26:13 VC" "That's an absolutely meaningless question." Sye: "So you believe in absolutes." VC: "No I don't." Sye: "You said it was an absolutely meaningless question." VC: "No I didn't." LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sye tends to use circular arguments and unsupported premises. His use of presuppositional apologetics is but rhetorical word play that takes advantage of most people's ignorance about foundational philosophy. It is a commitment to irrationality and subjectivism at the very core, and does nothing but assert its position, while asking everybody else for much higher standards that they hold for themselves. That's intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Jesus! What's the point of this? 13:11 - Sye SAID he's "not here for the purposes of debate. [...] I am here with concern for his soul." Christian "debaters", like Muslim "debaters", aren't concerned about truth, facts, knowledge, logic, reasoning, rationality, honesty, integrity, honor, education, etc. None of those things can save one's soul.
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.
@ 29:29 Sye: "How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?" Fool: "That's not even a relevant question.. The question is, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?" BTWN: (Facepalms)
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.
wow, this dude contradicted himself all over himself. "Yes, i am absolutely sure of that." sye:"so you believe in absolute certainty?" "I NEVER SAID I BELIEVE IN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!!"
***** 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.
As far as I can decipher it, Sye's argument is that no one can actually know anything, therefore no one can be definitely right or wrong about anything, therefore you should believe as he does, because why not?
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.
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.
@@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!
@@erikrohr4396 Sye is well trained in word salad nonsense. He makes numerous bald assertions without support. None of his arguments are taken serious by well respected philosophers.
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.
"debates presuppose knowledge" ....says who? Is it not possible to debate beliefs or from a state of belief? Why do you need certainty? And to what extend? is "knowledge"= 100% certainty? 99%? Where do you draw the line? Using that condition you can discredit everyone by your own standards ....I call bullshit on that one. And whoops....that one asspull is the very foundation of your argument in the beginning....what a coincedence
How is this guy going to hang up on anybody because he doesn't like their world view he knew he couldn't use that how do you know how did you know with him so we got mad and hung up very petty sey
All I see is Sye bullying callers and tries to lead them down the route to say something and when they won't play his game he cuts them off. It is arrogant and dishonest.
Did sye just say that its his worldview whenever atheists resort to logic? O.O His worldview is the most illogical repeteative nonsense I've ever heard where he blatantly refuses to answer any real questions..
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.
"I don't believe in absolutes" "the christian God is logically contradictory"...well...you just made an absolute statement It's amazing the amount of logical fallacies and contradictory statements the black guy made in less than two minutes. Totally reduced to absurdities
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.
i can't not laugh when i hear atheists dance. And if you follow presuppositionalists, you will see that a lot. It's like denying God makes them good at dancing around the issues. But it is also sad, that they are going to hell for denying selfevident truth and clinging on to absurdity. If I knew how to pray, I'd pray for God to open their eyes and soften their hearts. Hear ye people! How can you not see the fallacy in "I am absolutely certain that I cannot be absolutely certain". Come on! a 3-year-old can tell you it's absurd. And it's not an unresolvable issue. You just have to want to know the truth.
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 ?
Does BTWN have any other debating tack beyond his feeble attempts to trip people up based on what they may or may not have said on previous videos. He's like a 10 year old arguing in a playground, "you texted this, you facebooked that", "no I didn't", "yes you did".....
Always fun to know that Sye argument is: "I know i'm right because i know i'm right. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" So much more honest and mature than everything else in the world.
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
If you are referring to a dishonest entity when you say the word "God," then you are referring to some entity other than God. God is the Maximally Great Being, meaning that he possesses all great-making properties. Honesty is a great-making property, so God is 100% honest. Therefore we do have objectively true knowledge about God, and that knowledge is incontrovertible.
You kick someone out because, he put SYE on a corner. WHat a dishonest are you. Sye said it is pointless because it was pointless to him, as he was not able to dance arround the corner he was put on.
God's revealing factual knowledge about himself is linear and logically valid, not circular: I can reveal factual knowledge about myself, you can reveal factual knowledge about yourself, and God can reveal factual knowledge about himself -- there is no logical problem in any of those three cases.
If logic is descriptive, not prescriptive, then the atheist can't say with certainty just because God is (supposedly) illogical, that God doesn't exist.
God doesn't lie to his servants. Also, God could only lie if he exists, so when VC states that God "could be" lying, he has already admitted the fact that God exists.
Why people give Sye change to even talk? He has ABSOLUTELY nothing to contribute to spiritual conversation. He has word game he likes to play, and he is ABSOLUTELY ( hah :) ) incabable of seeing world outside that. Poor guy.
+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?
At 44:35 Sye says "I'm interested in talking about what he actually believes", but Sye always seems utterly disinterested in talking about what he believes himself, and more importantly why he believes it. Sye's approach to promoting his own "worldview" hinges solely upon his attempt to debunk someone else's "worldview". He doesn't understand the saying "only one of us can be right, but we can both be wrong".
Logic is just getting a certain result in a given environment. As we all operate on a given environment, what those people do its just accepting being fallacious. Ok……You lost …..NEXT
if sye can just answer one question it may help the christians but sadly it makes most christians cringe to listen to him speak about how do you know that? do you know that for certain? ok sye do you? yes why? because god revealed it to me for certain! ok how do you know that i just do oh ok well you could be in the matrix right? are you certain of that? how do you know that WORD VOMIT!
Sye is just too painful to listen to, I've had to quit a half hour in. I think there's a Bible passage about trying to remove the splinter from your neighbour's eye while ignoring the log in your own? Sye clearly has no clue what that passage means, because he's ignoring a full grown redwood.
I got to about 34 minutes (I know, I'm a moron) and got tired of both the older guy and the kid who couldn't understand that he was being double-talked into an idiotic circle-jerk of rhetoric and nonsense. The older guy is using 2nd grade, infantile tactics, and the kid is falling for it.
I cringe every time I listen to Sye. What the atheist was saying when he mentioned that he 'knows' he exists because he is having experiences (and that it is absurd to say he doesn't exist) has literally nothing to do with whether or not these experiences are real. Sye always goes to the "Well you can be a brain in a vat!" argument. Fine. What does it matter? I exist as a brain in a vat then, or an algorithm in a super computer, or thoughts in the ether. It doesn't matter! I still exist in some way, shape or form. I exist as something, the only thing I cannot be is nothing. I know this to be absolutely true without the need for a God.
While Atheist prove that you and I don't know anything for certain, they attempt to say that they are certain that God doesn't exist, and certain that certainty is impossible ultimately.....which mean debating is pointless, only a way to not be bored. And keep your sanity. Just like creating meaning in a meaningless world.
Wow. That was beautiful. ***** trying to derail the conversation and discredit his person just because he doen't want to debate his argument. And in the end order to kick him to claim victory. Perfect portrayal of the most horrible conclusion to a debate. And BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM s first thing to mention is that he tried to seperate his own worldview from the position he wanted to debate from. Such a bad guy. We all know that arguments are completely irrelevant if there is no actual person behind it.
Sye is such an arrogant hypocrite who loves to be sarcastic and play a victim. He criticizes others for arguing a hypothetical to prove his position wrong, but has no problem doing it himself. He only participates in debates where he can follow his script and control the conversation, and if it's not going his way he quits like a little child. His claims boil down to an appeal to revelation, and every other religion on the planet can claim the same thing. He claims to defend the christian god, but I see no reason why you can't accept his entire argument and become a muslim, hindu, mormon, or deist.
His example of not winning the lottery is irrelevant. Sure, if you hope to win the lottery you won't necessarily win it, but you certainly believe the lottery exists, whether you hope to win it or not, otherwise your hope in the lottery is meaningless if the lottery doesn't exist. Existence is the issue here. God's existence is never questioned when hope is exercised(just like you never question the existence of the lottery when you are hoping to win it).
"You are wrong about everything you wrote because you have given up certainty. When you figure out how to be certain ,i will consider your comments as just noise". Why do you bother replying to our comments when you are going to just ignore them in that cowardly way you do?
Yet more disgace from BTW and STB, ignoring relevent points made and interupting without answering points made. There is no good will in the discussion from them here.
Why do you guys allways walk in syes trap. He switches the topic one-secound intervals. He askes you a question and while you respond he interrupts you with a new question with a new topic. I would be adamant, to stay at the topic and make the actual point clear. Just don't let him interrupt you. And when you made your point, ask him if he accepts your point now. Lol. You give a good answer, and he askes a new one, like its meaningless. Man, this guy is unsymphatic...
its so hilarious to me that people who look like ( the popular image) of Jesus deny him the most,,,shows God has a real sense of humor,,,hes mocking them,,,they look in the mirror and say "Jesus is a myth" and there is Jesus staring back at them,,something very ironic ab that lol,,,
Sye avoids difficult answers by just answering a new question. This is so anoying. Please don't play his game. Insist that he gives a clear answer, and when he wants to switch topic, insist again that he gives a clear answer, and again, and again, ...
Nope, he ended the convo because a uestasked him to before the guest could explain his point. Bullshit. You are a dishonest host, I'm flagging you as such.
Sye said he does this because he cares for the souls of people, and wants to show them the love of Jesus Christ. The way he treats people shows anything but.
I normally enjoy watching these videos, but this one really is NOT that enjoyable. It's actually very disturbing. The hostility toward God is downright scary. You had one guy literally give up his world view and adopt another one for his hatred for God. Then another guy sounded very emotional like he was about to cry. This tells me it's something deeper going on. Sye said he's doing this so that people can come to Christ, not for kicks. These atheist study and study and study to argue their points but are still not sure. And the fact that followers of Christ ARE sure, really angers them.
Sye took a college course called playing dumb 101. His final grade was to come up with the dumbest argument he could possibly think of. That is where the brain in the vat/how do you know that? argument was born. He aced that class and failed every other class. That's why Sye is an apologist.
