Nice..bravo to the kid who contradicted himself and said raping a baby could be okay... Absurdity

This truly represents the paucity of christian belief.

+John Proctor (MWS) but you have blind faith in logic and in reasoning.... you cannot justify the truth of anything you say or believe, you can only assume logic and exists.... which is blind faith, you assume laws of non-contradiction exists, just like you think we assume that God exists....

leon scott No, I don't have blind faith in logic and reasoning. I presuppose that reality exists and it is at least in part discernible. Logic and reasoning are descriptive tools, not independently existent immaterial objects. Idealism is entirely unsupported.

"It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that." -Albus Dumbledore

A self-contradicting statement.

Ham sandwiches can’t do that idiot.

sounds like sarcasm -- if it's not make that a thumbs down on your comment!

Barbara Necker Of course it's sarcasm!

Irene Bradle thanks, Irene, I DID have faith in your comment! :-)

***** I agree. Another thing is that according to Sye's argument we actually *can* know things. If atheists, according to Sye, have misunderstood *how* we can know things, it doesn't mean that we *can't* know things even according to his argument. That's why this "but you have given up knowledge" is just dishonest bullshit.

Could you be wrong about that?

ArcanE LogoS (theGhost) Could you be wrong about that?

***** How can I be wrong about a question?

ArcanE LogoS (theGhost) Yes, can you be wrong about that?

Ain't that the truth? The bible is a hell of a drug.

+Qopel Well knowledge implies that you KNOW something is true.... it doesn't constitue giving up belief, but it constitutes giving up knowledge.... When you just KNOW. If you say "nothing can be absolute" you are saying that everything can be false... and if everything can be false, then you have no foundation for learning anything at all. You are merely pandering around in a self-induced reality. Its delusional. Sure you can live in that reality, but it has no foundation... and a reality with know absolute foundation is a deslusional reality. In the sense that if I asked you what evidence you have to prove you are alive, you would end up in an infinite regression that will eventually wrap back around in a circular argument because in your world view, evidence precedes everything.... there is no end to your reasoning.... it goes on forever, which is the same thing for people that make up imaginary realities..... the only thing is that your imaginary reality is very convincing because it takes a long time to get to the circular reasoning unless you start from the bottom... Which is what Sye is doing.. At the beginning of all things you claim to believe, you first assume that logic is true. And you assume its true because you cant prove that logic is an actual thing, you just assume it is.... I agree its an actual thing, but I don't merely assume it is.... You HAVE TO assume it exists because if you don't, you wont have reasoning.... But in assuming it exists, you are being illogical in the process... You cannot just assume something exists just because it suits your way of thinking.... that is called delusion.... Logic has absolutely nothing to do with our physical reality, but you assume it exists because without it we wouldn't be able to make sense of anything. And what I know is that logic is the embilligical cord so to speak between the human brain and the mind of God.... its what makes us intellectually astounding creatures.... Its real, but its not physical. Its informational or spiritual.... its a characteristic of our spiritual DNA.... if this is not true, then logic doesn't exist, because science has proved its existence.... and without God, only material and nature is reality

leon scott Take your bullshit and shove it up your ass. You don't need absolutes to have a reasonable expectation, which is all you need to know something.

@@unsignedmusic Is it absolutely true that you don't need absolutes?

@@arcanelogos1563 Yes and No

@@unsignedmusic It's a yes OR no question 🤣 This is why atheism is a mental illness.

Not necessarily "you"

"Let me make a fist and show you, and I guarantee you will know for certain that I have a hand." Because you said that, proves god exists

sp1ke0kill3r You sure it doesn't prove unicorns exist? Or leprechauns? Your comment makes no sense.

Seeker22000 Sure it does, Sye. Because it was a joke. And Yes, Sye I am certain it doesn't prove Leprechauns or Unicorns, would you like to take a crack at showing it does?

sp1ke0kill3r Hey now, I didn't call YOU names.

Seeker22000 But you did hurt my widdle feelins, sniff, sniff

Welcome to the belief in atheist Dogma.

Knowledge is inherently correct. It is defined as justified true belief.

Hmm, they called Jesus the same thing....Interesting!

The only execption might be the law of non-contradiction.. but i think there may be a fairly good way to relate this directly to what it means for something to exist (in its most bare form. Just having certain properties.)

You were truly brave to have begun. Sye is a relic of the Inquisition. He'd have loved to be able to burn you at the stake.

I got through it... well listened at least. It was bad enough to hear him ask "could you be wrong about everything you claim to know," over and over again, I don't think I could stand actually hearing it and seeing that smug look on his face at the same time.

Damien Borden Yeah, he asked the same questions of the other 2 atheists. The final guy also rang off; he got tired of the same old questions too, but managed to lob a few zingers at Sye along the way. I'd LOVE to see a matchup between Sye & Matt Dillahunty!

Yeah, Matt seems to deal with word games a little better than most. Honestly, I'm sad that we could never see Christopher Hitchens hitchslap Sye.

Damien Borden me too, Damien. He could dish it out so eloquently, too.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid arguments and fallacies.

You obviously didn't watch tis debate very closely, Sye specifically said he couldn't get to the evidence part because all the Atheists admitted they can't know anything! What use is it explaining anything to someone who opens up the possibility of no right or wrong, For all he knows Sye could be black and a woman lolz These Atheists show their massive stupidity at times like these because if I purposed that situation to one of those Atheists they couldn't say I was wrong! they would actually admit Sye could be a black woman! In reality all those Atheists know they know thins for certain but they refuse to admit God exists so they're reduced to the pathetic state they're in now/the guy in this video.

Philip Paul Sorry for the few miss spelled words, My keyboard is a little temperamental lol

You clearly dont get that he's playing word game so when they make a valid point he can either say "well you admitted you know nothing" or endlessly repeats "but how do you know that". And when he loses he has to accuse them of substance abuse in case their words sink in with people watching and they see through his bogus argument. He's just another conman taking people desperate to keep their faith for a ride so he can rake in money on DvD's with his partner in crime eric hovind. Whats more he does this for a living and he's taking on random members of the public because he's been beaten by so many "professional" atheists he can no longer go on their shows, he's not only intellectually deficient but morally bankrupt.

TheHobojebus He can absolutely say they can't know anything according to their world view lol I still believe you didn't watch this video, Did you not see how many times they admitted they can't know anything? literally anything they say from then on is nothing but guessing on their part but they act as if it were fact. They said that Sye wouldn't answer their questions and so on but for all they know he could've already answered their question and they wouldn't know, according to their world view. They have zero right to say Sye is doing this or Sye won't do this when they themselves admit they could be wrong about everything.

Atheism is not a world view its the rejection of religious claims. Its nothing more than the lack of belief in any gods. They admitted they cant know everything and frankly thats the only intellectually honest answer but they can know some things for sure. No one takes sye seriously anymore on the atheist side he's been debunked over and over, all he does is play word games and refuse to answer honest questions from the other side. "You dont know anything" is just a dodge he uses when he does not know the answer.

The question is, "how does a person know his thoughts conform to a proper standard of rationality?".

You beg the question when you say "I think". So your "grounds for knowledge" is a logical fallacy. Congratulations

@@arcanelogos1563 Me saying I think therefore I am is empirical evidence. It's the only starting point. Saying God first then everything has zero basis, not to mention evidence, not grounding, not any justification. Nor can or has it been demonstrated that a "metaphysical" being exists let alone a god and even more ridiculous is a god that was made up by men is the starting point. I'm not even gonna start with how dumb it sounds that people believe in a book written by men is some how words from a god, let a lone a Christian god. Its laughable at this point.

@@miguelquintana8076 If you can't see how you're begging the question with your first premise then I can't help you. Your feelings about God are irrelevant.

@@arcanelogos1563 Whats the starting point?

+Garrett Fallow Why didn't you just explain what those words mean inthat lengthy response. The argument is very simple.... If you know 1 million things, and you say ALL OF THEM COULD BE WRONG! 100% of them.... then you KNOW NOTHING. You only believe some of them are true, but you don't actually know..... Now, I know that you DO KNOW things to be true..... no one is saying that you actually know nothing. We are saying that YOU HAVE NO FOUNDATION TO KNOW ANYTHING!!!! Because you yourself said it could all be wrong.... and therefore anything else that comes out of your mouth could be wrong. If everything could be wrong, then looking for what's right is a futile cause because whatever you find could be wrong.... You can do it, but its delusional. The only way you could have the confidence to do science and to make conclusions from observations is if you knew for a fact that there are things that you could know to be true. Sye, and I am not saying that there are not things you can know to be true.... we are saying that YOU KNOW THERE ARE THINGS YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE!!!! Because otherwise you wouldn't be able to function as human being.... you'd never cross the street, you'd never get out of the bed, you'd always be on your toes.... but we all know there are things that can be true, and because of that, we seek to sort the false from the true. And the way we do that is by using logic.... if everything we know could be a lie, then there is nothing to ever Know.... because we would never know if we knew it.... This is not a theological argument. This is purily philosophical. No one's trying to spin tricks on you. We are honestly trying to show the error in believing that everything could be wrong. Because its ironic that you're trying to convince us to switch to your world view when you don't even know if you're world view is true or not.

God may not be nonsense, but what Sye did is just spewing nonsense. He will receive curse from god for speaking nonsense. God is not to be mocked.

You have not proven that he is being dishonest, all you're doing is crying.

His dishonesty is plain for all to see in this video. Looking at his script, making stuff up, and struggling when forced off his script. He is a joke

eunoia62 Again, you have not proven him to be dishonest, all you're doing is *crying*. Seriously, refute his logic or keep your emotions to yourself. Thanks.

I have proven him wrong and so have many others. He has NO logic to refute. He is a lying charlatan trying to make money from the gullible like you.

Notice the question about morality had nothing to do with the previous point. He shouldn't have let Sye get away with that.

God is the rational source that intellegently creates rational minds to think rationally.

He is not saying that you are wrong but that you don't have knowledge about it. If you could be wrong then you do not know if you are right or wrong. I would not attack that aspect. I would say that things like the logical absolutes are known. A=A etc. "How do you know that?" is a trap question. Just say you know them and there is no how.

"He is not saying that you are wrong but that you don't have knowledge about it." - Yes I do, it's just not knowledge to an absolute certainty. "If you could be wrong then you do not know if you are right or wrong." - If I have justification to believe it and I am in fact right then sure I do. The only way you could say I don't is if you limit knowing to only those instances where one has absolute certainty which is generally impossible and never anyway. I see no reason to assume knowledge only counts when it's to an absolute certainty.

Then we would just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of knowledge. Don't get me wrong. I use an evidentialist epistemology most of the time just for practicality. Justification has a trap though. The munchausen trilemma will lead you to circular reasoning, infinite justifications, or something unjustified. The unjustified are called axioms. You have to say you know these when debating presups. Your definition could say that you know you are not in the matrix but I don't think that is what you want to say. Just stick with axioms when debating them.

Eric Dustin I am not aware of a demonstration that absolute certainty is even possible. Is it? If so could you demonstrate it? If absolute certainty isn't possible then it makes little sense to use it as a definition for knowledge because in that case no one ever knows anything and the term has no proper usage ever. If absolute certainty is never the case then the only reason to ever use the term knowledge is when you're talking about some degree less than absolute certainty. I agree that justification eventually leads to something unjustified but I do NOT have to say I know the unjustified in debates with presups, nor do I. I can instead honestly admit when I am stuck without a justification such as the laws of logic. I do not say I know I'm not in the matrix; I grant that is possible actually.

The law of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction are true. A thought exists in the present (for now). I am certain of that.

Prove good?

@@erikrohr4396 god

hahahahahahahahhaahahahhahahahhahahaaahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahhhhhhhhhahhahahahahah

Lol

***** hilarious