Matt, you have my utmost respect for remaining mature in the face of overwhelming frustration. How you refrained from slapping him with a laptop, I'll never know.

Matt's dissection of this debate was more interesting and informative than the debate itself.

Arguing with Sye, especially when they are talking about "Special pleading", is exactly like arguing with a 4 year old. Good on you Matt for keeping so calm.

The "debate" was difficult to watch because of Sye's obvious tactic... this follow-up series made it more paletable to relive it. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this together.

My favorite part about this debate is how Sye has basically been embarrassed into ignored irrelevance ever since.

I wonder if Sye is responsible for more deconversions than Matt Dillahunty.

I use to be a devout catholic but after hearing bruggencate, I am now a Devout Atheist and Happy that he helped me see the light.

"Is that true or do you just believe that?" This is a failure on Sye's part to understand...anything. Also, Sye getting irate at having his own tactic used against him was pure gold.

Sye's position can be summarised as follows: 1: I presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. 2: The FSM gives me absolute certainty on a variety of topics. 3: I will not explain the mechanism of transmission of knowledge. 4: You all know that the FSM exists. Watertight case...

I love that you indirectly called Sye stupid at the end. All of us thought it. You debating Sye and then taking the time and I guess tremendous willpower to analyze the debate and publish this for free here on youtube is a great service to humanity and want to honestly thank you for all your effort.

It's ironic how Sye Ten thinks he's not a brain in a vat. We are all brains in skull shaped vats.

your comment at 20:00 that is why you are one of my favorite debaters, you honestly accept when you make a mistake and that makes you great credibility, great Dillahunty

I have listened to this debate & your review in my car over & over. There were so many small details I missed the first time. I 'believe' you did a great job Matt, bravo - a happy patron :)

Hahahahaha. Special pleading. Is god a case of special pleading? No, because special pleading applies everywhere but here! lmao.

Thankyou for your time and effort on this Matt, none of us need to debate presupps and you have shown why.

That ending statement -mic- pen drop, though.

i can only imagine how fuming with anger sye must be not only did he get a total beatdown during the debate, but also he provided you with so much great material to review

@ 15:28 "What's wrong with special pleading in your world view?" What about *YOUR* world view, Sye? Can't you debate honestly? If both of you agree that special pleading is a logical fallacy, can't you go from there? It's like Sye is a stubborn little child. He won't engage with you until you recognize his god as the foundation for making such statements. For Sye, you have to first concede to his argument before any argument about god's existence can be made, but then arguing about god's existence would be pointless after already conceding that his god exists. It's such circular and childish nonsense!

Fuck. I hoped to never have to listen to this turd in a tie speak ever again, but I couldn’t past up Matt’s beautiful deconstruction of his bullshit. Listening to that debate all the way through was one of the harder things I’ve done, and I was a Marine. Mr. Dillahunty, you must have the patience of an Atheist saint to have sat across from him and remain as calm as you did. I can’t possibly imagine something worse than having to not only experience it first hand, but then go back and rewatch it over and over. You are a true inspiration sir and you have my utmost respect and admiration. Keep up the good fight.

Hey Matt, really appreciate your efforts in sharing these videos. the point by point analysis was quite interesting and informative. I hope you consider doing more debates in the future, take care

I watched the debate last year. I really enjoyed this analysis. You are good at taking these weighty subjects and presenting them clear and concise.

Thanks for doing these videos, Matt. Very useful, and I'm glad I watched them all. Also, thanks for putting yourself through what was evidently a fairly frustrating debate.

Sye's position is like that of a LEGO factory worker telling a child that because they don't know how LEGO bricks are made, they are not allowed to build things with them. Matt doesn't NEED to account for the logical axioms; he just USES them. Also, Sye's response when asked to account for his god will be similar: "I don't NEED to." So we're left with each of them having a thing they don't need to account for, but Sye's position contains the extra thing: his god. Occam's Razor favours Matt's. Presups don't debate - to debate is to try to convince the audience to agree with you; presups TELL the audience that they ALREADY agree with them. (His last-gasp preaching was fantastic, by the way - utter, flailing desperation.)

Great dissection of a very frustrating debate that was highlighted with one of the best closing statements I’ve heard showing the utter frustration with an opponent who’s only argument infantile assertion and no defence of their position

Matt, I'm in Austin from time to time. If ever the fates allow, I'd love to shake your hand. For real. You're my hero. Well done sir.

Pfff.. I wonder how a debate between a muslim and Sye would go when both use the same standpoint, just with a different religion. That would truly be the most boring and repetitive debate ever. 'I'm the only one who can be right', 'no, I'm the only one that can be right' -- ad infinitum

i have been waiting for this video for a while now.. thank you..

sye " their are no such thing as atheists"...sye "I dont debate the bible with atheists" deeeeerp

16:51 - "look, Lis' - you can see the exact moment his heart rips in half!"

I had emailed the show recently (Atheist Experience) but never received a reply. Then I finally ran across the show that you explained that no one typically responds to those type of emails. I have been searching over the past month for a "(insert whatever) or absurdity" type debates and finally ran across a show that mentioned Sye Ten Bruggencate. After a quick search, I found your debate with him. What is really great and that you made these follow up videos that you take the time to explain each point. Thank you Matt. I hope to one day get down to Austin, TX. to see a live broadcast and join everyone for dinner afterwards.

Thanks Matt for these videos.

I'll never know how you managed to stay that calm. Although that pen toss at the very end of the video hinted at your state of mind.

While I don't engage in formal debates I quite often have lengthy discussions on this and related subjects. I'm also a teacher and being able to explain something so it can be understood by those who have little to no prior knowledge of the subject can be challenging. So while these tactics can be, by their nature, combative and that isn't necessarily an approach taken by teachers, being able to respond to difficult questions from people who, while not necessarily arguing the opposite point of view from what the teacher is presenting, are genuinely interested in understanding the subject is a vital skill. There is much to be learned from this even if one isn't debating. Many discussions, even friendly ones about mundane topics where both sides are trying to figure something out, can benefit from the techniques used in debates so that those involved can better understand what's being discussed. I really enjoyed this and I never thought to study this sort of thing. I imagine there are thousands of videos available.

Fucking outstanding closing, Matt! We need more like you!

Everyone knows Zeus is the true god, but you suppress it.

Excellent job, Matt

as atheists, how can we know Sye is likely wrong about most of whats hes saying ? because he asserts with certainty "everyone is certain god exists" that pretty much ends the debate for me, knowing that i dont believe in god renders ALL of Syes assertions automatically into question and makes me believe they are no more than wishful thinking on his behalf and without him being able to show good evidence for them, then there is no point listening to him any longer.

Sye is playing chess. He moves a rook diagonally. "That's an illegal move." "I can account for the rules of chess; you can't." "... put the fucking rook back, dickhead."

"I cannot account for logical absolutes." -Matt I don't think you should have to admit that. In order to account for anything, what you are doing is demonstrating the particular features of the accounted subject came to be. If there are no variables or means for it to be different then there is no need to account. It is what it is. They would have to demonstrate that it is possible for logic not to be or be different before they can ask for an accounting of it. To even make that argument that have to assume logic in the first place.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell

You have some balls matt, it is painfull to watch this guy speak, i can't imagine how it was to debate him.

Great summary and review, Matt. I wonder what would happen if Matt Slick and Sye had a conversation? Has that ever happened?

Matt Dillahunty excellent breakdown. I really enjoyed your commentary on this event.

Funnily enough Sye disproves his own god to anyone who does not believe. If Sye's god exists as defined, my knowledge of my own lack of belief turns Sye's assertion that everyone has absolute knowledge of god into a disproof of god's existence. I find this highly amusing It's also kind of sad. Sye spends his life going around yapping at atheists thinking that he is bringing people to the faith while all he is actually doing is disproving his own god and being extraordinarily frustrating while doing so.

In his closing, Matt pretty much summed up my opinions perfectly.

I'd say you handled that debate very well. Presuppositionalism seems to me to be particularly batshit crazy. Well done for even keeping your cool.

Who could listen to this Sye and think that he makes sense? That he s made a good argument

Evidence presupposes truth, truth presupposes the laws of logic.

Great Vid - Dillahunty takes one last look at his infamous debate with presupposition trollagetic SyeTen Bruggencate.

Here’s what I admire about Matt. Even in the face of complete stupidity. Even in the face of arguments that make no sense, Matt kept composure like few people could. Not only that, he’s addressing Sye’s points VERY maturely. I just watched Stefan Molyneux address Rationality Rules’ video on him and he was SO condescending, SO cocky and SO convinced of his own arguments that he just came off as disingenuous. If he could have given a rebuttal much like Matt just did, he’d much more stock with me and others. Lotta respect for you, Matt.

Matt, as of May 31, 2018, some channel called AnswerAnyone has put up a "documentary" of this debate you did. You might well have seen it, and I feel they're rather late to the party, but hey... it's out there.

Hi Matt, great job and commentary. How annoyed do you get by Sye? To me he is such a narcissist.

Your closing statement is pure bliss!

Matt, you are a highly intelligent and reasonable individual, why do your waste your time with these idiots. I hope you at least got some money out of it for all your patience!!

Jeeze, that devolved horribly. HORRIBLY. Sye pissed away the entire "debate" getting caught up with nonsense ball-of-christmas-lights wordplay that takes a ridiculously long time to untangle. Nothing got done. He did it for absolutely no reason. He proved nothing. He disproved nothing. He just went deadweight and ran the timer. Keep him out of future debate halls. He basically filibustered the entire discussion.

When conversation ascends to this meta level of epistemology, it becomes really hard for me to keep up. I want to commend you, Matt, on analogies you've made that really helped to see your points during the debate. But at the same time, I had to pause and really think "does this analogy hold?", before accepting each. In any case, this debate, and especially your reviews of it, are the greatest source of arguing against presuppositionalism that I've seen. So thank you so much for doing these reviews!

I'd like to see Matt debate WLC in a debate format like this, out of WLC's comfort zone. Matt would give him hell, even though a debate like this will never happen, sadly.

we are not the judge. we are the jury and as of yet we haven't come to a conclusion of whether god exists or he does not.

It seems to me that Sye's argument is 'I'm right because God is magic'.

"Virtuously circular" - this statement has been bugging me for a while now when used to justify the presupp argument. I could be wrong but my understanding is the term is normally only used in the context of formal logic where certain deductive constructs such as parts of a complex math equations are logically sound but still circular. It's somehow managed to find its way into the conflating vocabulary of the presuppers...

Love that closing statement.

"Unrighteousness", "condemnation". These are the key concepts that define *why* Sye believes what he does. It seems to me he truly believes these things, barring that he's a brilliant live improv actor. This tells me that people who think like him are seriously pitiful sods with emotional damages that they're trying to repress, rationalize and even utilize in degrading others to feel more "in company" with an entire humankind damned and hopeless and deserving of suffering as they are. They're channeling their own inferiority complex into a delusion of superiority (excuse the armchair psychology if you will).

I was 6 years of age. Had a fight with my older brother and told him God would punish him (deeply Catholic grandparents). He asked me how I knew God existed...And I realised like I was smacked in the face that I had no way of knowing. No suppression in unrighteousness, no wanting to enjoy sin (I was 6 FFS). Just a realisation that I believed something with zero evidence.

Bruggencate did not come to debate. He came to preach.

After this debate, presuppers basically went back under the rock that they came for for years, but they are just now slowly coming back out and putting up the same, really terrible arguments.

Wouldnt the argument that Sye could substitute ANYTHING (Pegasus, Bertrand Russel's teapot or, as I said, absolutely anything) for "god" and not change his arguments in ANY way, be an immediate and total refutation of his position? Or, if my response was that my presupposed God told me he was wrong, using his exact arguments, ALSO show Sye's position to be vacuous?

„It’s not special pleading, because it’s special pleading” Is really the same as „It’s not a fallacy, because it’s a fallacy” With, well, must be the Greatest Fallacy Of Them All! I say we take Sye as the prophet of the new world.

Matt mentioned that babies don't have a theory of mind. Does Sye? He insists he knows what those babies and the Piraha know that god exists and he also professes to know how Matt's wife would react to an insult.

He tried to use special pleading to argue against that he was using special pleading

Supernatural shit is so hard to argue for, that people like Sye must convince everyone that reality is not real, in just reeks of indignant desperation, which is also the title of the forthcoming Sye biography

The only redeeming quality about Sye is that he might not understand how fallacious his arguments are, because he continuously demonstrates he doesn't comprehend the definition of even one logical fallacy. 🙄

I deny Sye exists. Dang, didn't work.

Sye really likes to weave a web, but you unraveled it. Well done.

Great analysis. I just have one question about this series (from a foreign/layman point of view): Why so much attention for this particular apologetic? His techniques (and arguments) are basically the same as all others' I've seen (Matt Slick, Hovind, etc.)... is this debate just a good global showcase for all of them? Side note: I found that 'shark's fin Christian fish' symbol on the apologist's computer quite annoying - intellectually dishonest and passive-aggressive all at once - but I suppose that's why it was there, just to piss people off. Anything for the 'emotional win'.

Sye: "It's not special pleading, because it's about god." That's like saying "It's not a circular argument, because it's not a circular argument." You can't make this shit up! :)

Gotta love that pen drop at the end.

I think Sye Ten lies when he says he presupposes the existence of God. Why else would he present arguments for the existence of God?

"The greasy pony tail guys just give me the finger" 😆 🤣 😂

Hey Sye, God told me to collect $1000 from you and He says that you know about it. Cough it up buddy. Or are you "suppressing" the *certain* knowledge that God wants you to give me the money?

Greasy ponytail? This guy is really good at debating.

wouldnt a good argument in this case be to point the contradiction and disagreements between christians that claim this direct knowledge of god between denominations or even within the same one? and asking who has the truthy truth among them and how would they know?

Jeez, can you imagine how cheated you'd feel if you'd bought a ticket to attend this "debate" and then had to sit through this ?

I wonder what Sye would say about the people who are Christians today but would admit that at one point in their lives, they were not aware of god existing. Would he say that those Christians were lying about their past? If he says they were simply "supressing the truth" in the past, then we get back to the question of isn't supressing the truth the same as not being aware of that belief? And doesn't not being aware of a belief essentially equate to not believing it?

When Sye asked Matt whether he's saying God couldn't make someone know he exists Matt could have asked whether God could make someone certain of something that isn't true while simultaneously making them convinced that he wouldn't do so . If the answer is yes Sye would have to explain how he knows that this isn't the explanation for his certainty. If the answer is no he is admitting that God can't do everything

Matt....I really didn't like looking at your face during your final statement! I wanted to look at his

Why do the logical absolutes have to be accounted for in the first place? Logic seems to be contingent on the physical world -- when an idea is logical, that means it behaves in a way that makes sense according to our observations of the real world. To say that logical absolutes can only exist if they come from some higher dimension of truth isn't so different from claiming that the physical world had to be created because everything needs a cause.

The guilt trip towards the end is exactly what they feed to children. It's beyond disgusting. Jesus suffered on the cross. So did thousands of others because it was a popular means of execution. Hell, there are people suffering right now from a chronic disease, who have suffered longer and more intensely than Jesus had to. And did I have a say in the matter, whether I supported his decision to die for me? Supposing it were true, with all of the BS that it's brought, I'd opt out of the deal. Instead, were born with an obligation to be thankful 24/7.

On thing I think you should have added with this debate is "fallibility". You pretty much mopped the floor with Sye, but I think that would have been a 110%.

Excellent synopses of the debate and (further) illumination of the ultimate stupidity that is presuppositional religious belief.

An argument from authority isn't necessarily fallacious. A doctor can diagnose you from just hearing about your symtoms. His diagnosis might be untrue, but not a logically fallacious one formally or informally. The fallacy here would be when person A, who is not a doctor, told you that you are diabetic because doctor b has written a book whe symptoms are listed and person A claims you have the disease because he read that list which was written by that doctor.

Does anyone know if Sye has seen these reviews or if he's responded to them?

"Everyone knows there's a 27th Parallel, Matt." 🤦🏻‍♂️

my favorite part of this whole debate is when sye fell apart over special pleading.

And, by and large, we all agreed with Matt's final statement and we stopped giving Sye and his ilk the attention they so desperately craved. For myself, this debate was the final time I ever bothered with listening to anything coming out of Sye's mouth. Good riddance.

Sye won't do bible study with an atheist because he is afraid we may know more about his own book.

@ 7:19 It's annoying that Sye doesn't answer questions, but instead directs all aspects of the conversation back to "you can't know anything unless you presuppose god exists." He ignores all counter evidence until you first admit that his god exists to establish that we can "know" anything.

Hmm. Sye keeps making this "brain in a vat" argument, and rejecting the idea that Atheist's can know anything, because he says we don't have a foundation for our senses and reason etc...so we can't know that what we think we experience about the Universe is reliable...But.....Sye is advocating for the existence of a God that can, and his view does, change the way things in the Universe work, on a whim...whenever he feels like it. He's arguing that we can't trust our experience of the Universe...while promoting a God that works miracles...which means in HIS worldview, he can't really trust his experience of the Universe either.

The ultimate problem here is that BOTH men were arguing from dogmatic points of view. NEITHER can prove their suppositions. Does God exist? Prove it. Does He not exist? Prove that too.

I don't think anyone has ever lost a debate like sye has lost a debate. His failure is simply off the scale.

16:51 - "look, Lisa - you can see the exact moment his heart rips in half..." D: