tweekyseagull he cant, he will just assert so.

tweekyseagull because he has had revelation from God, therefore he is certain lol

+tweekyseagull It's the same as when Matt Slick says that we can't claim anything if we think that our beliefs are just products of our brain. Even if he could establish that a mind with an immaterial soul is any better at making logical inferences he doesn't know that he isn't just a brain in a naturalistic universe that is set up to believe that he has a soul and needs to criticize anyone who uses their brain

He is the vat,a big fat empty vat.

Sye is not a reasonable person. He says god revealed to him. The response to "how" has no answer. He believes god texted the same message to everyone and some people just ignore it as hard as they can.

Haha I said something similar

and a bromide tablet ;)

the funny thing is Sye actually believes he is a soul in a meat vat ....but he is too stupid to realize it

I hope to see more debates analyses of people that Matt didn't debate, as well.

ThePharphis Agreed. Too often we see the debate, but just as in a sporting event, a play-by-play analysis helps us better appreciate what just happened.

Yeah I’d like to second that.

YES

Actually it does. Didn’t you watch the debate? He gets laughed at half the time, and when it’s „Q&A” the audience don’t actually ask him questions, but continue to demolish his arguments with kindergarden thoughts.

You'll have to wait until the mental asylum patients get their internet hour tomorrow. :-)

***** sometime after church im guessing

I already responded in Matt's first video on this topic, but here it seems Matt is just playing Sye's game non-stop. Sye is constructing a view for the audience in which it is reasonable to belief that god exists, where absolute truth is the only truth that matters and knowledge is synonymous with that. This is not Matt's view of knowledge or even his view of truth, so when Matt admits he cannot be sure he is not a brain in a vat, he is giving Sye all the room possible. He does not hold this belief, of course, but in admitting it, he has painted atheism in such an absurd way that Sye can claim certainty without having to explain anything (not susprisingly, he did not explain anything) because he can just say the opposite leaves you uncertain about even your own senses. Around the 20 minute mark, Sye has reached part of his goal: get his opponent to admit that their reasoning is circular. It is only one step further from there to leaving Matt with no answer to his claim that the only way to know anything is to presuppose god, and Matt stating the validity of his senses are presuppositional are giving our presuppositionalist way too much rope, particularly because at this point, they are talking about what truth and knowledge mean to Matt, and by his terms, he CAN trust his senses. From here, it was only 10 minutes (if memory recalls) to the point where Sye has reached his goal: stating that there is no truth without god and having the statement uncontested. Also, Sye won the debate before it began for the same reason Ken Ham won his debate with Bill Nye before it began. To borrow from Richard Dawkins, it is not wise to debate philosophy with a presupositionalist or debating biology with a young earth creationist, just like it is bordering on the moronic to debate geology with a flat earther or debating embryology with someone who believes in the stork theory. You elevate them to a position where they ideas are being treated just as scientific or sound as your own. This is the best outcome presuppositionalists could hope for.

baserocklove Ehh no. I do not buy into Sye's arguments at all, nor do I think any of his arguments are convincing to any audience other than fundamentalists. So you can take your personal attack and shove it. Matt did a very poor job in this debate, from losing the moral high ground at the very beginning of his opening statement to responding to arguments Sye did not even make (as he clearly explained in this video), and it cost him dearly, as his opponent was able to construct every argument around his word view ultimately. While it is true that Sye never attempted to give evidence for his certainty, instead he gave a reason for why he did not have to, Matt should have gone right after this cop-out, but instead conceded the argument. Right up Sye's alley.

baserocklove Stop with the personal attacks. It does not make you sound superior in any way, it just makes you sound like an asshat. Aside from that, you also think I am defending Sye's arguments or have done so in the past. I have better things to do than pretending to think some amateur apologist has good arguments, because no apologist ever has good arguments. Matt's way of handling Sye's arguments in this debate, however, have been incredibly poor, and this is what I have also said in the original posting (like, 1 or 2 posts). You also are quoting me out of context, making it sound like :"Matt is giving Sye all the room possible" because Sye's argument is good, when I speciflcally state in the very same paragraph that Sye's arguments do not explain anything. That is a dishonest thing to do. About hard sollipsism: I am not pretending to have an answer, I do not know what is problematic about it, nor do I care enough. This is the grounds of absolute truth, and nobody has absolute truth. However, when you give someone the room to talk about absolute truth like they have knowledge of it, you need to be able to call them or their vacuous claims, or you as the sollipcist are left with nothing, because you have already admitted you cannot know anything with absolute certainty, and your opponent has just claimed to have an enormous advantage over you.

Many people claim "absolute knowledge" from God. My question is: Why are they such idiots? Are they being "informed" by an ignoramus?

You know, I know it was a joke, but this gives me an idea. Next time a theist asserts that they have knowledge from god I will ask about the things they don't know and whether their lack of knowledge in those matters is also a guft from god or negligence on his part. I wonder how they react.

This debate gave me a thinking crap sober, if I had smoked a bowl I would have either falling asleep completely zoned out and forgotten that I was watching the debate, or got so confused that I actually believed I was a ham sandwich and ate myself so I salute you

@@thickerconstrictor9037 Fantastic!

Agreed. With Matt's commentary, I picked up some things I completely missed the first time. The clarification is indeed helpful.

You can’t really stroke your ego by going around and getting laughed at by the audience at debates.

***** Dingleberries?

I suspect hes trolling college's trying to catch anyone that doesnt have philosophy classes. Any that do see thru his bull shit immediately and he doesnt post those videos on his site.

SciPunk215 "When I was studying math, if I left out that part of the proof they would send the paper back " => this is why schooling is dangerous. You have been too well-educated to fall for their shit. This is why creationists prefer homeschooling instead.

I presuppose I don't know anything therefore god... you know?

***** I know!

Svein Asleik but how do you know you know what you don't know is knowledgeable to the unknown ?

TheZooCrew What? You think anyone who can hear what Dillahunty had to say is impressed that you can bounce a few unrelated and irrelevant debate terms around? I can too, but won't because it this context, they don't matter. What matters is that Dillahunty was hanged by his OWN words. Bruggencate spent 80% of this opening statement simply quoting verbatim the words that Dillahunty could not (and still cannot) refute. "Matt can't know anything to be true according to his world view because he's simply a brain in a vat" - ST Bruggencate, 5/31/14. Not exactly the Gettysburg Address, but close enough for the purposes of the debate. The "Matty-Boy Bandwagon" just lost all its wheels.

tigerlilly66 *Not exactly the Gettysburg Address, but close enough for the purposes of the debate* What the fucking shit are you talking about? Not only is that not what Bruggencate said, but it's utterly irrelevant. Bruggencate can't demonstrate he's not a brain in the vat, either. He just lies about this while Matt is honest. You are an intellectual midget who doesn't have the first clue about epistemology or honesty.

TheZooCrew A. Why is it that atheists feel it necessary to repeat back to me what I stated? I KNOW what I stated. Do you think it is worth extra "points"? B. I'm impressed that you actually stated 16 words (14 of them mine) before you threw up an F-bomb. That puts you in the 90th percentile of atheists in my control group. Are you pleased to know you're churlish and infantile "logic" conforms to the norm?

tigerlilly66 *Why is it that atheists feel it necessary to repeat back to me what I stated?* Because I have serious doubts that you're sharp enough to figure out what I'm addressing unless I spell it out for you. *Are you pleased to know you're churlish and infantile "logic" conforms to the norm?* Going the ad hominem route, I see. I use words your delicate little flower ears find offensive, therefore I'm wrong about everything. Fuck the fuck off and get sterilized.

tigerlilly66 I can't believe there's someone alive that actually thinks Sye did anything other than embarrass himself. Wholly unexpected.

i was thinkin' it's supposed to be intimidating. 'Alpha Predator' sort of thing. Says something about the man.

browndog666ify I wondered if there was some story on it, but yeah, I think it is some predator for the the evolution fish. Might be I'm reading way too much into it, and he's just sending us a secret message that he is a ... predator.

Actually you have it backwards. That symbol was an early christian symbol. The Darwin/evolution ones are actually mocking it. I assume the shark version is supposed to be symbolic of the aggressiveness of apologists defending their nonsense.

Hurderpus Maximus Oh, I know the evolution fish is to mock the symbol that look like a fish that Christians used/use. Aggressive apologetic might be what he was thinking.

Maybe Sye uses Linux. :]]

The same reason Christians don't all get vasectomies and their tubes tied. Because then the mind virus would go away.

Omfg. I don't know how this went unnoticed for 5 years but this is great.

I agree! I love Dawkins and I really respect the way Harris speaks and thinks, probably more so than I do with Dawkins. Matt is just brilliant at what he does though. He is one of the best faces atheism has in the public space. He's respectful, well spoken and clear along with possesing wit, humour and knowledge. The fact that he was a fundamentalist Christian for about 25 years is also a huge bonus.

I love Matt, I also think Seth Andrews is right up there along with Aron Ra as my favorite atheist activists, I also love Tracie Harris and Jenn Peeples from AXP and was/am really sad about what happened at the ACA to make them, Phil and Jon leave the show, I tend to enjoy the people who have come out of religion and are just dudes/ladies who are passionate, knowledgeable, etc., People who know how religious people think As far as I'm concerned the unholy Trinity(Seth, Matt, and Aron) is the face of atheism, I also really like the guys from the thank God I'm atheist podcast (Frank and Dan), and the the cognitive dissonance podcast

Also, Dan Barker

I love Matt but what Dawkins does over the whole decade is absolute class... In my view Sam, Dawkins, the late Hitchens and Lawrence kraus Led the way, Aron ra, Matt, Seth and the tens more have taken it to the next level... We still have a long way to go to continuously diversify the movement

I would agree with that if Matt weren’t so combative and bullying in his manner, but as is, the way he conducts himself paints atheists in a poor light. People already believe atheists are contemptuous, condescending, etc, and many times Matt proves them correct. Dawkins, Harris, etc don’t.

I think that it is not really possible for us to know reality in its entirety. Which means our understanding of it will always be incomplete and partially wrong. However, not knowing 'actual' reality does not mean it doesn't exist. However, that's exactly what apologists claim. They constantly equivocate perceived reality with absolute reality. They need to do that, in order to be able to claim we need god to know anything.

Pretty much what maarten said. Objective truths appear to exist; it's just that our capacity to perceive it is limited. However, these objective truths still appear to exist because not all of our perceptions are of equal merit. The fact that we can test the accuracy of our perceptions leads to the conclusion that objective truths do in fact exist. It's like an asymptote; the function may not ever reach the line, but it still obviously exists.

Alright, thanks guys, I agree with what you say. But I don't know if it is simply the wording I am after or the meaning behind it, but does the implication that we have no objectiv truth, only subjective ones, make it an objective truth in itself? Maybe you did answer this in your comments, and I merely didn't understand, if so, please tell me.

McDjevel I'm not sure what you mean by subjective and objective truth. It seems to me the truth isn't subjective by definition. What people think about the truth is. Is that what you mean? Everyone has a perceived reality. It is presumed this perception corresponds more or less with actual reality. Does that make the perceived reality actual reality? No. It does however, presumably, make the perception part of actual reality. Does that answer your question?

Right there with ya man. It was the same way with me.

Like with conspiracy theorists (and even atheists at times), if the person is supporting your position, (christian apologetics) then you don't want to correct them.

ThePharphis Maybe it's Satan.

It wouldn't matter he would just say they are wrong and he is right haha. He will be dead soon. No biggie

YEP !!!!

+godzillatemple I think Sye has even said that he isn't trying to convince people (which likely goes back to his assertion that everyone already 'knows' that he's right).

+godzillatemple I think arguing with presuppositionalists is futile. They think atheists are lying about not believing God exists because of a certain Bible passage they like to quote. They believe the Bible is the word of God, so God is telling them that atheists are lying about not believing. They don't even try to convert people because they believe everyone is already a believer. Atheists are just rebellious and in denial. Ray comfort says the same thing, that he's not trying to convince anyone. One time when Matt D debated Ray Comfort, Ray said early on that he wasn't there to debate about the existence of God because Matt already believed God was real. So Ray just preached through the whole "debate." And I think the debate was supposed to be on whether God existed or not.

True

+BoredWolf = living up to your reputation again I see...yawn. The best part about all this is that when all the commotion has dissipated, and all the admirers have left, you have only your conscience whispering deep in the recesses of your soul... Indeed I do know that God exists, and I'm scared to death. repent... There is still time.

BoardWolf Hey Bored...how's it going? Why do you atheists always ask the same, lame questions? You know...the ones that you don't care if there's an answer to? They might work for 8th graders, but those like Sye and myself won't play your little sad game. You know exactly what I'm talking about, just as Dilly-Bar did when Sye left him in tattered pieces after the debate. God says you KNOW He exists...that's more than good enough for me. Can't kid a kidder, you know. Repent...there's still time for you.

BoardWolf My assumptions are well founded, and yes, I know the difference between the spellings. Apparently it hasn't occurred to you they were intentional, but I couldn't expect you to know that. You are indeed very bored or you wouldn't come up with the poppycock you call reasoning and logic, ergo - you must be an atheist.

BoardWolf hey, whatever floats your boat, buddy. If you ever get around to studying the origin of words like "atheist", you would learn how silly you appear to anyone who completed 8th grade English. If you are not an atheist, then the Pope is not a Catholic.

cueballB it's like you didn't have your audio turned on throughout this video 🤔

The problem is that Sye can say, "Whose perception of reality?" If you say, "Whose perception of God?" he'll say he doesn't "perceive" God the way we perceive other realities because God has revealed himself perfectly and can do this because God is magic (all powerful). Reality isn't magic so we all have to perceive it. If you claim reality is magic (has the attributes of God), he'll call you on being facetious (which in fact you would be). See how his argument works? His knowledge of certain things comes from something magical. The rest of have to use our senses which are fallible. Your argument makes perfect sense to the rest of us because we see the game he's playing. Sye denies the game he's playing.

Maple Leaf Sure, i see your point, but my point was that we don't have to "percieve" reality, because we *are* reality, and reality is us. I'm not making a serious counter-argument, I'm only showing that we can play the same game that Sye is playing, by simply replacing god with reality. Then we can just keep insisting on not having to explain anything further, like he does. But lets not turn this sillyness into a discussion, lol. :D I see your point, perhaps you see my point, lets leave it at that. I'm only being half-serious, anyway.

There are actually two problems, at least in Sye's version. The first problem is that we may be talking about things that need no accounting. Existence, for example, seems to be a necessary state, so when Thomists, for instance, bitch about "contingency," they're acting as if things that exist _need_ some prior "accounting." This may not be the case; we don't know. The second problem is that when you identify a problem, merely fabricating something that you define as having the properties necessary to solve the problem just moves the issue back a step. You have solved nothing and in fact made things worse by violating Occam's Razor.

TheZooCrew OK, thanks, this is good. Yes, if by "you can't account for your own logic" he means "you can't prove that your own logic exists," we might say, "If I can think with organized thinking (logic), organized thinking exists." In fact, I can think with organized thinking while I'm a brain in a vat. It seems like one of two things I automatically don't have to "explain it exists": myself and my own logical thinking. If Sye means something else by "account for" I can't imagine what it would be. Well, he could mean "explain where it came from." But I don't have to know where I came from to know I exist. I don't think I have to know where logic comes from to know it exists and to use it. Yeah, I think he's using this "you can't account for" phrase in a vague way that his little meaning. If pressed, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't switch back and forth between several meanings in an attempt to dodge the problems with of the phrase.

Feppie Sye makes me externally sigh!

His explanation is: "Because God told me so."

_"If he offers any explanation as to why he's not a brain in a vat you can just adopt that definition, assuming it's not too insane."_ Well, that's the problem. Sye's claim is that he knows things like that because God reveals it to us. It might not be insane, but it's not exactly a good place to try to argue from if your position is that God neither exists nor is a necessary component of knowledge. I think Matt's point is that we _can't_ know the answer to a question like that...but that it doesn't matter anyway. Because so long as this (hypothetical) simulation that our brains are running is the only reality we have access to, the fact that it's not real is irrelevant.

Mads Jakobsen Scott Bowser If he tries the 'God told me so' line, what's to stop his opponent coming back with Sye's favourite question. 'How do you know that?', meaning how can he know that any information he claims comes from his god doesn't really come from somewhere else, his imagination for example.

George Forsyth He'll just assert that God can make him certain (being almighty) and actually has (being all-benevolent). Sye Ten's position follows logically from his theology. You can't trip him up or catch him out. All you can do is demonstrate that he starts with his conclusion and works backwards making the evidence fit as he goes along. All of which he'll readily admit. It's what presupposition means.

George Forsyth Sye continuously misses the point that god could lie or his own faculties could be misleading him into believing god is telling him something he is not.

+xiAGC123 What are you trying to say? Is the audience shameful?

yes they should be ashamed for letting their silly little biases affect their ability to analyse arguments on their own merits. That they care so much about how a debater presents himself, the manner he speaks or if they like him or hate him is absolutely juvenile and pathetic

xiAGC123 Not really. It's far more shameful or juvenile to behave badly if you want to convince someone of something you consider important. "That they care so much about how a debater presents himself, the manner he speaks or if they like him or hate him is absolutely juvenile and pathetic" That's actually normal human behaviour. For humans to expect decency and not have an orator insult the audience is normal. I wouldn't call mutual respect a juvenile or pathetic expectation If a debater has an argument to make, he doesn't need to insult or preach. A debater with something of value to say, won't lose an audience nearly as fast as someone who has nothing to contribute. The manner in which a person presents himself, the manner in which he speaks, says volumes about the quality of his actual argument.

yes, it is normal human behaviour to be a sheeple. naturalistic fallacy. The manner with which a speaker presents himself has FUCK ALL to say about the quality of the argument. listen here you inbred piece of shit, when you put 1 and 1 together, you get 2. You can fuckin demonstare this by getting one apple, and getting another apple, and you'll find you have two fucking apples oh dear! I presented that in a mean way. hope that doesnt overturn mathematics

xiAGC123 To convince someone of 2+2=5, you don't require insults. You are using them but that's another story. But to defend god, that's not possible without preaching, insulting or other juvinile tactics. and that's why Sye lost the audience, his ideas are not worthy of respect. So ... you have 2 apples, you take 2 more, now you have 4 apples. No insults required. God however requires insult. The bible calls everyone a fool who does not believe ... that's saying something about the quality of the argument.

Why should someone believe something without suffient or decisive evidence? I believe that mostly it's because of personal reasons and those are only rational to the person having those reasons.

@@brandwijkgg I agree you are correct why give your own opinion if you cannot demonstrate or show your perspective . No offence Sye could have done a way better job if he came prepared.

@@thornadotrigger3073 I think this is all Sey has to offer. Someone who doesn't realize he's playing a game and workin of a script might still be impressed or at least confused by what he's saying. The fact that Sey comes to a debate with Matt Dillahunty and presents these arguments indicates that his entire arsenal cannot be that impressive. I think this is it. If he has more i wouln't be supprised it will also be of this level.

Sye is a Canadian so I doubt that was the case.

lmao in what world?

BoardWolf Really? That's odd...Sye is as busy as ever taking on you and yours and hammering home the message! I'm sure he only wishes he wasn't so "unpopular" - he could use some rest. Were you in Chattanooga in '14? If you were, you'd know how bad Dilly-bar got schooled that night. Far more likely is that you simply watched his cooked and doctored version of the debate and saw what you were WANTING to see. The saying goes that a MAN can take an a**-whupping, admit it, and move on to better things. Dilly-bar and yourself obviously don't measure up. There are NO better things for atheism on the horizon. I've read the back of The Book and God wins. Repent...there's still time!

+BoardWolf = Sorry, but I have no recollection of that debate, however, I did see all of the Tennessee debate. Why not ask Matty to post IT because the one I refer to was a resounding defeat for atheism. You obviously were not in Chattanooga that night. Indeed...you are BoredWolf with not enough to do. I love it - "Sye repeats his circular argument and word games without making a single point" ! Because YOU say it, therefore it is so - typical atheist arrogance. "But the natural man (you and Dilly-bar) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Go: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned" - I Corinthians 2:14 You're just a "dead man walking". No one cares what a dead man says. Repent...even DEAD men can do it!

+tigerlilly66 Why do you quote the bible to people who don't believe that it's true? If I quoted the Lord of the Rings to you, would you find that efficacious in an argument with you? To your constant, asinine exhortation to "repent": your wretched bible says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one unpardonable sin. The Holy Spirit does not exist, and if it does, it's a douchebag. There, repentance is now irrelevant.

Heramael Only the Bible has the promise of God that it will accomplish what He wills in sending it out - even to scoffers like you that mock and ridicule it. Repentance is still very much in play. Good news: there's still time for you! One more for the road..."and that the name of Jesus EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father". Done deal...plan on it.

The only thing that made me cringe watching this debate was the level of arrogant dishonesty from Sye Ten Bruggencate. He didn't even address the debate topic really, he was smug, rude and evasive all the way through. He acted like a petulant child and his responses to Matt were pathetic, kindergarten answers. He spent a lot of time saying very little of substance.