics and strawmans.

Dear God, there's a problem with your system when people like Sye and Matt Slick are left to present tortured word salad logic as proof that a divine immortal being took the time to create both of them, and the rest of us.

Matt Dillahunty You have a level of patience that eclipses most others'. The "we don't need evidence, you know I'm right" apologists should be required to have labels warning people of the dangers of high blood pressure when being around them.

Nice! I feel proud of myself now for catching that problem with premise one right from the start now. I don't really think Sye is worth this much brain power, but a good exercise in critical thinking nonetheless. Thanks!

Someone has to build a literal Straw Matt. :)

Dang... Matt is harder on himself then I was... good on you Matt! :D I tentatively granted p1 just because I could eat p2 anyway. But p1 is bad, bad, bad, bad! As you rightly said here. :)

Good job Matt

Very well done

Thanks Matt

Man that debate was rough to watch. Sye really made the whole thing incredibly tedious by saying so much, but not really saying much with actual substance to back him up in any way. Nice to see this dismantling that whole event from both sides.

Congrats on the win mate, absolute blood bath in there.

great fun!!!

Great respect to you Matt......A rational counterpoint to Sye's nonsensical tourettism. I don't know how you have the patience to deal with that fool.

I disagree with Sye's premise one, "It's reasonable to believe that which is true". I think the two are unrelated. Like, "It's a good idea to own an object that is green". As you pointed out, at one time it was reasonable to believe the earth is flat. That didn't make it flat.

Matt, if you can somehow find the time and money, I would like for you to pursue a doctorate in philosophy, you've got the mind and passion for it.

One easy way to prove Sye is a complete and utter liar, who doesn't believe in his own remarks, is this. In his opening statement, he says "This debate is over". Well...if this debate is over, how come he didn't stand up and walk out? Why did he continue, if it was supposed to be over? I thought lying was against the ten commandments?

Loved it. :)

Matt you are so smart!!

The most shocking thing is that he has a relative named “Greenberry”.

Wow, not only does this argument cut to the bone. It breaks the bone and eats the marrow too. Yet there is more to say. I look forward to the next parts.

This debate just made me angry. I consider the position Sye took to be philosophical playground games. Just playing around with our fuzzy language to make precise truth claims. It's almost like someone trying to extract more data out of a pixel in a digitized image than actually exists in that pixel. Matt says it honestly: "To the best of our imaging capabilities, and with all of the experience we have in imaging, I conclude that this pixel represents exactly one pixel of data, and nothing more." Sye and his kin try to say: "Ah, but have you considered what's inside the pixel? In there is the confirmation and validation of all my beliefs!" You can't extract more data from a pixel than a pixel, and you can't philosophize more meaning using language which is, by necessity, limited to a quantized amount. When you try to dig deeper than the "pixel", as it were, you enter a fanciful world where any explanation becomes valid, especially if it supports your worldview, and language be damned if its poor resolution can't justify your claims, you just say it can, because no one can challenge you. Bullshit, Sye. Bullshit.

After the 17 minute mark Matts views start to take on a whole new understanding for me. Like it starts becoming clear about Syes flaws.

I notice some comments are deleted in certain threads , same in AXP. I can’t imagine Matt or AXP censoring comments, so is there some set up rules that will result in removal? It usually tends to be a juicy comment with lots of replies, but I cannot see the original.

Sye thinks he can just argue his particular god into existence. Hate to break it to you, Sye, but simply having a "world view" doesn't mean, your "world view" is correct, even if it seems consistent to you (it isn't). The Lord of the Rings is way more consistent than the BIble. It doesn't mean Gollum is real. I can come up with a thousand consistent world views. So what? _Without evidence, a sack of claims is worth the sack_ - me

i will watch it later.

Funny how *Sye* is actually quite a good caricature of what a lot of Christians would like an *atheist* to be like - rude, arrogant, dismissive, deluded, conceited, aggressive....

My only comment on this Debate is that you do not ever see the Apologist's doing such "Honest" reviews like Matt

how does sye knows that his revelation is not from satan??afterall satan would say he is the god,right?

"I'm not a brain in a vat." "How do you know?" "The vat-piercing god revealed it to me." "And how do you know THAT's not a vat-illusion?" aaaand wait for the crickets.

When sye states "you can't know anything without god, one could just say "I know that I am not the god u worship". And he would have to either concede that there is a chance I am god or not. and this post type of mentality is what makes.Religion so destructive and dangerous. One who "knows" he is right and CANNOT be wrong. This mentality allows perfectly good people to commit atrocities

"Revelation from God" = "Cuz I said so."

for those who don't realy do any critical thinking, believing a god exists is quite reasonable, based entirely on ones ignorence of coarse. Dispence with ignorence and you dispence with god.

Will you be covering the debate between Sean Carroll and WLC? And if he won't debate anyone without a Ph.D., you could always get one at Patriot University. I mean, if Kent Hovind managed it, how difficult can it be? :)

Of course I meant obstinance not abstinence !

I heard about this debate and avoided it for months. I finally saw it, and it was way worse than I had expected. I think there's a true reason Dillahunty continues to be a welcomed and very respected speaker, and Sye is gone.

I feel like this debate is explaining the very very basics of knowledge to a man so set on denying it. Sye didn't even have a real argument the entire time.

King Crocoduck This will give you flash backs of the Matt Slick debate but it will help you understand what it was all about.

4:47 but isn't considered *justified belief* that which is *TRUE?*

This debate was painfull to watch. I hope you won't debate him anymore Matt. Nice review btw :)

Yay! Time to see how right me and Karen were about the errors! :D ^_^

I would like to believe Matt won but I'm not even sure that the debate even took place... But it is Dr. Pepper vs mountain dew after all so....

The shark emblem on Syes computer declares, “watch out, fiercely delusional fuck here”

Also the very act of asking Matt to justify his worldview is an invitation to use reason to justify it in a circular fashion. That IS what the word "justify" implies. If Sye object to Matt using reason to justify his reason he has not understood his own question. So the moment Sye ask the question it becomes utterly superfluous because it already provides the answer to itself - namely that Matt can use his reason to justify something. Sye's style of debate is a veritable tour de force of self-pwnage.

My favourite game is replacing every "god" with "unicorns". It is less of a nasty raving crazy time... But replacing with any other gods makes it strange too... And I presume Sye Ten would hate a nordic pantheon-based theocracy.

I would've started with him saying "Jesus Christ is king." Now, "king" is an official title and I'm sure the Romans were quite accurate about the names of the kings in their provinces. So, if he was really a king, there would be some kind of historical evidence of that.

He promised to justify that belief in God is reasonable, but he spent his time trying, and failing, to discredit reason altogether. Undermining everything.

Matt awesomeness.

I never noticed the 'shark' sticker Sye Ten has on his computer . . . is that supposed to be a more fearsome and combative rendition of the cuddly little Jesus fish?

I'm no expert but I think the "Ten" in Sye's name is a Dutch tussenvoegsel, in which case the name of his ancestor would be Greenberry Ten Bruggencate rather than Greenberry Bruggencate.

Sye: "nah-ah, I don't need evidence for my invisible friend, because he told me that you already believe in him, you are just denying it". Ok. The invisible unicorn in my car told me that you are full of it, and you actually believe in my unicorn. And he can't be wrong. I know this, because he told me. And he can't be wrong... Neener, neener. The last time I heard "arguments" like that, was in kindergarten. If Sye is a brilliant philosopher, then apparently I went to kindergarten with brilliant philosophers.

Hold on there. The matrix is not unfalsifiable. There's a pill for that.

People should take a logic class before a debate ... Matt seems to be the only one actually using logic, although it may be a prerequisite for you to debate the existence of a god (from the theistic point of view) to discard logic ... Kinda paradoxical, one may say.

After the debate, i'm not even sure that Sye Ten Bruggencate actually exists either.

If Sye gets all his truth from gawd, why does he need that laptop there? Is Hewlett Packard Sye's god?

P1 it reasonable to believe that which is true. P2 it is true that Bigfoot exists therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Bigfoot exists !! 😀😀

Until this debate I only thought "The Pigeon Playing Chess" was only a humorous analogy. Now I know pigeons actually do play chess.

This is the most dishonest debate I've ever seen. Psye provided nothing but " i'm right, and you are wrong. You believe in god, therefore i won." Beyond lame.

Also it is important to note that if we are going to be pedantic about the existence of God then we should also be pedantic, in justice, about the existence of the universe. It follows that you need to prove that the universe exists first(or that anything exists , for that matter) before you can ask any other questions. So if Matt wants to be consistent with his rewording of Sye's first premise then we should sit down and try to both give the best arguments we can concerning the existence of the external world(which nobody has been able to do so far.) So the burden of proof is on both sides(atheists and theists) at this point(checkmate, Pun not intended)

Matt Dillahunty: FYI - typo at 7:41. "exame" instead of "examine"