The Bruggencate family apparently use their IQ as their middle name. I had to keep checking the time code when Sye spoke, thought I was stuck in a loop.

Im a theist but Sye Ten Bruggencate gives the absolute worst circular arguments I have ever seen.

This is just stupid. Sye never supports his argument. He keeps stating there is evidence yet never tables any. So what is the point ? And I confess, until now I never realized he was Canadian, I'm so embarrassed.

JesusChrist in a stick! That TruthSurge dude truly got under Sye´s skin, he never took the bait and he actually got him several times.

Sye's argument is a combination of "You cannot have knowledge" and "You have absolute knowledge of God". Seems legit.

Sye Ten is the pigeon on the chess board.

How anyone who talked to sye managed to hold themselves together and not completely freak out is beyond me... please please stop debating this merry-go-round presup, cocky, arrogant and ignorant (insert expletive of choice) please he should be starved of the oxygen of publicity. He has literally 1 argument and it makes no sence whatsoever. We know this by now.

What the hell does Sye mean when he says "is your reason valid"? Reason is the process by which we ascertain the validity of propositions... it's incoherent!

I don't get it. Sye keeps claiming things like "You can't prove anything without God". I listened to the entire debate and nobody ever "proved" anything. Doesn't that mean that, by Sye's own admission, that God doesn't exist?

If I can't know anything for certain, why should I know what Sye says to be sure?

Subscribed to TruthSurge. Thank You. I'll explain this to the believers that are listening that may be close to believing me personally!!

Here's something I can say I know, and that I can't possibly be wrong about. I know I am not God. If I'm wrong, then I am God. If I'm God, I can't be wrong, Check mate, Sye.

God reveals things to me too... only he is not a "he" and he has never revealed anything to Sye. I know this to be true because he revealed it to me!

Don't you just love it when Sye decides to "explain" it to us? I just feel sooo receptive when he does that.

The Sye Ten Bruggencate method of debate: A: If I'm right then I'm right... B: I'm right... C: therefore I'm right

It's impossible to have a real discission with 5yo Sye.

Man. Debating with Sye is like debating with a ten year old. Truth is from god, truth exists, therefore god? You're making an assertion without evidence and trying to say the assertion is proved by itself. The man is ridiculous.

Do I really need God to exist in order for me to know that existence exists? obviously not lol. Sye is probably the worst apologist in human history.

Does anyone else get the vibe that Sye is just going to go postal one day and hurt himself and a lot of other people? He displays almost no normal human personality traits. I hope that I'm wrong but I feel like I'm watching a madman who likely knows he can't logically defend his positions and is about to snap.

I love that he accepts that muslims CLEARLY have to be wrong... but obviously can't turn that around to the bible...

Sye, no matter how you dress it up you were taken apart three times. You did not offer any evidence to support your position, purely because you don't have any. Give it up Mr One trick Pony, you've become like a stuck record.

Sye's "revelation" solves none of the problems he raises with epistemology. His senses and reasoning though which he gained this revelation could be just as invalid as any of the guests.

Thank goodness I'm an atheist! It has made it easier for me to spot logical fallacies in general and I love being able to call situations and in control of the on off button.

Sye Ten just loves the sound of his own voice. I recently learned about the "Dunning Kruger Effect". It really explains how he is so confident in such a flawed argument. Hopefully now that this crap he spouts has been exposed for the BS it is (Matt D, multiple atheist channels), atheists will no longer engage him & he'll fade away into obscurity.

apparently the god forgot to give sye a brain......

Why does Sye think that whatever he just asserts is true but if someone else asserts something without any evidence he says it's absurd? And he takes "I *could* be wrong" as a victory condition. This guy is completely ridiculous and nobody should ever humor him with a "debate" ever again.

You can know something for 100%, you can know you are not omniscient.

Over three thousand comments demonstrating that Sy Ten is markedly _bad_ at promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is very likely that Sye _Deconverted_ a number of people with his performance in this video.

"Steve Shives is a KZfaq Phenom" -- Sye Ten Bruggencate If I were Steve, I'd use this as my tag line!

Steve, you have the patience of a saint. After twenty minutes of your exchange with Sye Ten I wanted to scream... I can't tell if Sye is delusional or deceptive, but I don't care. I can't watch anymore.

Sye is like the kid you used to play cops and robbers with on the playground, who would always try to avoid losing by pretending to have magic bullet proof armor. He refuses to humble himself and accept that we are all on the same level when it comes to what we know about reality. If you are human, you cannot have access to absolute certainty, and no that statement is not certain either, just a conclusion based on the best available reasoning and observation.

I know that Sye debates like a 7 year old. Could I be wrong about that? Absolutely not!

Bruggencate argues worse than a two year old, he's not doing christians any favours.

Sye's Logic: "God did it, I believe it, that settles it" "God did it, because the bible says so" I've never seen someone run around in circles so much. I don't even think Sye understands his own arguments.

How did Sye form his concepts of "reason", "validity", and "truth"? Our ability to form concepts presupposes the validity of the senses and reasoning. Decades ago, before Sye had ever even picked up Bible, he had already formed many, many concepts. He formed those concepts using his senses and his reasoning - just like everyone else does. The validity of the senses and reasoning is foundational because the senses and reasoning must be used even in an attempt to attack their validity. Also, how did Sye read the Bible and understand its contents without using his sense of sight and his reasoning?

Are there any female Pre-suppers?

Can someone ask Sye, since he stated that he doesn't know exactly when he had this revelation of his, but he always knew god existed, could it be that he heard about the concept of god from people first? Or did he know about the concept of god before he knew anything else? Also, did he know about christianity before anyone introduced it to him, or did the first info about it come from other people? Just curious.

TruthSurge did point out a contradiction in Sye's position: Sye says that God commands us to repent, but that we can't repent by our free will, and Sye also says that we should repent. God would not command us to do something that we can't do -- the existence of the command implies that we have the ability to do it. The contradiction is that we clearly do have the free will to choose to repent or not, but for some reason, Sye denies that we have the free will to do that.

LOL "Is ________ an absolute ________?" TOO MUCH, I'M DYING!

We theists accept God's judgement about God; we do not make judgements about God independent of God. We accept the facts about God from God.

Through all of the toying with terms, definitions, contexts and such ... it's apparent that Sye doesn't know God, he knows religion. TruthSurge was fantastic.

Without God, calling someone demonic could not be objectively wrong.

I wish that one of the guests would have really pressed Sye upon the validity of the bible and the different interpretations of the bible, because what you will find, when you press Sye upon those topics, he then employs his cowardly escape hatch which is, "I wont discuss scriptures with unbelievers."

Sye has a serious religious psychological simulacrum going on there

His question about Judas Iscariot is indeed puzzling. If Judas was indeed planned to betray Jesus then how his he held accountable for the action in which he clearly was not only fated to do but needed to do to complete god's plan? If Judas was the plant then his free will was violated, if he took the action freely then he deserves the punishment (i guess) but if God knew that that situation would lead to Jesus's sacrifice then he set Judas up to fail and then punished him for it

The more i see this kind of things, the more i have to bring up epistemology. They're both asking about it. They are both on different epistemologies. Steve is (i guess) an empirist, he's looking for a reliable experience that justifies the validity of the bible, Sye defines truth in accordinance to his fuzzy feeling.

@1:26 Now Sye's true crazy comes out, but I have a bad feeling he'll scare TruthSurge off from pinning him on it.

C'mon Sye you are going to be with God for all eternity (per your belief). Smile!

Sye Ten Bruggencate is a acolyte of Eric Hovind. Talk about a bad example of 2 enables getting together to make more trouble. Sye is so desperate to convert he is trying to convince all that reality itself must be wrong in order to make god fit. It's really bad!

any sites that show Sye actually win a "debate"?

Steve almost had it... there is a really easy way to poke a big giant hole in this argument... I'm not going to divulge it here because I want to start my own channel and I want to keep it in my pocket for a little while longer...

“I’ve been accused of be childish before. You know what’s the sad part? You can’t refute a childish argument “ -Sye.

Buddhists also have their version of presuppositionalism. It it said by certain buddhist schools that we are all already awakened to our buddha nature (pure, eternal truth) but that we willfully ignore (''avidya'') it in order to experience individuality and sensual pleasure, thus accumulating karma and imprisoning ourselves in the wheel of rebirth. All that is needed, according to this school of thought, is Nirvritti (a turnabout of the mind or paradigm shift) to realize what we have known all along...This is the central tenet of Zen buddhism.

Without God, the believer in atheist Dogma cannot know whether he is hallucinating or not. We theists, conversely do know for certain that we are not hallucinating.

If someone starts off their debate by plainly stating they cannot be wrong, what's the point of debating them?

I just discovered someone on the same level as Ray Comfort. Sye is a very silly man.

Without God, mathematical truths could not exist.

“The very concept of evidence is evidence that God exists” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I could just as well use that argument to prove anything I want. Thanks Sye!

Ha! I didn't realize how much my seven year old was listening to this. He just asked me, " Mom, was that guy talking about God putting books in your brain?" Me: "Sorta--" Zen: "Is that like that joke about sleeping on books?" Me:"You mean the osmosis joke?" Zen: "Yeah!" And that's why I love this kid.

What if it's a diest god, or no god, or a super alien entity that you might think is god like?

Could someone please help me? If I have repressed my knowledge of God, or otherwise buried the information in my unconsciousness, how can I find the knowledge of God? Do I need to first simply assume God exists and confirmation will come later, essentially the "fake it 'til you make it" approach? My conscience is quite clean and I sleep very well at night so please don't tell I am deliberately denying my knowledge of God merely because I "love my sin". Most of what the Christian Bible considers to be "sin" I abstain from in a conscious desire to be a "good" person. Here's an analogy to help get my point across: let's say I interrupt a serial child rapist in the middle of the act of rape and I stop him. He then has a vision and decides to accept Christ on the spot, however he drops dead immediately after. I, on the other hand, still strive to be "good" but I still cannot find within me the "knowledge of God" Sye and others I already posses. So, Does the rapist go to heaven simply because he said "I'm sorry" to Jesus and will I go to Hell because I couldn't find that "knowledge"? Is that really the mind of God? A being so narcissistic he demands unending worship and attention from all people? I hear people say that God has given us free will to either choose to love God or not to love Him in such a way so He knows if people truly love him willingly. What I don't understand is why people don't seem interested in the implied "...or else" God tacks on to His demand for our love and adoration. Here's yet another analogy: If I ask a woman to have sex with me of her own free will and she does so I can feel comfortable in the knowledge that she is as free as I am to decline the offer of sex without negative repercussions. But if I threaten a woman with certain death if she doesn't have sex with me she isn't exactly using free will if she chooses to have sex. God seems to be saying, "use the free will I endowed upon you to love Me otherwise you will be tormented in Hell for eternity".

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Sye makes the claim that he knows there's a god for sure through revelation, yet he has no demonstrable evidence for that. He also claims others know for sure that there's a god through revelation, and again, he has no demonstrable evidence for that. Dismissed.

Why the hell is his view count missing?

Seriously, what the fuck is so hard to understand? "Truth" is things that are true, things that are real, things that are correct, things that are factual. If I said I had blonde hair, am I saying the "truth"? How would you find out? You can see my in person & look at my head to verify of whether or not I am saying the "truth". Things in this conversation are much more simple & basic that people make them out to be.

TruthSurge claims to be an atheist, but he is actually a Polytheist.

Why do people try and have a rational discussion with Sye? Everyone that called in should have just presupposed that God doesn't exist and that information was revealed to them by the universe and that everyone knows God doesn't exist. Just keep going until he rages. He only deserves to be trolled.

Sye's strength in these debates is simply that he's perfectly comfortable being dishonest, but the atheists have moral standards that hold them to intellectual honesty.

Sye Ten doesn't even acknowledge the name of his God 1:06:30

I love his facile reasoning for why "we send missionaries," to deepest, darkest parts of South America! It couldn't possibly be for the same reasons we sent them to Africa, or even to parts of North America then? God had *very* little to do with *that* in some cases..

22:41 "... can't defeat a childish argument" ... we don't need to, Sye.. because usually what happens at this point is we put the child IN A CORNER because he's BEING A FUCKING CHILD!!!

What chapter and verse in the bible does it say "the gate of hell is locked from the inside" Sye loves to say that yet it's not in the book that he claims is his authority

Definition of truth that is appropriate for the instance of Steve Shrive's question: "That which accurately reflects or describes reality." No need to reference God at all. With or without God, reality still exists in order to be referred to in manners either accurate, inaccurate, or various degrees of either.

TruthSurge schooled Sye Ten. Damn, that must have hurt!

The names "El" and "Yahweh" are different names for the same person -- they both refer to God.

@1:20 Sye (a bit pissed about being reminded of who his god truly is) appeals to logic (by which he surely means deduction) as "immaterial absolute and unchanging." But logic is neither absolute nor is it unchanging. Apply classic logic to quantum mechanics, and you'll get the wrong answer; you have to change it and then you can get the right answer. Try applying logic to human romantic conundrums and see how absolute it is! Try applying classic logic to a problem like how much pressure your ABS system needs to apply for safe braking. Logic has to change yet again, to accommodate a continuous variable, giving a variable truth value.

Without God, there could be no science.

TruthSurge is a Polytheist, not an atheist.

_Reposed due to youtube not allowing editing with time stamps. The lines in question begin at 1 hour/8 minutes and end at 1 hour/21 minutes._ *"I used to be married, but now I believe I never had a wife."* Well, whether you were married or not is not subject to belief, in the colloquial sense. If Sye was married then he had a wife. A more genuine representation of this idea would be, _I used __*_to think_*_ I was married, but now I believe I never had a wife."_ *"But if god does not exist..."* Whether god does or does not exist is not germane to this line of questioning, only whether TS believes that he does. There is nothing about a current lack of belief that inhibits prior belief. Sye repeatedly makes these kinds of category errors throughout this discussion. *"All of these things presuppose truth"* Case in point. Sye is quite clearly conflating the noun and adjective meanings of "true/truth". There is no such thing as a stand-alone objective truth, truth is just a value assignment given to propositions. If I say the ball is red and all data suggests it is, then my statement is true. The only thing "truth" presupposes is that some reality exists and we have reliable ways of understanding it. No more, no less. *"When you say you could be wrong about everything then it follows that you know nothing at all."* Not if knowledge is _"justified true _*_belief_*_"_, as even Sye attests. If the ball appears red to me and everyone else, then I am justified in believing it is. The fact that I cannot disprove that it may be a hallucination is only a problem if sufficient justification is provided that it might really be. This whole argument is a solipsistic ploy designed to insert god where honest people admit fallibility. Incidentally, the ball might also be blue, we just don't have the ability to properly measure it right now. But the fact that the ball is objectively blue and that my belief that it is red is objectively wrong does not in any way necessitate god. It just necessitates that the ball is real. *"Where do you get logic - universal, abstract, unchanging laws"* Simple, both physical and logical laws are abstractions made from how the universe appears to behave. If things behaved differently, different laws would have been constructed to model that alternate behavior. This really isn't hard. This is yet another category error on Sye's part; logical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is enough for now.

He keeps asking him whether he thinks that it's an "absolute" when he's made it clear time and time again that it's merely based on "assumption". I could feel his frustration, but he could have handled him better.

Without God, the believer in atheist Dogma cannot know whether or not he's in a computer simulation. We theists, conversely, do know that we are not in a computer simulation, because God reveals that fact with certainty.

It was revealed in this video that Sye's own paren't brainwashed him into this mess

"Hey, I know we're debating and it's not the proper venue for it, and I'm TOTALLY not trying to upset you or anything, but how about that messy divorce you went through!" Class act, that Sye.

God did not force Judas to betray Jesus, and the Bible does not state that he forced him. Judas is 100% responsible for his own decisions, God is not responsible for them.

I just want to pitch in my observation here. I notice that almost everybody commenting here miss the point Sye is making, namely that everybody knows some things with absolute certainty. The difference between atheists and theists is that the theists can account for absolutes while atheists cannot.

I wonder why sye's argument is soooo difficult for all these materialists to understand. Anybody know why that is? Please explain it to me. But then again I can't trust them, so, never mind.

In a way I begin to understand the question pattern. Because Sye talks about his "god". To be truth. So if Atheists like Me would say something is true. Sye would think I am saying "god" because he explained his position. According to his view god does not need explaining. I do however liked how people don't lose their patience. Thank you for the upload.

I understand sye's argument. By asking is something true you must assume things can be "true". But this is just an argument for the "absolute truth", not god.

Here's a couple self-refuting statements I heard the atheist say: - I'm not going to make an absolute statement. - I know absolutely nothing. He seems like a smart guy. How does he not see that those are self-contradictory?

Good job, TruthSurge. I’ll be looking up your vids

So what goes on in hell? What does the voice of god and satan sound like?

There is only one God. It's not that there is a list of "Gods" from which you can pick and choose.

Sye says we use our senses to verify our senses and that because of that we can't know anything for sure because if our senses are wrong we would have no way of knowing. The problem is that Sye is doing the same thing, he uses scripture as a justification to know that reality and truth exists, the problem is that he needs to use his senses to read or hear the scripture, so he is making the same assumption the rest of us are making, that our senses are accurate, because if his senses can't be trusted, how does he know what scripture actually says. While this is an assumption, its a necessary assumption we all must make to function in reality.

Sye should debate a muslim presuppositionist, that would keep them both busy... forever.

If it was me talking to Sye, I would have told him "Have a nice day," at 28:55, and then walked away. I would have saved myself 1:19:04.

There is only one God, and he has many different names.

Sye, what you are saying is that you have an outside source that tells you A. that it's an outside source, B. that it's omniscient, C. that you infallibly have this knowledge, D. that everybody else does. At this point, what you have is not knowledge at all, but an incredibly complex guess designed in such a way that you will never actually find out if you are mistaken, because you have left no room for that possibility. As a means of accomplishing a worldview that cannot be defeated by reason, full marks. As a means of accomplishing a worldview that accurately describes reality, it's a complete shot in the dark.

Sye actually believes this crap. He was born into his faith, and he cannot fathom that other people do not consider the existence of god is knowledge.

Steve Shives wrecked that guy

There are plenty of theists who are not Christians.

Steve Shives expressed his reason beyond any reasonaable doubt. In the interview. Anyone could tell he was reasonable. He was uising reason in manifestly valid fashions. Not only that but just about everyone is given reasoning exercises through school, college, university whatever - to a very high degree in many cases. The kind of reasoning Sye was chalenging Steve on was 'sufficient reason to know that a claim to unsubstantiated truth by means of revelation is unreasonable' is kindergarten level. Word games, sophistry, the waste of time and expression of power by a superior or more well prepared mind over an inferior or less prepared one. Logical ploys and ambushes. That or the victory of one who doesn't care about truth only victory itself over a person burdened with that care. I can't make out which.