I am atheist. This was a bad loss for Matt. I think I could have done a better job. Sye was driving and framing the debate from the beginning. Matt was on the ropes the whole time. Sye kept him on the defense. That's something I would not have allowed.
Matt said he believes Truth is that which is objectively real. And admitted he doesn't know what is objectively real and therefore he can't know Truth. Matt clearly defeated himself and lost...
If Sye ever did engage in a debate, that would be a loss for him given his position. As soon as he acknowledged he has reasons for his beliefs, he is admitting he doesn't presuppose God. I suspect he still wouldn't be comfortable saying, "I have no reason to believe in God," but that discomfort is too bad for him because that is exactly what he is advocating.
@@nateperez6587 He believes things to be objectively real for what he believes are good reasons and which other people might or might not agree are good reasons. He made that distinction from knowledge in the context of discussing hard solipsism. The topic of the debate was to discuss whether belief in God is reasonable, the purpose was to exchange reasons for one position or the other. Sye's only reason was "I know." If someone saying he knows were a good reason to believe something, we'd end up believing many contradicting things. Therefore it's not a good reason.
@@Godisgood13208 not true, Matt believes he can be correct, but is intellectually honest enough to say that no-one can prove something with 100% certainty. On the other hand, Sye believes he cannot be wrong, and even admits that nothing could change his presupposition that the Christian God exists.
Raymond Rowe I watched the debate before I watched this and I'm glad because this presentation really summarise the key points excluding drama by more than 50‰ and saving time.
What Sye did during the debate was cram God into every hole in his logic and ask Matt twhat he thinks would fill those holes. Matt is honest enough to say, "Idk." God is not the answer to hard solipsism by the way. Hard solipsism consumes everything but me.
Premise 1: I cannot be wrong Premise 2: I say god exists Therefore god exists. It's not circular. It's not special pleading because this case is special. There was never any need for Matt to even speak, Sye committed suicide in the first 2 minutes. But I am glad Matt spoke because destroying Sye was hilarious.
Watched the full debate before this. What do you want to say? It didn't add anything to this documentary. It was essentially Matt dodging the question over and over again, when asked directly, by picking it apart to keep from having to answer it. I hope you have a good day and that you'll find the way, the truth and the life someday - I know that I have! He's all I want and all I need. Jesus
Would anyone invest what little time they have in this life debating whether or not unicorns exist? No. Because deep down they really don't believe they exist, so why waste the time?. So why do so-called atheists spend all of their precious time railing and debating against something that they say they really really don't believe even exists. Because maybe...they really aren't atheists. They just understand that misery loves company.
Watched the full debate before this. What do you want to say? It didn't add anything to this documentary. It was essentially Matt dodging the question over and over again, when asked directly, by picking it apart to keep from having to answer it. I hope you have a good day and that you'll find the way, the truth and the life someday - I know that I have! He's all I want and all I need. Jesus
Must have watched it 10 times...Sye won everytime... Matt's worldview doesn't even know if the legs it's supposedly standing on even exists....so there's that...
What do you know? You are just a robot that traveled the universe to gather knowledge and power but gain no wisdom. It was only when a bald man told you what your purpose was that you could understand it.
This video was released soon after the debate, and was only posted here for free recently. Interestingly it was Matt that made "damage control" videos.
I watched this the first time when i was a "militant" athiest. And today i watched it as a believe in our God and Lord Jesus Christ. With out the truth of God we can not know anything. The truth will set us free and in Christ we are free. Thank you my Lord, thank you Jesus for setting me free.
@@ChuckChuckWood I grew up in a materialistic family. Christianity just wasn’t around. After a while I played around with pagan stuff but by the time I was in the army I just didn’t believe, I thought believers in a god where delusional.
@@ChuckChuckWood as far as my mind changed, in 2018 I woke up and I had a realization that I couldn’t shake off and that was God is real and Jesus is the truth. I wasn’t convinced but I believe that morning God removed the veil and then I saw the light.
@@tward1737 Yeah okay that makes sense, the reason I ask is that most people I know had to discover that they were Atheists and drop their existing reigious beliefs, I could never understand how someone who went through that process could go back to religion - at least it demonstrated to me that they weren't an atheist for the same reasons as I am. I was raised Catholic, my parents were never particularly hardcore but we were taught in religous schools, visited mass every week and took the sacraments. I never really believed though and asked a lot of difficult questions from early on - it was only as a young teenager I realised they didn't have answers, so I began looking for someone who did and started researching the religions of the world and found a pattern amongst all which was they required "faith" and that meant there was no good evidence for the claims, otherwise I wouldn't need faith. Anyways, just interested to know, thanks.
As a Christian, at 42:21 the most Profound thing Sye said “The bible says that Our god created the universe by speaking it into existence You know what he did not do for our salvation? He didn’t speak it into existence ..... he died for it. One mans salvation is a greater miracle than the whole creation of the universe.”
Atheists are so much like the Pharisees in The Bible. Arrogant fools who refuse to see their own sin. John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. goodpersontest.com
@@benacker1983 agreed Ben- I’m really starting to understand how deep sin dwells within me- it’s imbedded in the core of man- the message of grace runs through me- it’s meaning is profound once grasped
@@lightbeforethetunnel My comment is a year old and I still don’t need a refresh on the video. Sye is excruciatingly obnoxious and an awful debater who did nothing but further confirm the obvious naive delusion needed to be religious. He and a few other idiots keep me atheist.
The description of this video states "... debate between Christian Sye Ten Bruggencate and professed atheist Matt Dillahunty in Memphis Tennessee." Question: Why is Matt Dillahunty a "professed" atheist, yet Mr. Bruggencate is not a "professed" Christian?
Matt knows God exists, as do you. He just plays intellectual jumping-jacks to pretend he can make an argument out of absurdity, which is, by definition, absurd. I also called myself an atheist for 17 years because I wanting nothing to do with God, or a higher authority, than myself. Why? Because if you embrace the Truth of God, you lose your self-sense of ultimate authority. People do not go to Hell because of unbelief; people go to Hell because they reject the authority of God, love their sin, and refuse to repent of sin.
Neither can you. You just claim that you can account for it with zero demonstration of it being true. It's a vacuous statement. We all live in this world together and we all assume the laws of logic out of necessity in order to survive and prosper in this world. We don't need to justify and know with "absolute certainty" that the laws of logic are immutable.
the depths of your stupidity are amazing.......we know that humans ancestors of the early stone age knew how to count......... a long time before christianity or any other organized religion........I know you'll pull that BS that "god" was in them.......which god? no god necessary
Matt thoroughly lost this debate. The dude was exposed as an inconsistent know-nothing in his own words in Sye's presentation who was simply smart enough to show that this debate wasn't really between Matt and Sye but rather between the Matt that knows and the Matt that doesn't know. The rest of the talk was just Matt trying to recover from being destroyed by himself in clips from his various contradictory statements about truth and knowledge. It's hilarious how anyone can think Matt won. But then again it was two different Matts arguing against themselves and Sye was just "moderating" the debate. But I've already seen butthurt Atheists try to polish this turd of a loss in their "hero's" favour by attacking Sye personally. When they hate you so much even after expressing a genuine concern for the wellbeing of their souls, you know you're doing something right. Matt never once showed a love or heartfelt concern for the Christians he disagrees with or why it matters to him that they believe what he believes." Winning" debates is all that matters, I guess.
@@themanwithnoname469 He lost badly, plain and simple. Sye put up a great patch work of Matt's own words which exposed him as laughably inconsistent. No one involved in debate whines about dealing with "the same old bad arguments." You simply try to make your case no matter.
@@signposts6189 too bad Sye still did not convince me why God exists nor did he provide any good evidence. He just claims that everyone knows god exists and those who don't accept it are just doing it because they love to sin. It you want to talk about inconsistency there is nothing more inconsistent than the bible he is defending.
@JO He sure did. His opening statement addressed the topic of the debate. Matt tried and failed as he was still reeling from the manhandling Sye's opening statement delivered to him. Sye quoted him extensively such that Matt had to pick which version of himself he agreed with in the contradictory personas Sye exposed of him.
@JO Yes he did. Sye undercut Matt's epistemology and worldview by exposing the inconsistencies of the claims therein which demonstrated how unreasonable unbelief in God actually is by using his own public statements. In so doing, it naturally led to Sye establishing the fact that the truth about God is already known to believers and unbelievers alike. The difference between believers and unbelievers as Sye pointed out in his opening remarks is that believers profess the truth, while unbelievers suppress the truth. This simple concluding statement of the facts dealt with the question about the reasonableness of belief in God.
Sye = I know God exists because I believe he exists, and nothing can change my mind Matt = I want evidence first, and if anyone can provide evidence then I would change my mind
"Knowledge and certainty are completely irrelevant" @15:54 "I'm not absolutely certain about anything" @ 29:30 After those statements, why should we take Matt seriously? How should we debate a person who says they are not certain about anything? We expose it, are you certain about that you are not absolutely certain about anything? But Matt doesn't live like that, why? Because no one can, it's impossible. A worldview that is impossible to defend and live cannot be true. Our society is built upon truth EVEN the debate was based upon truth. Atheists may hate Sye but he is treating atheists according to their worldview. Atheists can't even challenge Christianity if you don't believe in truth, but atheists borrow from the Christian worldview all the time. Atheism is foolishness, it refutes itself, it's either God or absurdity.
I didn't see that in that clip, maybe you are projecting Sye's literal behavior onto her normal conversation to make Sye look better given he was taking sexual advantage of vulnerable women which is borderline rape.
Listen if you don’t come to the conclusion that God does in fact exist and not only exists but has created every single thing you feel touch see hear taste and especially sense his presence I feel bad-for you. It’s so clear to me that God is real and I’m not going to try to debate anybody on something I know it’s true. It’s up to you to find truth
Solipsism = it is ALL ABOUT ME. You WANT to be your own God, and that doesn't work. You have to borrow from every theist in order to ever know something is right or wrong. Being God, it is the promise of the serpent in Genesis. Eat this fruit and become GOD. We are still fighting serpents and monsters to this day. They are all around. When you are an atheist, you believe truly that the world revolves around you, you wouldn't condescend yourself to admit anything or anyone has authority over you. But you are a true denier. You deny the God that gave you life. When the truth is = we are all evil sinners and we all deserve the rot in hell for eternity. When you are a believer, you have a get out of hell free card. Because Jesus paid the price for your evil sin. If you really are an atheist, live it up now because eternity will not be pleasant for you at all.
Watched the full debate before this. What do you want to say? It didn't add anything to this documentary. It was essentially Matt dodging the question over and over again, when asked directly, by picking it apart to keep from having to answer it. I hope you have a good day and that you'll find the way, the truth and the life someday - I know that I have! He's all I want and all I need. Jesus
"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen." Did you pray this prayer?
Sye and his fellow presuppositionalists are doing more for atheism than Matt Dillahunty ever could. The blatant misrepresentation and childish word games turn more people away from god than turn them towards him. Keep up the good work.
Clown tried to cut as much Matt's out of context sentences as possible, then hard pressed on a problem he couldn't even demonstrate himself. Such cowardice.
When Sye was talking to David Smalley, he should've taken the chance to ask him how many times has he called into TAE show pretending to be an ignorant Christian. He's clearly done it many times
So uhh turns out Matt was making knowledge claims in the FULL DEBATE as well, while at the same time claiming he knows nothing. I pray he finds the Truth.
rune umm Matt doesn’t have “his own faith”. He doesn’t need to have something called “faith”, because he believes in reality. By answering the unknown with “faith in a god/gods”, we hold the human race back in so many ways. Imagine a world where people didn’t waste their time with telling a woman who was raped that she shouldn’t be allowed to get an abortion. Imagine a world where everyone actually used their true moral compass as we are all more than capable of doing, but instead some blindly follow “faith”. The 9/11 attacker’s blindly followed “faith”. Think about that. Oh by the way, it’s not because they chose the wrong version of god, as there are many horrific Christian examples of someone blindly following their “faith”.
Matt: I believe I know, I can't absolutely know anything Ask Matt if he knows he exists and he will argue he could be wrong. He is like a schrodinger's pig existing in two states and in both states he is oiled and greasy and excited to wrestle you.
**sigh** No, he won't argue he could be wrong. He will argue he cannot prove that it is false. Sye has conceded that not being able to prove that something is false means that that something can bé true.
Thanushaan The Truth is on Sye’s side and there was no need for him to dodge anything because Matt can’t even account for anything he believes. He didn’t dodge, he just refused to move forward until Matt could justify his beliefs.
@@1977Jackofalltrades Rubbish ! Matt "patiently" answered everything Sye asked but Sye was just too stupid to understand basic English. It is almost impossible for anyone to think Sye was rational during the debate. All Sye said was "It is true because it is true" What on earth is that? farrk off mate...
Thanushaan Yoga went right to the ad hominem, I see. Sye has no problem with English, he just won’t let you off the hook when you claim you can’t know anything. Matt’s beliefs change like the wind as Sye clearly demonstrated in his opening presentation.
Attacking someone else’s worldview has zero bearing on the truth hood of one’s own worldview. Sye debating is just bad faith question begging. There’s no point in even gathering for this thing.
Matt Dillahunty doesn't get it, we are not limited to philosophy; philosophy is not worthy as God. Dillahunty also compared born-again-experiences to eating a very excellent meal, he proves he has no clue what it is to be Christian, but he gets angry that we don't pretend he was once Christian... honestly, just a whiny cry-baby. Matt, you don't know anything but we do know stuff; I know that's not what Matt wants to accept, but it's reality, and if he's not allowed to use himself to strawman us he becomes a cry-baby. I know that is rude, but I can't stress this enough... it's the Truth. If Matt would accept our proclamations of Christianity, as he insists we MUST accept his proclamation of having been "Christian", then he would simply have to concede that our Christianity is true and so God is Christ and God is real. I'm fine with Matt not accepting my claim of Christianity, but he is such a hypocrite when he cry-babys about us not accepting his claim; it's pathetic.
It’s kind of ironic that many of Sye’s supporters here are encouraging all of us to repent and find Jesus when according to Sye’s worldview not only is repentance useless because god has already decided who will receive his mercy, but impossible as humans are incapable of voluntarily repenting.
"Truth is that which comports with reality." Until any God can be demonstrated to even possibly exist, then it is not reasonable to believe that one exists. The supernatural seemingly cannot be demonstrated, and in no way comports with the reality that we all observe, therefore it is not reasonable to claim it's true. Sye has no good argument, only that he believes in God and that everyone else does too, despite what they actually believe. He thinks he has Matt in this "gotcha" moment when Sye has nothing on his side which even remotely gives evidence that it's reasonable to believe in any God, let alone the monotheistic God of the Christian Bible. He even admits that there is no new evidence which could make him change his mind, and this is a hallmark of someone who is not trying to be intellectually honest. Watch the full debate.
Yet you believe nothing became something, non-organic became organic, non-moral became moral. And you think a talking donkey is weird? In your world view anything is possible. Universes can explode out of nothing. It's you that has the burden of proof.
Sye, In the end, the problem is is that you're merely asserting that your epistemology is justified. We have to take your word for it that God revealed things to you in such a way that you can be certain. Why is your human fallibility not a factor when it comes to revealed knowledge? Why should we believe you?
It's not his private revelation from God.. It's written in black and white in the Bible. Everything that Sye says is through correlative knowledge and understanding that is plainly read in the Bible.
I don't know if anyone noticed that part where Sye got to the part of saying Matt's worldview would reduce to solipsism, and then you can see Matt Dillahunty start writing confidently on his page in a relaxed pose as if this doesn't faze him. However, when Sye finally quoted Matt saying that he was a solipsist, Matt Dillahunty retracted his pen and his confidence looked like it reduced as if Sye's quote of Matt Dillahunty closed the avenue Matt wanted to take in his rebuttal. *9:55**-**11:52*
And if you carry on past 11:52 you see he keeps writing. He took a 5 second clip from TAE of him jokingly saying that and dishonestly makes him out to actually be a solipsist
Sye, you just taught me something through the Holy Spirit. I am changing how I interact because I just heard the truth. Why is stealing wrong? Because God is not a theif! Amen
Why is killing wrong? Because god is not a killer. Except for when he killed everyone and everything on the Earth besides 8 people. Why are humans sinners? Is the answer because god is a sinner?
@25:10 “What do you mean by know?” Is not an atheistic question. That is one of the most basic questions to ask in epistemology regardless of your worldview. Just because an atheist asks it doesn’t mean it’s an invalid question.
Why make truth claims when you admit you don't know anything and can't know anything? Wouldn't it be more consistent to just ignore the whole issue? Why would you devote your life to having a show about something you don't believe, and debating people about something that doesn't matter? Why in the world would you waste your time like that? It doesn't make sense for an atheist to spend so much time on this. Why not just eat drink and be merry while you still have breath in your lungs?
That is what I tell these hardheaded atheists who troll on RU-vid all the time. If the Bible is a bunch of nonsense to them, why aren't they out partying and ignoring all of this stuff? Why waste time on us "religious idiots", right? It is because they are truly threatened by the truth of God deep, deep down inside, so it makes them feel better to fight back constantly and it becomes a type of drug, I guess. Sad.
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua _"why aren't they out partying and ignoring all of this stuff?"_ Because there are millions of people like you who DO believe this nonsense and your actions have consequences for the rest of us.
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua No gentleman. We atheist debate because we are concerned about our fellow humans on this planet. We debate theists because believing things without good reason and proof is a dangerous way to roam the world and live life. Happy life sir.
Because we don't want you aholes running ours and our loved ones lives by lying to them. If you weren't trying to shove all this shit down our throats or into our lives we wouldn't give a single fuck what you believe, jeez your dumb.
Spartan 300 where have either of us denied that? It’s called presuppositionalism for a reason. We presupposed they truth of God and that is the epistemic foundation for everything else.
Spartan 300 more straw men. You’re making assertions, fallaciously at that, on my part and then arguing against things I didn’t say. No wonder you don’t understand presup, it seems logic just isn’t within your grasp. That would actually explain a lot.
@Spartan 300 No thats whatvyiu sre doing. You stated he was rejected other forms of Apologetics when he never did he pointed out you made fallcious and baseless claims. Then like all atheists you just use the old cliche 'no u' defense. Absurd and shameful.
From Matt's opening salvo: "we have no good reason to think that absolute certainty, in the ultimate sense, is possible to obtain." What a ridiculous statement from a man trying to convince anyone of anything. I wonder if Matt has a good reason to believe it (with absolute certainty of course).
I will never understand why dogged athiests miss this point. They admit defeat right from the beginning. This exposed the absurdity of atheism to me and Thank God I found faith in Christ.
@@aaronquinn6626 The problem is, that the only person who debated was Matt, because Sye claimed that an unbeliever can´t know anything for certain without the existence of god and he knows this because god makes him certain. But he hasn´t debated, why that is the case. Really. Matt only claimed that in the beginning, because he knew he wouldn´t change Syes mind.
@@alexandradietrich4159 Sye demonstrated the absurdity of the hard atheist perspective Matt has. This was his argument and Mat did not engage with it at all. Matt wanted to sidestep the fact he is in a debate about truth when in his worldview truth is merely a byproduct of chemicals reacting in our brain nothing more nothing less. Yet he betrays his own position by having debates. He implies by his own actions that truth is a tangible reality outside of ourselves thats worth finding. So Sye pointing this absurdity out should end any debate with any athiest who holds a naturalist position. Matt or any other atheist has no answer that justifies logic, truth, knowledge, or any other metaphysical reality. Matt Dillihunty: God is not true and neither is truth.
@@aaronquinn6626 Why would you need absolute certainty to know anything? Using absolute certainty as a standard for knowledge is just ridiculous. The point is, all knowledge is provisional. There may be Truth with a capital "t", but we can only demonstrate knowledge of the truth (with a lowercase "t").
Sye, thank you for sticking to your guns. I listened to what you said . I listened to the video over and over again because I wanted to understand what you were saying. Then BAM! It finally clicked. I see the absurdity
what a MASSIVELY BIASED quote mined twisting of this debate against mat, I DARE YOU TO WATCH THE DEBATE IN FULL i absolutely dare you, then turn around and say sye won, i would love to see you back that claim up
@@MrMattSax you're absolutely right. I need God's forgiveness and mercy but the only reason you won't get it and I will is because I ASK for His forgiveness and mercy. Humble yourself, brother. God is real and so is evil.
I’m reading a lot of the comments for this video and honestly I think a lot of the people who are in support of Sye's apologetic are demonstrating that you don’t know the issues surrounding epistemology. I’m not saying Matt fully understands the issues concerning epistemology, but Sye certainly does not. I think we as Christians need to be held to a higher standard of critical thinking than what’s offered by Sye
Epistemology as a Christian? How are you supposed to know truth as a Christian other than by God. If you are a Christian, then you should agree with "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"
@henryskipper5507 Yeah, I agree with you for the most part. However, that very verse from Proverbs can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. There's the standard modern reading of taking it at face value. For instance, you might think that you literally have to fear God in order to attain knowledge from the modern english translation from the Hebrew. The word "fear" there can also probably be substituted for the word 'reverence' so that the passage more accurately reads, wisdom begins with the 'reverence' of the Lord. See how that changes the entire dynamic of the reading of the text. Point being, yes you are right, epistemology is very important and almost all protestants get it wrong because we read into the text our modern understanding and education. In my opinion we are better of reading the church fathers exegesis of scripture, that means either the Catholic or Orthodox epistemology of the original church founded by God, Jesus Christ.
@@atheismkills3748 Swapping "logical presuppositions" with the word "god" doesn't prove the existence of your god. You've painted yourself into a corner from which you cannot demonstrate anything to anyone because you've rejected the very foundation of rational discourse.
This debate was hilarious :D The guy sat there whole hour yapping " oh I know gawd exist therefor reason hu hu hu" :D I envy Matt patience. idk how could he resist temptation to say that he knows that Fairies gave him reason.
The Truth destroyed Matt and atheism from the onset of this video - you have ZERO basis for anything you think or say -- self-inflicted finishers !!! "He (Jesus Christ) was delivered up for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Romans 4:25 ESV "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.” Jn 8:24 ESV Stop rejecting and start accepting what you already know to be true today - and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free - John 8:32 God offers you the free gift in Christ Jesus, of paying for your sin debt with His perfection and on the cross - change your mind now toward and for the Lord Jesus Christ today, or pay for your own sins in eternal punishment - be reconciled now because HE is worthy!!
The Dillahunty Dodge -' Well it depends on what you mean by ' brutal '!!!!!!!!........ The Dillahunty Dodge -' Not necessarily!!! There could be another option!! One which I am not going to provide.... only mention!!!'
I hope this immensely important point doesn’t go unnoticed- “If your reasoning [as the function of an evolved brain] were not valid how could you know it?” The answer, as underscored by Matt’s response, is rather self-evident in a moment of candor and clarity.
Nobody can know it. We can test things in common and see if it comports to shared reality. God does not make make somebody smarter or more reasonable, at all.
@@anitahyche1 correct, god is simply something we all know to be true because we ourselves did not create this beautiful universe. It is the bedrock of logic and is something we are born into. To believe in something else is to believe in a doctrine created by man, or to worship mankind itself. Simulation theory, many worlds theory, etc, none of it can be proven since is a creation in our minds. The answer is god because it precedes everything which we have created for ourselves. You either worship God, or you worship humankind, which is exactly what he explains happened with Adam and Eve. Our arrogance and ego made us believe we were better than and more than god, yet we think so in the playground he beset us.
Rampant skepticism like what Dillahunty espouses results in absurdity. Anyone watching that debate and thinking Matt actually won when he said he can’t know anything, is lying to themselves.
Sye didn't take part in the debate he just said god done it he should have just wrung in and said that then hung up he presents no evidence as he doesn't have any
I'm confused about the tactic here. The goal seems to be to show that the atheist has no solution to solipsism and that knowledge claims are unfounded. But on the presup position we all do know things and can be certain of them. Seems like all the talk about "how do you know", seems to miss the point. Am I missing something?
In a word, yes. Knowledge is a subset of belief. We believe many things, but the things that we can be said to know is necessarily smaller. if you can say that you are 100% certain of something, it is reasonable to ask, "How do you know?" Christians believe, as a minimum, that there is a God who made everything, who knows what we are thinking, whose son was Jesus and will reward their belief with heaven. That's a lot of beliefs, but if you want to say that you know these to be true, how can you know? It's useful to ask yourself this question.
If you were, your confusion is merely subjective, so within your atheistic world-view, you may actually be very clear minded, and may not actually be confused at all. Edit: This is why even the most famous atheistic existentialists like Camus, Sartre and Niche had the intellectual honesty to admit that the end result of atheism is absurdity; Right, Wrong, Justice, Evil, Love and Truth ultimately do not exist because the values of Right, Wrong, Justice, Evil, Love and Truth are subjective and have no _objective_ value. *The world-view of Atheism is absurdity.*
@@playzfahdayz You have no special method for obtaining knowledge from your god that can be demonstrated to anyone else. Once you've torn down rationality itself to make room for your god, you have lost the ability to demonstrate ANYTHING to ANYONE.
Yes, it's true you can slime your way out of philosophical discussions by making baseless assertions. Just don't be surprised when the rest of us are unimpressed. This is actually a good argument against Biblical authority. You'll never guess what this quote is from (har!): If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honor with the name of the word of God; and therefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language. The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God.
"To say something is true because of your beliefs is a nonsensical statement." -Sye Presuppositionals play word games that do nothing but confound meaning, not discover it.
I have a great respect for Sye. I get exhausted reading people criticize without hearing, and those criticisms aren't even directed to me. Praise God's great faithfulness.
After watching this it seems he is a good salesman for Christianity. But if you don't share his view he claims it is because we just love sinning and just know that god exists but we are just denying it. This is just the typical arrogant response I would expect from someone who isn't like him.
@@themanwithnoname469 Who loves you more? The person who says "Yeah, jump off that cliff if you want to, if you believe you'll survive, I support you" or the person who says "Stop! Turn around! Do not jump off that cliff!".
Of course there is absolute certainty. Either you are absolutely certain that a statement is true, or you are absolutely certain that you don’t know whether a statement is absolutely true. There is no avoiding it.
Watched the full debate before this. What do you want to say? It didn't add anything to this documentary. It was essentially Matt dodging the question over and over again, when asked directly, by picking it apart to keep from having to answer it. I hope you have a good day and that you'll find the way, the truth and the life someday - I know that I have! He's all I want and all I need. Jesus
After watching the full debate! It's clear to anyone that if you're constantly cutting, adding and at times throwing out your yardstick then you have nothing to measure with and that was what was exposed here.
@@playzfahdayz Iv watched this debate 4 times and Sye did a great job exposing Matts shifting position and inconsistencies. ( he has no solid foundation for his worldview) Not once did Matt have evidence or expose Sye as shifting position or nail any inconsistencies on Sye's worldview.. Therefore Sye won this debate on consistency alone.
@@playzfahdayz He stamped his feet like a child and tore down the entire foundation of reason in order to make room for his imaginary friend. That's not winning.
Sye says, "What do you mean by [know] . Welcome to Atheism" As if he doesn't go around accusing people of claiming to know things that they don't claim to know.
"Who is your favorite superhero?" A construed question - They set you up nicely Sye. How do I know? The question has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. They tried the same thing with WLC when he debated Sam Harris - WLC picked it up and refused to answer. Typical of the powers of darkness - They do not play fair - THEY CHEAT!
If it is a “construed question”, you should be able to answer it easily and laugh it off, or at the very least point out why it’s “construed”. It really boggles my mind how there are people like you who think the response of dodging it would make your side look better. Lol
@@ZhangK71 The reason? - the question has nothing to do with the topic is a good enough reason. Dodging cheap shots does make your side look better. LMAO
@@benitaalmond3991 Except I did mention you could laugh it off by explaining why it was a cheap shot, though, Benita. That’s different from dodging. No, if it were you, you would just dodge. You’ve said as much; you haven’t said a single word as to (1) what you think the atheist’s ultimate goal with that opening question is, and (2) even assuming you thought correctly, why that ultimate point is invalid/laughable. “LMAO”.
