I don't understand how the retort "god will not be mocked" is reasonable in response to someone directly mocking god. Yes, he will be. Didn't you just hear it?

wow, Sye really is insane

My jaw dropped when I heard Sye's answer to the best form of government being a theocracy. That is some dangerous shit right there.

Seen it, can't go through it again. Presuppositionalism and NASCAR have a lot in common. Both are a short track that just goes around and around the same circle that ultimately goes nowhere. Both attract an audience of very similar people.

Dang Sye !! Hard solipsism has not been disproved, it has been SET ASIDE as useless (thus far) towards the end of navigating this Universe.

I know its been said before but.....thank you so much for record this and posting it. It was really good quality, amazingly good. This must of been one hell of a task and a lot of time involved. Thank you again.

Absolutely superb coverage of this debate Seth, in fact I think it may even go a little overboard with the 4 cameras and podcast version. ;)

Wow, that's a new low for apologists. "I'm gonna spend my beginning statement to quote mine my opponent to attempt to gain credibility for my absurd position".

This is literally just a word game. one of the silliest debates I've seen.

i love how you said this audio only upload was necessary for people who dont know how to just not watch the visual aspect of the debate while listening.

Great idea to do a podcast of the debate. I sat through the video of the debate that showed your great camera work so I won't listen again here. Matt did very well and he also did well on all the clips which Sye spent most of his time playing, even though some of the clips were obviously taken out of context if you are a viewer of the shows Sye clipped from. Sye, when he did talk, basically just repeated his baseless assertions and preached hell and damnation for anyone who didn''t buy into his BS. That Matt kept his cool is amazing.

Already listened to it, and boy... i didn´t think Sye could fail as hard as he did, but this what theTsar Bomba of all failures. Just the opening statment was.... Ugh!

Wow. Not even into a few minutes of Sye's opener and I am already banging my head on the table.

Great job Matt. I loved that Sye states he doesn't do bible studies with non-believers, the simplest way to avoid answering questions.

Debating Sye is a bit like trying to drag a dead horse through sand.

That Sye Ten guy put a red mark in the shape of my hand on fore head, is that normal?

You have such an amazing radio voice! You should get Pat Condell on the show sometime, he's so intelligently witty.

I was hoping this would be an propper podcast episode discussing the debate instead of just audio taken from it. :(

It is amazing that people like Sye want to live in such a small small world. Paul

I can easily sum up Sye's end of the whole debate in a sentence: "Matt is not ABSOLUTELY certain about anything. If you aren't 100% certain about X, you don't KNOW X." We don't deal with absolute certainties, it's impractical. Yet we still have knowledge but it's provisional. He's playing with semantics and now I have bit marks all over my hand because of the frustration of having watched this debate.

Made it through the whole thing. Sye has *nothing* but circular arguments, and it so effing arrogant.

Solipsism CANNOT be disproven. That fact is not a "get out of jail free" card for every possible assertion, given the evidence that DOES exist within this framework we share, which framework we call the Universe. Some assertions are demonstrably true for within this framework-- some are not. The most important point is that irrespective of ultimate reality (whether reality is as it seems to be, or whether you are something like a brain-in-a-vat, being "fed " your perceived sensorium), the reality that we interact with, we interact with for the purpose of maximizing well-being within THIS framework, and to put off the experience of death within THIS framework. The efficacy of this interaction (towards the aforementioned ends) can be assessed and determined (thus far) sans any understanding of so-called ultimate reality. What I write below applies to all considerations of ultimate reality, as much as it does to afterlives: We can imagine exactly one infinity of possible afterlives (possible in the sense that they cannot be proven to not exist, rather than possible in the sense that any evidence for them does exist). Since none of these infinite afterlives are EVIDENCED HERE (in this framework), any detailed set of positive assertions regarding the nature of such afterlives is making an infinitely bad wager. The only purpose of solipsism (that I can see) is to make one realize that one is probably better off looking at data that DOES exist, than to spend time imagining one or more of the infinite ultimate reality scenarios (none evidenced here)-- if one desires to avoid pain (and to foment pleasure) in THIS framework (novelists and other artists excepted-- they are supposed to come up with interesting bullshit).

Is this a re-upload?

SyeTen had a chance to preach. That's about all he cared about. It was his reason for coming to the debate. He wasn't interested in learning anything. This is most evident by his own admission that nothing could change his mind about his religion.

I already watched the video version and came to the conclusion that I'm no longer interested in anything Sye or Eric have to say - their entire shtick is based on word games no more convincing than the ontological argument. I think that as a community, we've given Sye and Eric enough chance to prove that their arguments have any weight, and they've failed. Hopefully, Matt's argument with these two clowns can be the last public forum we need to give them in the skeptical community.

I agree that the presup position boils down to personal experience but they suffer from the same perceived problem they accuse atheists of. They need to use reason and logic to interpret the revelation that they think comes from their god. They're using reason and logic to justify reason and logic.

"I don't do bible studies with non-believers." is Sye's answer to anything that he doesn't feel comfortable addressing. Sye: I'm cold. Send me your coat or admit that you don't really follow the words of Jesus.

Since presuppositional apologist Sye does actually refuse to do any defending of his god he maybe should be renamed "presumptual unapologist".

I think Sye lost the entire branch of the reasonable audience with the first four words of his entire presentation.

Matt did an awesome job here, wasn't expecting this from him, eventhough Sye made it easy on him.

Can you be sure you were asked to videotape the event, Seth?

Pre-supp is a pointless argument to bother debating. At best it can be completely ignored, due to the lack of evidence presented, at worst it is a willing admission of a closed mind, something completely pointless to argue with...

I was waiting for Sye to come back with the famous "I know you are, but what am I" defence.

Ok... so i only managed to listen to the first 30 minutes of the debate... can someone tell me if Sye ever presented evidence for the existence of God? Or did he just presupposed Gods existence until the debate was over?

In the first discussion section Sye seemed to undermine the importance of reason altogether, the debate was about whether it is reasonable to believe in a god, he has lost because he's trying to justify belief that lacks reason.

Hot damn! This is so frustrating. And so worth it!! I was screaming at the phone.

Hey Seth, saw your cameo in The Unbelievers.

How do you debate STB? You can't because he won't do so honestly. Am I absolutely certain of that? No because he could choose to someday, I just haven't seen any "reason" to believe so. I have watched him spar back and forth with other theologians, which seems to show how every verse one of them quotes can be directly answered by a differing quote within the scripture. This does not show a reasonable objectivity which he pre-supposes comes from the Christian God whose word is revealed to everyone. Repeatedly asking how anyone else can be absolutely certain refuses to acknowledge that Sye himself can't be absolutely certain unless he has the attributes he ascribes to God. How can I be absolutely certain of that? Because I'm not God.

How does one differentiate something that one thinks one know from something one knows?

OMG!! This talk has now taken 1st place over the banana man Ray comfort's debate with Matt as the worst 1 sided debate ever! Matt you were amazing. What a waste of time on at least half this talk.

If you look at The Thinking Atheist video list you will not see Sye's name referenced! /s

Watched this a week ago?

I'm really glad I'm an atheist. I do love watching fiction movies, but I like to keep my life "realistic"

I had mentally prepared myself for Sye's insufferable style and was able to thoroughly enjoy Matt's complete and utter trashing of Sye. Well done, Matt... well done!

Special pleading is a paradoxical logical fallacy. I dare any of you reading this to tell me whether or not special pleading universally applies or only sometimes applies in certain contexts.

Sye. If the Quran says "the bible is true". And that makes the quran false. Doesn't that make the claim in the quran that "the bible is true", False?

Sye's opening 10 minutes were beyond painful, and hadn't Dillahunty saved it, I'd wonder why they even gave him 10 minutes so he must stuff them with empty words. The audience questioning alone was gringeworthy at best. "Doesn't your religion tell you not to be an asshole?" "Give me the exact source or I'll refuse to acknowledge it says that. Aw, can't do it? Too bad. Next ques- oh shit."

He won't do bible study with non believers, but he also claims that everyone believes.

When Matt brought up the special pleading fallacy Sye's last response was basically "but God is special tho"

The reason we know that we exist as something, at the very least a concept, is that the alternative leads to cogito ad absurdum because you can't think even circularly if you aren't able to think in the first place, and for you to be able to think at all you must first exist at all, even if just as a program of some kind in a computer of some sort, biological or not. So it is NOT a fallacy of irrelevant theses to say that if the pen didn't work for what you were testing it for then you would know it didn't do what you have preconceived about it in your head, from which it follows that if you weren't able to think then you wouldn't be sentient, and if you aren't sentient then, in the context of being a human being, you would have to be dead for that to be able to be true. Yes, ok, he skipped these steps, but that doesn't make it a fallacy!

Matt and sye almost sound the same, there are times i didn't know who was talking. also, Matt is not lowering himself to sye's level hes just beating him in his own game.

Say 'Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a vat!' one more time...!

"Only a sith deals in absolutes"

If Sye Ten Bruggencate had a son, would he be named Sye Eleven Bruggencate?

This is Sye's argument: "Oh gee, hard solipsism is so mindblowing that it makes my head hurt. We can't have that, so therefore God exists".

"I'm fizzing theistically, he's fizzing atheistically." He's fizzing stupidly. What kind of ridiculous argument is it to compare evolved beings to an inanimate wad of plastic and carbonated water?

Beware! Massive facepalms ahead!

Hey I live in Memphis :) I wanted to go see this so bad

If you look up 'Stupid' in the dictionary, You'll find Sye

It's only reasonable to believe what can be seen, and tested, and peer reviewed.

Awesome. As always, Sye answered himself as a fool and has reduced his own position to absurdity. Well done, Sye.

Sorry, Seth, much as I love your work, this is one video of yours that I simply will not watch. It is possible that I COULD somehow get through two hours of Sye Ten's presuppositionalist BS, but I suspect that, by the end, I would have face-palmed so hard that you could read my fingerprints on my forehead. It would be one thing if Sye had something edifying or profound to say. He doesn't. What he has is his game, that he insists that any debater play with him, and he will not deviate from that path. The excerpts from the complete debate (thankfully BRIEF!) which I have watched are evidence enough of this assertion. My above statement should not reflect at all on Matt Dillahunty, whose worthy efforts I have seen in those same excerpts. I'm just sorry that he was tasked with facing such a duplicitous opponent. I'll see you next week.

I'm a little confused from Sye's perspective, what the point of this kind of argument is exactly... I mean let's go through the thought process here(assuming Sye sincerely believes it). -Everyone KNOWS God exists. If this is true, then what would be the point of going through the presuppositional steps to prove that. Didn't he just say it was already self-evident? Also, if everyone who claims to be an atheist is just lying about their position, how does the mere act of asserting that they are lying going to convert them? Does he think they are going to hear his presupp arguments and just be like: "Aww shucks you got me! I was just pretending..."

i can't believe i'm wasting time on this.

I think I dislike Sye (and other apologists of his intellect or greater) the most. Not because he has some argument(s) that will sway an out-n-out atheist. Rather because his BS, at least externally, sounds reasonable and could be persuasive to those who may be considering an exit from theism...

I don't understand why people don't use the vast array of past (so-called 'pagan') deities worshipped by humanity (LONG before the Israelites culled their multiple gods down to the few being touted by the bible writers), to utterly smash the claims of presuppositionalists... I would think that Aron Ra would be very effective against presuppositionalists, in that manner.

Matt says in his intro: Some mistakenly say that *science* is a religion of materialism or naturalism- founded on the intellectually honest recognition of our limited ability to investigate. I want to clear his fundamental misconception of reality. Some say *evolution* is a religion of materialism or naturalism founded on the intellectually honest recognition of our limited ability to investigate. Matt said {science}. Let’s get this straight, folks say that science *agrees with evolution*. If this is cited correctly, it is actually stated backwards. {Evolution agrees with science} is the correct pecking order. Science is the *staple* by which the assumption of evolution rotates. Scientific definitions widely accepted and verified that have no perceived assumption. This eliminates by reason- evolution as fact, except in the perception and presupposition of evolutionist. To make clear what I mean is that evolution is a *syndicated religion*, with preachers, journalist, tithes, offerings, and comedians like any other. Just without prayer.

After listening to this "debate", I came away with one thought. It's futile to debate with a crazy person.

Sye is right that everyone knows God exists.... the Chaos Gods, all hail Khorne, blood for the blood god skulls for the skull throne!

1:19:10 "He's hanging up on me" LOL XD. If there's anything worth hearing from Sye, this would be the one.

(01:08:19) The sound of Matt facepalming.

Sye is one of those very intelligent theists. He is able to reason his way into unreasonable beliefs far deeper.

After watching Sy crucify himself all I can say is I'm glad I'm an atheist.

I don't think Sye's silly BS deserves half of one of your podcasts.

I KNOW that there is a self-aware consciosness this moment (as I'm typing this), Pick it apart Sye, if you can.

I watched the video, so won't listen to the podcast. However, if anyone hasn't watched it, it's worth doing so just to see Matt make Sye look foolish.

Sye embarrassed himself, and embarrassed all of Christianity. Matt,,,,great job, the best argument for atheism I have ever heard.

Sye's opening ist just a huge quote mine of Matt, while he himself is presenting a circular argument, leading to a false dichotomy between him and Matt. Three logical fallacies right there.

His argument against the Quran can be used against the Bible by replacing the Bible with the Torah, can't it?

Sye Ten Bruggencate clearly doesn't believe in the Ninth Commandment. If he did, he wouldn't be spouting the "arguments" he does. They're just one false accusation after another.

A podcast so they can listen to it? I just listen to videos all the time. You just don't look at the picture on the screen and guess what? You're listening! :)

I believe Matt is the best atheist debater out there. If anyone is going to give him a run for his money, it is WLC and vice versa. Although WLC has been pushed to his limits by Sean Carrol basically calling him out on everything he claimed to know about physics and cosmology, WLC needs to be addressed on ALL corners, not just cosmology. Meaning we would need an atheist debater with the best overall skill. And that my friend, would be Matt Dillahunty. Although I think Matt would definitely win in the end. Unfortunately, WLC fanboys would probably STILL claim Craig has won, which pisses me off on how closed minded they really are. Craig claims that even if all the evidence DID point to Christianity being false, he'd still believe independent of the evidence because of the "witness of the Holy Spirit" in his heart. I'm sure Matt would scald him for this, but Craig deserves it. By claiming this, he has demonstrated that he doesn't care whether or not his beliefs are true, at best it just shows that he just wants them to be true in the end. Unreasonable. Matt Dillahunty vs. William Lane Craig.

1:36:00 Apparently Sye's god cannot lie and is, therefore, not so omnipotent after all.

Sye's Cowardly Escape Hatch = "I don't do bible studies with atheists"

I am sorry, but this is probably the most boring debate I've ever witnessed. It is not even a real debate, just childish back-and-forth over over-comlicated definitions. I doubt this would make anyone change his or her mind.

Sye is just using word games. NO Facts.

What an annoying debate that is. If Sye talked to me in that matter i would probably walk up to him and punch him in the face ...

Sye is lucky that quote mine didn't cave in on him, he got reeeal deep in there.

Wow. Sye even starts with a big strawman he made out of quote mined audio clips... the amount of douchebaggery with Sye is still strong. So much cringe factor.

Sye Ted Bruggencate = one giant ad hominem attack

"We don't have to play these philosophical mumbo jumbo games" Sye Ten. "We don't have to get wet about it" Liquid Water. Two men here Frank and Bill. Frank says "look Bill a rock", then shoots and kills Bill, then look at the rock, yep still a rock even though Bill's mind is no more.

16:27 "You need to be able to know what is ultimate real to know what is true" And here is Sey T. wrong. Firstly, we cannot know what is ultimate real, even if you assume God's revelation. We are all limited by our senses and reason to determine reality, and even if there is God's revelation, you still need your senses and your reason to determine that you are not deceived or diluted. Second, we don't have to know what is ultimate real to know what is true. Play a rolling playing game like World Of Warcraft or Second Life. You can know the rules of that game (like health, mana, items, dungeons, monsters) and those are true inside the game. You don't have to know that the character is inside a game, or that World Of Warcraft is just a simulation.

Listening to Sye while driving?!? I'd probably end up with a bunch of tickets and a bent steering wheel!

You need a comedian as a co-host. Youre podcast would be so much more funnier. (LOL)

I can't listen to sye's horrid appeals to emotions .. It's sad that you gotta claim to know everything to make a point. Such a beautifull world full of uncertainty to explore and here's some guy telling people he's got it all figured out. It griefs me so.

Sye - please at least...at least know your Wikipedia: Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired. You are arguing Philosophy not Law...douche...

Tell the truth Seth you just wanted a week off from the podcast.

This guy sye is ridiculous! What is the point of these nonsensical word games that mean nothing? It just proves the dishonesty of his position and the weakness of his world view.

Simply put that was 2 hours I will never fucking get back. God that sucked. The debate of whether or not God existed took a back set to total meaningless semantics.

A waste of time. When will atheists ever learn? "Going head to head" is a laugh. You guys are giving these guys a free ticket to fame. Believers who have never heard of Sy before this have now made him their hero. This seems like an ego-booster-- for both sides!