Sye's argument is that if atheism were true then no one could know anything. However people (including atheists) do know things, therefore atheism is false, and God exists.

Wrong

This is a common misunderstanding atheists have about Sye's argument. Sye is arguing we CAN know things and we all do. Then he's arguing the Atheistic worldview cannot justify knowledge but the Christian worldview can. So every time Atheists make knowledge claims (which they do constantly during debates) they are refuting their own worldview every time, because all non-theistic worldviews entail knowledge wouldn't be possible.

@@lightbeforethetunnel You do know that would make Sye stupider than I was giving him credit for?

@@DynaCatlovesme That's called an ad hominem fallacy. If you want to see proof for why Atheistic worldviews cannot justify ANY knowledge claims, just look into Agrippa's Trilemma. When reading about it, keep in mind Naturalism is presupposed. It demonstrates that there is NO path to knowledge in an Atheistic / Naturalistic worldview. It demonstrates demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth in a Naturalistic / Atheistic worldview, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to unsupported assertions / assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof: 1. The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition 2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum 3. The dogmatic argument which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended Nobody even claims to have solved this to this day. But yet, here you are claiming Sye is stupid (without justification) for it. So, let's hear your solution to Agrippa's Trilemma. I mean, you must have one in order to be claiming Sye is stupid. I recommend taking your solution to the academic community to collect your Nobel Prize for solving Agrippa's Trilemma after almost 2,000 years of the world's top intellectuals being unable to. You must be a super genius!

I remember that like it was yesterday. great comment

Whats the timestamp on that?

Sikes Pico That's a pathetic excuse for come back you abomination. you just a sad, pathetic old fuckwitt who hates science and logic but uses a computer.

guy david LOL the intellectually deficient primordial chemical stew wants to lecture me about "logic". This is so entertaining! What might you come up with next, i wonder.

i am not a "intellectually deficient primordial chemical stews" i am an evolved primate just like you. you and the other creationists can go and wast the one life you have spewing your bullshit while i enjoy my life and do stuff that helps the human race instead of the things religion does.

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

as someone who completely disagrees with Sye's nonsensical way of arguing, I would point out that he doesn't actually support that argument. I saw someone try to argue Cogito Ergo Sum against him and he quoted Bertrand Russell back at him to show how its basically a fallacy to assert that "I" exist. The more accurate statement is "thinking exists" so the first premise of the Cogito argument falls apart. I only wish it were that easy to point out why he is wrong (which in my opinion, lies in his narrow use of Justified True Belief as the definition of knowledge)

MrJustSomeGuy87 "The more accurate statement is "thinking exists" so the first premise of the Cogito argument falls apart." No, because if that falls apart, his argument for a God ('he exists') also falls apart. I can claim that with the same arrogance as he does with his God and as with the definitions 0 = 0, 1 = 1 etc..... And we trace back all our knowledge to these definitions. But we can all wait, until Sye Ten admits that. As soon as he gets cancer, high blood pressure, HIV or a stoke - what will he rely on? Bible prayers or medicine? In all-day life, Sye is also not relying on absolutes, as we all are. And Sye Ten's arument is the weakest of all for another reason. It also works with any other odd things to say "You can not know anything without the Holy Carrot" or "You don't know anything without the revelation from the all-knowing Giant Pumpkin". It's hard to describe what it is at all. It's not even an argument.

MrLogo73 To the Presuppositionalist the objective isn't to "prove" their god exists. Instead they wage a war of attrition. Rather than providing credible evidence and a rational argument for the existence of their god they simply try to frustrate the "opposition"-they also all seem to have a healthy persecution complex-to the point they quit arguing. By asking "how do you know that" enough times to the evil, sin-loving God-denier the plan is to essentially trick them into saying "I don't know", at which point Sye will jump up and declare victory. Somehow "I don't know" is just another way of saying "God did it". If you can't prove them wrong it proves them right. Somehow.

Fasil Limerick How do you know that?

Cogito ergo sum doesn't seem to get you very far.

And even that was a lie. Sye does this not out of concern, but to shut down discussion. He admits this when among his own kind, there's video on YT with him stating the purpose of his apologetic is to "close mouths." He can't even be honest about that.

puckerings Hi, I've been looking for this video you talked about where he said he wants to "close mouths". Do you know which one it is?

Please don't blaspheme repent and belive in Jesus Christ for salvation

sye is a clown. if you think he does well, you probably are not keeping up.

@@Volound I think Sye does a good job.

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

Yeah that guy studied Sye for sure...it was a great exchange...

+Odyc Mboden Haha yeah that's the problem with being recorded. You say something, then deny you said it; we all heard you say it.

um, no. he clearly refuted himself nearly the entire video. nice try though writing it off

***** i see. so you have no legitimate answer so you go to insults. good job.

***** you did not present an argument. you presented an excuse to try and cover up his continual self-refutations. you are the one being dishonest. and you have absolutely no way to refute what i say and therefore resort to the typical atheist tactic of ad hominem attacks. the fact is, this guy contradicts himself left and right. and atheists would rather live in absurdity than worship the God they know exists.

again. failure to support claims. ignoring the fact that he contradicted himself during the entire episode. the reason you choose to believe his nonsense is because you suppress the truth that God exists.

Do you know if the realistic Nihilist changed his KZfaq name shortly after this discussion?

Lol you guys come across as very desperate when you interpret any end of a debate as your ideological opponent running away or pulling the plug, without any justification. The atheist literally didn't know what truth was, dude. Give me a break.

It satisfies people with small minds.

indeed.

It's not meant to. It's a manipulation tactic used by as*holes. Nothing more. Presuppositionalists are all jerks.

Making a statement about something, such as saying something is contradictory, doesn't mean that you're making a statement of absolute certainty.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

jonathanfox1 it’s not a debating tack, it’s exposing the unbelievers actually DO depend on God for knowledge, logic and reason.

Apparently, you did not understand the argument or plainly you have established a god in your mind that one does not exist and anyone who comes against your god you referred to them as illogical,etc.etc.

No im not a moron like you that need a "god" in my life.. Syes argument is the most childish and ignorant i've ever heard...

@@richardchavarria8153 Thanks for making bare assertion. Now justify what you said.

+Timmy Campbell not hard to do when Sye saws off his ass and tosses it to people.

Patrick Bateman Your bigoted projection and inability to put up an actual argument for anything save your own massive insecurities are noted.

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

How did Matt win that Debate Again because Matt Contradicted him self 7 to 8 Different Times how exactly did he Win?

And you SENSES that your senses are valid, and then do you sense the sensation that sensed the sensation,and then sense the sensation that sensed the sensation that sensed the sensation, and so on.LALALALALA

^^

Siegahertz Carmin Prove you are nor circular for your foundation for knowledge. You can not. la la

i think we can go on singing for ever with this guy^^

Siegahertz Carmin if you do not want to talk, GOODBYE!

Daniel Shef That's why he got kicked out of "The Place" debate! Right?? You're funny!!😅

You mean the Nihilist who couldn't decide what he believed?

yep

Shut, you will be kicked out of youtube for being right!!!

Pablo Rozzotto lmao I love reading comments by defensive atheist apologists, they sound like village idiots

Sikes Pico Ohhh great, so it makes you feel like home. :)

Mr. Shiny Pants Don't call him that! Lex Luthor is a far more lovable character that Sye Ten Bruggencunt.

Der Erlkönig True.

Mr shiny pants what A Name you Must be 12 years old how do you Come up with these Names With your certainty. Answer this one logic when you Die you would Not want to Wake up again.

@@jaygandy8675 Ad hominem, how clever. Also, Pascal's wager bores me. Try harder.

@@mr.shinypants4275 I got it siner your Already Dead. I did not have to try hard At All. Your A Checkers player Not Chess OK!!!!

What does even mean when he says how do you know if your experience is valid? You experience that’s it. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a matrix, there are still novel testable predictions for knowledge based on your experience. That’s undeniable.

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

ZiplineShazam Actually not. He put himself above other Christians and pissed them off too. He's just a natural born, arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending asshole!

MrSitemaster2 The only way Paine could argue that way (at least in terms of Divine Revelation), is if he first assumes Christianity is false. Consider: 1. If Christianity were true, God doesn't lie. 2. Assume Christianity were false. 3. From 2, then the God might lie. 4. If God could lie, then Christians can't know anything about God. Conclusion: Christian can't know anything about God. ----------------------- Do you see why this argument is formally invalid?

MrSitemaster2 I'm not sure how familiar you are with Christianity, but if you study it in depth, you'll quickly discover that Christians (in whatever denomination), usually teach that it's possible for man to lie. But no Christian I know of, would claim that man's ability to tell lies constitutes an epistemological problem for Christian theology. What you have to assume is that those who penned Scripture, could have been lying. But, then, ... that is to assume a version of the argument I posted above, which - as we can clearly see, is a non sequitur. *IF* Christianity were true, *then* every truth claim of the Bible is also true. You can only suggest that the Bible might contain false claims if you first reject the truth of Christianity - and if that's all you intend to do, then you don't need all the extra baggage and trappings. Just say: If Christianity were false, then Christians can't know if god is lying to them or not. ... but then, when stated honestly, this isn't an argument against Christianity.

MrSitemaster2 If you're not going to read and interact with my responses, then we can't have a discussion :(

You miss the point. It's not really that the god might be lying, it's that even if we accept that there is a god out there with ultimate truth who cannot lie, and that there is a being communicating with you in such a way as you believe it to be that god, you have no way of confirming whether it actually is that god. It could be that that god is out there, but has never communicated with any human, and there is some other powerful being who has communicated, and has no problem whatsoever with lying. Since you only rely upon the word of the being communicating with you, you have no way of confirming its identity.

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

Erlkönig he didn't walk out, the other people's world views were reduced to absurdity.

Absolute Truth That's just your people's reasoning to walk out on any conversation. The only thing that's absurd here is Presuppositionalism. Because Presuppositionalism can not reason in the real world. It needs a made up surrealistic world of a confused mind to even exist.

Erlkönig no, unless you start with God, you can't even make sense of your objection other than in just being an arbitrary opinion. I'd like to know what truth is in your worldview and how you get truth without God.

Absolute Truth Yes, I can make sense of everything I say. Just like every other sane person. And an objection is always someone's opinion, that's the nature of an objection. How I get truth? By checking and back checking with facts. Again... like ever other sane person. Now my question: If you can make sense of everything (because God knows everything), how do you make sense of Supersymmetry? God must know because it's part of his creation, and you guys say only you can make sense of anything and everything.

Erlkönig firstly, I do believe that you can make sense of things just like every sane person, as you say. But it's because you are created in Gods image and he has given us our senses and reasoning to live in this world, and you can't justify them without God without being reduced to absurdity. As for supersymmetry, I don't claim to know everything, I know SOME things for certain through revelation from God but I don't claim to know all things. My question regarding your justification for truth, being testing and retesting things, facts etc. is A: how do you know your senses and reasoning are valid and B: on what basis do you assume the future will be like the past ie. how do you account for the uniformity of nature? I know nature will be for the most part, uniform because God has told us that he will uphold it and sustain it day by day for us to live in.

How many times do we have to pray before we get an answer ?? How many times do we have to pretend to believe in god in hopes of him granting our wishes ?

How do you know that a god exists? Simply asserting that it's the truth doesn't make it the case.

I agree. People will embrace what rings true to them. Some guy telling me that 'God is good and Man is not'.. That's hilarious IMO.

Totally agree. Every time I see Sye debate it makes me wonder if he even got out of highschool. I'd say I lose respect for him.. but I never had any to begin with. I have no respect for people who come to a debate with the sole purpose of trolling everyone.

The atheist don't hate something that they don't believe in. What the atheists hate is the ego based, delusional, man-made concept of "god".

Did the Realistic Nihilist ever change his name?

Wow.. honestly this is the first time I've ever re-started a convo thread.

KLanD Tine Once again John has shown us just how oblivious he can be by not joining us here. Do you think he's real? For such a devout "Christian" I don't think he's mentioned "Jesus", "Atonement" or "Grace" once. Hardcore Christians are like Amway salesmen; they'll push their product on their own senile great aunts they're so gung-ho and in-your-face. Either way John clearly enjoys the attention paid to him so I'm thinking we should roundup everyone he spews his drivel at and boycott him. He clearly has no interest in intelligent conversation or intelligible debate. Thoughts?

Fasil Limerick Naw, a boycott is never the answer to a situation like this. If he's a POE then that would be the end. If he's really a pre-sub appo that lectures, then a boycott would just give him more fuel. He'd claim we blocked him because we couldn't handle his truth or because we're afraid of his debating skills or some other ego boosting bullshit. If he's a troll, then he's wasting his time more than mine. If he's for real, well, he's hopeless and I'll keep pointing out how ridiculous his presuppositions are.

KLanD Tine If he's real and is actually allowed to give seminars on apologetics I need to go directly to the nearest VA hospital and get my head checked. Good point about the boycott. His persecution complex is stout enough already.

+John Laun An ATHEIST chance universe can not give uniformity, " Please define "atheist chance universe" I have never heard of that hypothesis. "My worldview makes uniformity possible." No, your world view makes uniformity impossible. If miracles exist in your world view, then there is NO uniformity in the universe. If god can decide to break the laws of physics, to bring things into existence, or even change his mind about the color of a spec of dust, then it is impossible to determine uniformity. So science only works in a reality without a god. Induction is a tool that can not give certainty. a formal fallacy. Explain how it is a fallacy. Adding material Evidences is the process of induction that can not give certainty. So how are you certain of your beliefs if you have no evidence for them? If you think so, show me a certainty you know by induction." The sky is blue. Do you disagree?

Proverbs *Fools have no interest in seeking to understand, but instead delight in airing their opinions*

@@lightbeforethetunnel Book of Common Sense: He who seeks to learn from fools is a fool himself

@81Mace81 Yes, the Bible covers that too. It describes it as the blind leading the blind.

@81Mace81 When it says "blind" it means it in a spiritual sense.