Jeremy Contreras how do you explain the reality of lightto a blind man, first, their eyes must be opened, and God is the only one who can open them, but thet wont humble themselves and come to Him that they may have life.

People navigate by sound and sometimes by smell. We dont need just sight. however theists only see thier god in thier mind. the only place they can be found

Ahmad Isa It’s interesting how people discredit Sye but can’t really overcome his dismantling of their “logic”.

Carl Valentine he goes to show that naturalism has no absolutes, how would you know if your correct if your brain is just fizzing, explain?

stan ofori Naturalism has absolutes, and they are the laws of logic. They are presupposed with good evidence. Theists do the same thing, except they go one unnecessary step further by presupposing a god.

Drew sorry I might I’ve been too generic, I’m talking in terms of morality, I don’t see how naturalism even enters the topic of morality when naturalism only explain the physical reality, not mental

Exactly, replay it because it’s obviously deflected by atheists and they don’t understand the simplest message.

he did not dodge the question, you just dont like the answer

sure ur head hurts. cuz your world view has no power to stand up.

Sye knows a god doesn’t exist.

Because you don't waste your time trying to disprove Thor, Zeus and other fake Gods.

@@georgebond7777 that's because almost no one cares about those gods, and many people have faith in wayyyy less sensible gods and monsters.

To mock him, I suppose.

for your benefit

Quentin, there's no benefit to preaching at people who have no reason to accept Sye's (and the Bible's) claims, barring perhaps a better understanding of the logical fallacies inherent to presuppositional apologetics.

to expose him.

Or for GOD to continue HIS message of salvation through JESUS.

Darkest Nile God reveals himself to his children through the preaching of the gospel. Sye includes preaching because he actually cares about these "atheists". Thank you for listening!

Kevin Edwards Thank you for listening/warching. Your Creator may graciously use it to save you! Edit: warching should have been watching.

Kevin Edwards A goat is unnecessary. In the past animal sacrifice was never an atonement for sins. The act was representing the perfect lamb coming in the future to be the sufficient substitute for sins. Jesus paid the cost on my behalf and all those that trust in Him alone.

Kevin Edwards I understand you do not understand and the only reason I understand is that God has revealed it to me otherwise I would be a fool.

Shone Mursea that is a claim...

tod beard You mean, cherry picking scriptures to justify the nonsense you believe to claim atheism as your worldview is responsible for your ignorance and atheism.

What people seem to willfully ignore is that Bruggencate can disassemble atheist “logic” despite anyone’s opinion of him or his beliefs.

you would haveto be an idiot to becime anatheust from reading the bible. i havent met an atheist yet that knows anything about the bible.

Thought the same really respectful atheist for once

This is a great and legitimate question. Much of misunderstanding of any ancient text and the Bible in particular is either a lack of understanding of the context, language, or history, or an interjection of human thought by placing our own cultural presuppositions onto ancient people or situations. So, to answer the question, we study the entirety of the history, language, and context including how the message fits in context with the entirety of the message while restraining ourselves from placing unrealistic modern ideas onto ancient history. I hope that helps.

zdr93523 yessir, hermeneutics and proper exegesis.

He will be with Almighty God. Where will you be?

Any sturdy, irrefutable evidence for the existence of that "almighty god" you are talking about?! Yes/no?!

@peter renner Sye is unfortunately still around. He seems to remain blissfully unaware (or insouciant) that his presuppositional apologetics make him a laughingstock.

shame :( i heard somewhere that he was eradicated like a smallpox. seems that isn't the case...

There's two reasons he's still around. One is that he's entertainment fodder for this sort of thing. A completely irrational and easily debunked position rather than the usual bland religious defenders. The other reason is that he apparently has the mentality of a petulant child and not only is he completely unable to have a civil debate but is visibly annoyed by the allowance of the opinions of others. I'm just glad he's not a politician. Every one of these things he's involved his start with him having this arrogant look on his face as if he had some massive zinger. Then, by the end, the expression changes to annoyance and almost sulking once his weak argument has been picked apart. Half way through a debate his only tactic is to try to stop the other person from making a point.

Which is fair enough because Christians aren't arbitrary in their reasoning. Atheists are.

Quite audacious from a man who can't account for truth.

Ikea lol

Tjump has used “eternal all powerful nature” as a stand in for these sorts of arguments. The same arguments can be used in favor of either.

@@Detson404 no it can’t because there are two world view, God and not God and what you said is in the category of not God.

That's all presuppositionalism is.... don't forget "bully" "gaslight" "manipulate"

@Time Lord that sounds logical .....next time I meet a pink unicorn I will chase its butt till I get farted on.

The brain is made of physical things. A brain doctor could determine the problem with reasonable methods to examine the physical components and apply treatment.

The brain is made of physical things. A brain doctor could determine the problem with reasonable methods to examine the physical components and apply treatment.

The brain is made of physical things. A brain doctor could determine the problem with reasonable methods to examine the physical components and apply treatment.

he did answer that

Because that would be absurd. It is our position that rejecting God leads one to absurdity. We satisfy the preconditions necessary for intelligibility, where the atheist does not. If almighty God doesn’t reveal things to us such that we can know them for certain, no one can know anything. Unless one knows everything(or have revelation from someone who does) they cannot know anything, because what they don’t know can contradict what they think they know. We appeal to all knowing God who reveals things to us such that we can know them for certain, the atheist appeals to his admittedly fallible senses and reasoning that he admits he could be wrong about.

Matt Williams so shouldn't be really easy for you to disputed his logic? If there is no God no one made your brain so you can not justify t working properly. It is very simple, you can not make sense of reality. If I told you a watch was just thrown together by magnets and shaking around in a delivery truck, would you put your life on the line that the time that watch reads is accurate? Would you defend that time on that watch with your life? Probably not, however if a Rolex and smart phone and cable tv ALL showed the same time and you had the lifetime opportunity of the best job interview, which watch would you rely on to make it to the interview on time? I know everyone would rely on the brand manufacturer Rolex iPhone and cable tv, NOT some watch that is made by accident and unreliable. Same with our brain if it is formed by chance and time or an all knowing creator I am going with trusting an all knowing creator.

No, since you don't know what is truth, you don't have any standard to say someone is arrogant.. Sye argument is to show all reasoning that excluding God is absurd and logically cannot know absolute truth and what is right what is wrong, what is real.. Sye method is called presupositional argument, and this argument not evidence based, this is philosofical argument, its a worldview. Basically sye is fight his worldview againts atheistic worldview. to see which worldview can explain reality more consistent and logic.

It was good enough for Job. it was good enough for paul. Interesting how he doesnt go all out with proving he exists like he used to.

Useless to compare your reasoning when you can't account for it. You choose foolishness.

Gunnar Mason Justification for reasoning is simple enough. No super complex god required. That’s the problem with presupp apologetics, it tacks on a entirely useless complex addition to what’s already satisfactory for justified reasoning.

But we're asking you to justify and explain the existence of God. You can't start the argument with the conclusion.

James Sparks ended up wining anway

@stan ofori, can win a debate against anyone who says I’m right and you can’t question it and I don’t have to prove it

stan ofori *cant

@@stan66829, you spelled "whining" wrong.

Christopher Hunsaker you can’t win a debate if you can’t even explain why something’s right and wrong

So you use other methods that are a little more reliable. Don't understand why anybody would prefer the evidence of modern science over 2000 year old mystics.

@@rickbriggs8228 You miss the point of Syes example . The point is "evidence" is useless because people always interpret the evidence according to their preconceived or presupposed ideas and beliefs. Jack Horner the athiest & paleontologist WANTS their to be nothing to support a young verdict on a T Rex bone . Sye the Christian WANTS a carbon 14 test to show a young verdict on a T Rex bone . And Sye is saying evidence is useless because man becomes the judge and God goes on trial. His arguement is sound and quite reasonable , but athiest people dont like it for emotional reasons. Code in DNA / RNA is another example ....christian scientists says Code is evidence for intelligent design . Athiest scientists say Code is evidence for millions of years of unguided random chance & natural selection. the scientist puts himself in the judges seat and God goes on trial. I believe evidence will always lean to an opinion or judgement based on a presupposition before the evidence is evaluated . I believe it because very few genuine Christians turn athiest and very few athiests turn Christian. A very small % of a population changes their worldview.

@@rickbriggs8228 Science cannot be conducted without God because without Him, you have no basis for induction as required to conduct any experiment. The lack of a basis for induction in an atheistic worldview isn't in debate or even in question as it has been acknowledged as a problem by the world's most renowned atheists. Science has been hijacked as an anti-theistic thing whereas it was founded by Christians and only possible through the use of the laws of nature and logic, which are unfounded in an atheistic worldview. The point is that Jack Horner refused to do the test in case the test invalidated his worldview. Mormons at BYU have had the arrogance to conduct tests on DNA, history, etc... which ended up disproving Joseph Smith and they continue to ignore the facts that they learned through their own tests which is mind-boggling.

what is wrong with God, which you believe does not exist, killing 10 children? What is the standard you are going by?

Joel Rodriquez, Being a moral person is common sense. If you think that if you stopped believing in God, that you would go out and kill 10 children, for society's sake, keep believing in God. It's much more noble to to be kind to and care for people because you want to, not because you think you're going to get a reward in the afterlife or fear hell.

I just asked a simple question. Where is the standard for us to objectively (if you believe in objective Truth) go by? I need to know what is that standard outside of us (not your opinion) that can determine wether something is moral or immoral? you said (It's much more noble to to be kind to and care for people because you want to, not because you think you're going to get a reward in the afterlife or fear hell.) why do you identify being noble, kind and caring with good things? where does that come from? I want the absolute standard not opinions!

Joel Rodriquez, Your standard of morality comes from your upbringing and some aspects could be genetic(ie serial killers). If you were raised in Iran, Jordan or Afghanistan you would probably be Muslim and wife beating wouldn't be out of the question because of verse 4:34 in the Quran.

Joel Rodriquez, It's funny you ask where my standard for morality comes from when yours is based on the bible, a book that endorses the owning and beating of slaves and instructs to kill disorderly children, homosexuals and people who work on the Sabbath.

When are bold arse assertions with no evidence valid as questions. The pre-sup bullshitter.

It’s you who’s the intellectual troll, apparently you have such a thick skull that you don’t see that every argument for ultimate authority is necessarily circular. If I ask you to prove your senses and reasoning are valid, if you’re intellectually honest and consistent with your worldview, you would have to say “I sense and reason my senses and reasoning are valid” and that’s entirely circular. So by your own standard… welcome to fail town 🤣🤣🤣

The honest answer is "I don't know" the honest position is nobody knows, anyone claiming to know without the supporting evidence is being dishonest, or are under a delusion.

Badger bush if YOU dont know, then it follows, you cant know what we know. We know the TRUTH His name is Jesus!!

Jesus Saves The moment you can prove that il accept it.

Badger bush "proof" presupposes absolute truth, absolute truth presupposes God, without God you cant even formulate your question. What is proof in YOUR worldview without absolute standard for truth??? You make truth subjective then demand objective proof. Give it up and turn to Jesus!! Atheism is bankrupt, you dont even have a platform to argue from, your "best" argument is that you dont know, then claim its "honest" well you cant know its honest either lol

Jesus Saves The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, by the way this argument is no better when you parrot it.

Wrong, we use agreed understanding of shared experience of the world as the metric for judging the truth of the reality we inhabit and experience. 2 people watching the sunrise are highly likely to agree that they are, in fact, observing a sunrise.

how did you come to understand that?

What a logical fallacy you're indulging in! Should a judge care that the death penalty is 'interesting' to a murderer? Should a righteous fianceé care enough that a Hugh Hefner was 'disinterested' in a monogamous lifestyle that he chooses to not marry her? What's your justification that you believe it should be mandatory for each person's worldview be interesting to everybody else? I'm sure your worldview is completely disinteresting to some and yet you continue to express it, don't you! Ludicrous. Repent, believe the gospel of Christ and you too can be saved from the absurd as well.

I understand your belief. Thats great

Sadly he has been asked this question. He claims, that god can reveal things in such a way, that you can be certain and you cannot be deceived...

He has. If you grant almighty God you grant his almighty nature. This God can reveal things to fallible man such that we can know them for certain. We have a justification for knowledge, as opposed to the atheists lack of one.

Lol you abandoned your atheism based on what Sye said and now believe in a invisible pink cat. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, but I’m glad that you admit that even that is a more logical position than Atheism. Wow, I needed a good chuckle this morning 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

Mmm I think you fail to remember what we have done with Hitler... And like him, with people who don't abide to our societal rules. It's funny though, cause you also fail to realise that morality based on god, is still based on a mind and therefore definitionally subjective. And even if his god was real, we still don't know what the moral action is on the vast majority of cases since we don't have access to the mind of god. Say you see a guy killing another one? How can you say that the action was immoral? What if it was part of god's plan for the greater good? You can't. So for every action, a Christian can't really determine whether it's moral or immoral. Great moral system you have

Richard Madsen honestly please help me find this verse beside the verse in Malachi regarding tithing

I am thoroughly studied in the Bible. Why do you need a second account? As a person ... seeing someone in need smile when you give out of love for God is the same as seeing God smile. Keep it personal and one on one. As a family member ... If your sister is hungry you have a responsibility to feed her. We are all brothers and sisters under God. As a member of society ... Everyone would smile more and be more trusting if we gave of our excess resources, no matter if that is excess cat food or money or love or time. Tithe may not be monetary. Give your brother what he needs, not what you want to give.

Richard Madsen thanks Richard, I am a believer in Christ and I believe his word the bible but I may not be is studied as you are therefore in love I know you will respect but invoking 1 John 4:1 and therefore since I haven't seen the particular verse that says " try me" I will just keep searching, thank you again

Mr. Thinnasagaren, 1st John 4:1

Demonstrate his god doesn't exist

@@gustavmahler1466 that is stupid. If you are accused of murder you would not have to prove anything because nobody has to prove a negative. You are an idiot

You just demonstrated his God by asking the question

Wrong. The laws of logic exist just fine in a godless universe. Why? The laws of logic are based on *our observations of reality*. They're laws in the *descriptive* sense, not prescriptive.

You think that nothing made something? Life from non life, intelligence from non intelligence? The laws of logic “just exist”? The laws of logic aren’t made of matter.

Clearly you didn't understand what I wrote. The "laws of logic" are *our conclusions about reality* based on *our observations of reality*. Additionally, ex nihilo (or, as you put it, "nothing made something") is a CHRISTIAN argument, not a scientific one - there isn't a "nothing" in the philosophical sense which we can observe. As for "life from non-life," that's abiogenesis right there. The Miller-Urey experiments showed that the building blocks for life can emerge from non-living chemicals. Building on Miller and Urey's work, in fact, Sidney Fox directly demonstrated that amino acids can be formed from inorganic compounds. As for "intelligence from non-intelligence," simple organisms evolved into more complex organisms with brain cells and self-awareness, and in time into the animal kingdom, of which humanity is a part.

yes a non believer will surely hear that, i agree

Either God did it, or nothing/randomness did it. Good luck with that

good point on saying what you hear but putting it on someone else to feel better lol

People for Truth What did god do ? And how do you know ?

Replace 'god' with 'nothing', and ask the same thing to evolutionists first.

Robert White what about laws of logic, math, gravity, the wind ?

Dan Delgado it makes alot more sense that God made us, than all the chance that evolution has to offer, i want to know how non organic changed to organic, and evolutionist have no idea, all they can say is all long time ago like a fairy tale, because the truth is, they don't know, it's all speculation, like nothing exploded and made everything, sounds like a fairy tale to me

Robert White i see your point, he claims he just is, i guess when Jesus said he was a door, you think he means he is a door , so me using exist is the same thing, i don't mean exist like exist just that he is here.......

Dan Delgado we went from non organic to organic then we understood logic and math and the like with only chance on our side, it's that what you are saying?

Dan Delgado look all I'm saying is that DNA is like a computer program and as it stands 2018 no computer program can make itself so it's highly unlikely that such a complex organism can just by chance make it self and I tried to ask Johnny one two three what came first male or female if we were evolving from primordial soup what came first the male or the female the chicken or the egg it's the evolutionist to have a problem answering that I can tell you that God created everything in 6 days it makes sense us evolving makes no sense at all. Sir Fred Hoyle professor of astronomy and math Oxford University said to suppose that the first cell originated by chance is like believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing 747 also Dr a Cressy Morrison past president of the New York Academy of Science said so many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our planet that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance

why

yea the atheist is such a fool

Good thing words never have multiple meanings in different contexts! Excuse me as I bank these dollar bills at the bank in order to pay the bill for buying all those duck bill pliers for my patient who has been waiting for them in a very patient fashion.

Jim Stouffer we are not talking about synonyms, when Sye Ten asks him, "do you believe that", matt says, "what do you mean believe"? When Sye Ten asks Matt, "do you know that", Matt says, "what do you mean know"? Matt has to give odd and unreasonable meanings to "know" & "believe", to try and fit his contradictions. No where else in life do you have conversations like this. "Know" and "believe" have already been defined there is no reason to ask, "what do you mean"? He is just doing the same shuffle as matt delhunty lol

@@jesussaves2131 Matt defined his terms and was consistent. Sye’s trick was to equivocate and to try to twist Matt’s meanings, but Matt wouldn’t let him. Whether you agree with him or not, it should be clear that Sye debated in bad faith.

Jim Stouffer not at all, Matt would make absolute truth claims and every time Sye Ten would push Matt into justifying how he knows if the claims he i making are true, Matt would do what is commonly known as the "deluhunty shuffle" and say I "believe" it to be true, and this went on over and over again. Matt thought he got Sye Ten with a point and was working the crowd when he made yet another truth claim and everyone started to cheer for matt, then Sye Ten busted him and called him out, when he asked, "Matt is that true or do you jut believe it"? Epic call out! All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ!

He’s calling us all liars. I don’t see any love in his apologetics.

Sye is a funeral worker for dead arguments 😂 he just comes to eulogize his opponents wordview, RIP atheism

Because his presupposition is that, since it's a dinosaur bone, then it must be, "by definition," millions of years old.

@@silverbullet86 Exactly.

Jack Theripper he took up on himself humanity humbled himself and Dina cruel death on the cross and you’re telling me this God is not humble? he is God and is deserved to be worshiped.

What you said is not biblical.

@@aaronquinn6626 yes it is biblical. the earth is unmovable. read genesis 1....water up there and below. .......he divided the waters. what bible you have? one from wizards of england?

you missed his answers

@@markmarino5053 If I'm not wrong, Jesus said to prove to Himself( to Jesus) that you are His disciples by doing what Jesus commands. I don't think Jesus ever said to prove to others anything, but merely to obey Jesus by being his disciples. In fact, Jesus said that others will believe in Jesus if we do what Jesus said, and not by obeying or doing what others say we should do to them, or to prove anything to them, the way they feel or want to(or to their satisfaction). Jesus even warned us that some people will not believe even with the best of evidences(e.g. If they don't believe Moses and the prophets... they won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead Luke 16:31).

"was not forced slavery" So the foreign slaves gained via conquest were volunteers? Because you've been brainwashed by your religion you actually defend slavery, including sexual slavery, rape. You should take a good long look at your morals.

Thank you for your response. But let me ask you a question. Did you take time to try to understand Sye's arguments? Some people take theory of relativity as nonsense. Why? Because they do not understand it. Because they didn't put any effort in trying to understand it. Do you think that Sye invented this approach. He admits that he stands on shoulders of giants like Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Herman Bavinck, Augustine, apostle Paul and of course Jesus.

You seem to be not paying attention what Sye says. God is necessary precondition for intelligibility (we know Him through revelation He gave to everyone) but He also revealed Himself on multilevel venues (creation, biblical prophecies, resurrection etc). So the starting point is not assumption but revelation. I would compare it to awareness of our consciousness. Can you prove to me that you do have consciousness? Can you put an evidence of it on the table? No, but you have this internal conviction/experience. In a similar way everyone knows that God exists. As far as your second question. Do you know that the term fool in the Bible means something different than in contemporary English (or Polish, when we talk about my native language). It is not a stupid person it may describe very intelligent and highly educated person. But fool in the Bible is the person who knows the truth but decides to suppress this truth and act against it for his/her own peril. In such sense atheist is a fool. Now tell me what is your understanding of knowledge? How would you define it?

Hi, Sye does not confuses what atheism is with what some atheists believe. What irritates atheists is that when he quotes what the Bible talks about knowledge of any atheists. They assume that them and only them have direct access to their mental capacities. But they are wrong. You even do not know 100% objectively your own self. But God does and He said that all people know that He exists. So I not only claim that God is real but also that you very well know that He exists. However you suppress this truth what makes you guilty. To know anything you are pushed into infinite regress of justifications of justifications of a given claim. The only way to get out of it is either to have all knowledge (for example that you are not in a matrix) or have revelation from the one who knows everything. Thus without God you know nothing. If you know anything it is either by or through revelation from Him. We are not talking about absolute certainty. You do not have (as Sye likes to say) even 0.000001 % certainty. You even do not know if you really exist. You may be an experiment with artificial consciousness a product of some electrodes feeding AR into an artificial brain (with your virtual friends with whom you interact as long as somebody pulls the plug). If you believe in evolution you believe that your consciousness "popped out" of the complexity of human brain. Why then intelligent bio-engineers wouldn't be able to construct an artificial consciousness? And guess, maybe you are the one! The only method of discovering the truth is to start with God and he Christian worldview. People in other worldviews may discover some truths but only by being inconsistent with their one and borrowing from our worldview.

To claim that you know that God exists in spite of your denial of that is not insulting you. It is stating what God's Word says about you and all other people. You just wrongly assume that there is no one else who knows your thought better then you do. I do not need to demonstrate that God is real or the Bible is His Word. Just answering me in this thread you have to presuppose that. Otherwise you have no basis for intelligent exchange. Or do you? Now about circularity. Of course when it comes to the ultimate authority the circular argument is unavoidable. Do you think that you are free from this issue? Try to prove your rationality! By necessity you will appeal to... well, rationality. But your argumentation ends up in a vicious circle while mine has a rescue device. God's revelation which assures us about existence of God. He revealed Himself on many levels. One level deals with historic facts. To skeptics of His days Jesus said that no sign will be given to them (they were demanding a sign from Him) but the sign of Jonah (this refers to Jesus burial and subsequent resurrection ). If you try to tone down your bias against God and check facts about resurrection you may be persuaded. If you stay in rebellious attitude you can always find odd historians who will give you "basis" to reject this miracle. He also reveals Himself in our souls. He put eternity into our hearts. I guess you understand this metaphoric language. You would not have these higher longings in your heart if you were just product of evolution. Etc. Romans 1:18-21 states that everyone knows that God exists: Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Rom 1:19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Have a deep moments of thinking :)

Mick, not so long ago you wrote that when I say that I know what you know is insulting you . Now you keep insisting that I am wrong. Do you try to insult me? If you claim that God's Word is wrong then you have to have standard which allows you to discern what is true/right from what is wrong. What is this standard in your worldview? Of course I quote the Bible because it is ultimate authority. And you want me to demonstrate that God exist? Aren't you committing category confusion error? God is not a part of our temporal reality. So He cannot be measured with an instrument like radioactive radiation for example. However you know that He exist. So it is pointless to try to demonstrate what is obvious to both of us. Now your psychoanalysis of my state of mind is so faulty that you wouldn't feed your family if you enter such profession. I just skipped one of your question otherwise our discussion will undergo snowball effect. I can answer it if you are curious. From my perspective I can be sure that both of us exist but we perceive - although the same world - however with different spin. Since you suppress the truth about God your thinking becomes more and more futile and your mind is darkened. However from the perspective of your worldview you can't even know if you really exist! How funny, you wrote: "I know , if you enter a debate about the existence of God , you've already acknowledged god does not exist!" First of all I haven't enter any debate about God's existence since both of us know that He exist. Second, it does not follow that God does not exist. With you it is other way around. Since you do not have any justification for meaning, truth, laws of logic etc. in your framework then you depend on my worldview to even attack my worldview. So any discussion you undertake presuppose existence of intelligent God-Creator. Listen again the opening example Sye gave. How would debate about existence of words look like?

It seems like the rest of these KZfaqrs don't get it.. I wonder why.. Lol. If your going to answer the fool, who has no ultimate justification of morality, reason, logic.. then you can only answer him with foolish answers. For all he knows, he could be a brain in a vat. The atheist already will agree with you that they could be wrong about everything they claim to know, in turn, they give up knowledge. If the atheist say, there is no God, but I could be wrong, does He know It? Nope. The thing is, is that they do know that God exist, yet they suppress the truth of God, because they don't want to face a moral, condemning God, who will judge sin by His righteous standard. God has made it know to them clearly by the splendor of creation alone. God has already written His existence on their conscience, so they are without excuse on the day of judgement.

Sye IS the fool with his folly. Sye can't prove God exists, and neither can you. We Atheists don't definitely claim God doesn't exist. We disbelieve the claim that God exists because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to back it up. This is what presuppositionalists like you don't get - we're not making an absolute claim. We're REJECTING YOUR ABSOLUTE CLAIM.

Grant Carpenter Could you be wrong about God's existence?

Only if I'm shown to be wrong through empirical evidence.

Hyphen Underscore Guy Could YOU be wrong about your god's existence and the nonexistence of all other gods ever worshiped by humanity?