The Refining Reason Debate: Dogma Debate Livecast 

When I held Sye's position, which is Calvinism btw, I didn't even know how absurd it really was until investigating it. The same thing is to be said about me and Christianity. I'm an agnostic atheist now.

A perfect example of eating your cake and having, too.

What?! A plan isn't force.

Where does it say in the Bible that "Your free choices have been pre-determined by God."? Don't you think God's revelation is a better authority than some guy's opinion on that subject? At best Sye is knowingly stating an absurdity to prove you can't refute it with atheist 'logic', at worst he believes in predetermination which is heresy. It wouldn't be his first one, despite agreeing with him on a great deal of things, he is wrong about others.

@@oldscorp "Don't you think God's revelation is a better authority than some guy's opinion on that subject?" One of those things exist, and the other doesn't.

(....and, I might add, this is utterly reinforced by Sye and Eric's best possible retort to Tyler's proposition, which is "Well, I wouldn't think that if I were youuuuu.. because you'll go to helllllllllll........ nyaaanyaanyaaaa." AKA childcare.)

_"I know that many skeptics and atheists prefer to avoid the counter of "well I have a revelation too" as a means of illuminating the weakness of presup arguments, since it purportedly shows a need to appeal to external revelation, which sort of justifies the presup position."_ There are two basic modes of philosophical examination of a worldview or substantive position, the *internal critique* and the *external critique*. Presuppositionalism fundamentally asserts that it is immune to _external critique_ because the external worldview lacks justified tools with which to launch an intelligible argument. Strictly speaking, that's actually sound although it's highly unsatisfying and fails a common sense test. What the presupp *can't* legitimately do however is assert invulnerability from _internal critique_ on the basis of "borrowing from my worldview" because that's exactly what an _internal critique_ is -- borrowing all of their worldview for purposes of analysis. On a purely internal basis the presupp argument has more than its share of issues, so there's really no need to go elsewhere. [Issues like the infinite regress problem of divine deception "for purposes that are perfectly sufficient to God" (the presupp needs to be omniscient to know revealed truth with absolute certainty). Or the fact that the presupp makes a logical argument that logic is an objective metaphysically distinct necessary entity, God (or God's nature) has a logically necessary existence, _and_ logic is somehow contingent upon God/God's nature.]

Good points, Jesse. I feel like their defense against external critique is invalid because they haven't demonstrated that the external worldview lacks the tools necessary to argue. I know they think it, and it's kind of the lynchpin of their position. But Tyler's posit here demonstrates the weakness of that position: Presupposin' things just don't make them so, and they acknowledge that damn well when someone else is doing the presupposin'. Moving to internal......I allow, loosely, that they're being logically consistent; after all, if you honestly believe that other worldviews lack the tools necessary to sufficient argue against you, then you can't reasonably accept any external argument. But then they're left with the problems you cited, most damningly the problem of infinite regress of deception and their lack of omniscience. My hugely condensed version of the debate: Presup: I know things with certainty because of the voices in my head. Skeptic: Sorry, I don't make shit up.

Peter Zachos I'm not sure their position is internally consistent because it asserts that logic is both a necessary platonic metaphysical entity and also contingent upon God or God's nature. Here's my syllogism using modal logic to make the problem more obvious (assuming their wv): 1. All things that actually exist do so on the metaphysical precondition of their existence being logically actually possible. 2. All things that necessarily exist do so on the metaphysical precondition of their existence being logically necessarily possible. This isn't to say their *actual* existence is contingent, as lacking this existence would conflict with necessity, but merely that it's an inescapable truth that necessary things are automatically necessarily metaphysically possible. 3. Without logic there could be no logical possibility, thus logic must exist as a background precondition. 4. Necessary possibility likewise requires necessary logic. There can be no possible world where something is logically possible yet logic does not exist. 5. The argument "God is a necessary requirement for the intelligibility of tools of thought such as logic and reasoning" can be restated as "Logic and reasoning are necessarily contingent upon God or God's nature." 6. It is logically impossible for God to be impossible. That is, God is a necessary being in all possible worlds and likewise God's nature is necessary. Because God necessarily exists then, as per #2, it must be true that God is a logically necessary possibility. Conclusion: Positing a logical argument that logic is contingent upon God but also necessary because God is necessarily possible is contradictory because something cannot be both necessary and contingent. Thus, *if this is the truth of logic* then logic itself would be a contradiction -- either logic does not exist or the presupp is using something external to their worldview.

I love how at least 3 times they had the opportunity to drop the discussion, but eventually walk right into the trap Tyler had for them.

I don't think determinism and free will are incompatible, necessarily. I'm an atheist, so I'm not sure how these guys describe the phenomenon of compatibilism exactly, but I think the answer may lie in the question: what is free will actually meant to be free of?

Resisting temptation? lol

Pretty tough, I grant you....

You had to take God to consider this, then sye wins

I'm absolutely I am not the God that you believe in"

"I'm absolutely certain that i'm NOT omnipotent. Sye and Eric: "You could be wrong " Me: ok, so according to Sye and Eric, i could be omnipotent and therefore : I'm GOD!" That's a bit of a straw man. It is the atheist who is claiming he cannot be certain about anything; not Sye and Eric. Their argument is that there are absolutes. So your example doesn't refute them; it actually proves they are correct. What Sye and Eric are trying to point out is that atheists are not consistent with their own worldview. When pressed to take their suppositions to their logical conclusion, they dodge by crying foul.

SailingSeignior And?

@@twelvedozen5075 And he just admitted that his attempt at apologetics is pathetically useless.

@@thoughtfuldevil6069 This would be based on the assumption that Sye is actually trying to convert people using apologetics. I can tell he isn't, because he doesn't believe he can.

@@sotem3608 I wonder why he does debates, if that's the case. What motivation could he have?

​@@thoughtfuldevil6069 Watch some of his videos, he frequently addresses his reasoning. If you truly do wonder you could watch those. One important reason for his debating is because he loves those whom he debates, he loves them enough to bring them the truth. Yet also Sye knows from scripture, that it isn't man who converts, but it is the richness of God's mercy, which is exactly why he can say with 100% certainty that he won't convert anyone.

Eric M Is the label “crazy” something you have evidence for, or is it just a subjective claim?

@@twelvedozen5075 It's an adjective, not a label. The response given to the question at 1:21:00 seems like a deviation from basic cognitive skills enough to question his intellectual honesty, so I'd go with "self-deluded liar" or "hypocritical idiot", but "crazy" works, too...

@@timmarrier No, that's false. Sye was actually correct. What Tyler presented was false. The "being" he hypothecated was logically and ontologically insufficient. He presented a "...force out there that is all powerful but not conscious. It validates inductive reasoning; it validates logic; and reveals to us all that God does not exist. Show how that is absurd." Logic and Reason demonstrate that because there is anything, then something necessarily is that is eternal, immutable, and, very importantly, Personal! Without all three of things qualities, there wouldn't/couldn't be anything at all! So his argument fails from the get-go. See: R. C. Sproul: Eternity. Also, R. C. Sproul Proves God Does Not Exist. And R. C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God. All three are available here on RU-vid.

​@@reallifelegend4781 "Believe it if you can, I can't stop you. Believe it if you like, you're welcome. It's obviously impossible, as I said before, to disprove, and it equally...obviously...helps you to believe it if, as we all often are, in the "happy position" of "knowing the outcome"...in other words, "we are here"...but there's a fallacy lurking in there somewhere too, is there not?" - Christopher Hitchens

@@timmarrier I give you facts, and you respond by giving me senseless drivel about Hitchens' opinion about belief? I pointed you to irrefutable proof of God in the videos I mentioned to you. Instead of dealing with the objective proofs presented, you want to respond with subjective opinion.

It's super fucking annoying an childish at best.

It's known as compatibilism in philosophy. The only Christians who believe and promote that type of freewill are known as Calvinists like Sye Ten Bruggencate. Atheists or Naturalists also believe in that kind of freewill and promote it except they believe that our free choices are pre-destined by nature instead of a god. I agree with you that compatibilism is absurd and illogical but you can't believe in libertarian freewill without believing in an intelligent and trustworthy God. I'm gonna create a response video to this section of the interview and explain more. :)

@@MarkusGhambari I'm an normal, not indoctrinated human aka from birth on an Atheist and I do not and never have believed that events are predetermined by "Nature". I make my fate by choice...

@@Raydensheraj First of all atheism is not neutral. It in fact takes much more "faith" to believe that our existence is pure accident. Secondly, what you purport to believe or even believe to believe has nothing to do with whether your worldview, which is atheism in this case, can actually account for your belief. Atheism cannot account for libertarian freewill. No matter how much you want it to. It just can't. Because there is no such a thing as choice in a world that is nothing but an accident. Free will in that world is nothing but a delusion.

@@MarkusGhambari it's you guys that believe in a man made God and name him. See, I study Astrophysics at IU and it is my life's study. I do believe - which doesn't mean I'm right - that a certain energy state always existed. Energy and matter are obviously more then just connected. Every biological lifeforms needs energy to exist. It's the Religious that state a entity that is metaphysical thus not detectable and detached from space & time created everything out of nothing. Puts first only single cell life on the planet and goes on from that to Dinosaurs to us. He puts Evolution somewhere I there to confuse the hell out of us and constructs one small area , like a fishbowl, we can't leave without taking something with us - we go to deep underground and gravity kills us. Without a spacecraft we won't survive space. One right sized Astroid will end life. The sun expanding will end life. We can destroy his creation with nuclear weapons. No, there is no evidence whatsoever that the man made version of a Christian version humanistic God is the correct answer - you guys are stuck the same way we in Science are. When there is a Creator of the Cosmos and anything in it - it is beyond human understanding. How dare a Human actually stand there proclaiming he has the mental capacity to understand or know what this Creator wants. Creationism is full of incorrect answers, I don't take this minority serious. Science - which is not a believe system - is looking for answers in a way that humans can understand and use for their betterment as a species. Religion is rather a social gathering that has faith in humans... Even Jesus Christ was a human and there is no evidence providing any information that says otherwise. Religious individuals can use a book and illogical arguments all day and they still can only define their God in an way a human would. But in order to create every particle, plasma, the stars, every lifeform etc this entity would have to be something we couldn't explain in words. So no, your preferred version of God does not exist. But a creator or creative force does. I don't think Atheists have a problem with a person believing whatever it's rather that Christian's try to indoctrinate the planet, claim to know an answer to everything but use weak arguments and trust into authority that is flawed as it could be. Eric Hovind is a conman like his father - he knew that vitamin b17 does not heal cancer and has killed individuals - he still went ahead and sold it online. And the other guy is just a arrogant, illogical know it all that looks down on you for not believing him. You can literally see nothing but an radical self absorbed human that thinks he translated the Creator and dismisses anything that leads to different answers. It's also telling that in all my visits to different countries only Americans seem to care for fanatical Religion. It reminds me more and more of Radical Islam which both are becoming more and more similar... A very scary thought when I think my kids would learn in school that the Earth is only 6000 years old and Evolution a demon theory. All atheists are demons. All other religions wrong. The Earth is flat, Jews are the enemy etc I care about the human species and our future. Religion cares about living to die. Atheists just don't believe in any man made Religion - they usually don't assume there isn't a creator just that we have no way to proof it. Religion claims to know all the answers has and is being abused, terrorists and crimes against humans are abundant and no clear definition of a God exists... Because none of us know. We only believe to know. And I rather not believe in something I can't know. I won't force my believes or run from house to house trying to convince you. I won't sue the school system to teach Pseudoscience to your children, I won't tell humans whom and what to love, I won't tell children that they will burn in hell when they commit mistakes, I won't make myself look idiotic by acting like I understand the force that created everything we know by one book that has inconsistencies left and right.

Raydensheraj Don't hurry. Wait another hundred years or so Max and you'll see if my God is man made or not. No rush... As for the rest of the rubbish you wrote, I don't really have time to read and respond. Even if I did I probably wouldn't because rubbish doesn't deserve my time.

Sye's response would be: "Yes you do. You're just suppressing it."

***** Oh, he'll say that of course, but he's wrong. The reason Sye is so frustrating to argue with is because he's so totally full of shit, and has been demonstrated as such repeatedly, but he just keeps going on and on and on with silly word games and absurd, unsupported assertions.

You assume that Sye Ten would be honest enough to receive your point.

Sye's position and method is textbook gaslighting. It is a form of psychological abuse where you torture someone by invalidating any claim they have to having a coherent mind. It is cruel and un-Christlike

@@UnionBerlinOnMyMind And so everyone can suppress it. So there's no validity in asserting any god by belief.

You seem bored.

setmedic in all honesty I am starting to believe that he DOES have some type of mental ailment through all of the "debates" I see him in

setmedic I just read parts of the Colorado shooter James Holmes diary before watching this video, and there definitely are some similarities.

+Auiuei He is talking to people with the same disease.

It's really sad because he sincerely believes that God predestined all of his free choices. I've talked with him on Facebook about it and I got blocked for disagreeing with him. The great debater Sye ten blocks people who disagree with him.

Sye tried going face to face with me in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Tempe. He tried using the line that god loves everyone. He then stated that his belief is consistent. I asked him about this debate, and Marcus Pittman had to stop the conversation and separate Sye from Jeff Durbin and myself.

The reason is because Sye and Kent are presuming that their listeners have an emotional attachment to their pride in knowledge. That's why they immediately ask "how do you know?" and other questions; they're asking as a dig against the atheist because the atheist prides knowledge first. A rational thinker should be happy not to know, and even to run from knowing when confronted with unassailable truths; to always doubt and be skeptical. The announcer should proclaim with joy "I can't know anything for certain and that's the glorious part of being an atheist! All my discoveries are my own, and all the knowledge gained a fresh challenge to push my boundaries!"

It's my 1st year calling myself atheist... hopefully I can find ppl like you who's been out of the god game for a while to help ppl like me (baby atheist) in our new journey

Same 😆

Yea makes perfect sense where do you thk Free will comes from?

@@gman4074 There is no free will. There is will, but it's not free. The universe is deterministic, which means there's no free will. Good luck trying to make an argument otherwise.

louisng114 Yes, they are claiming they have knowledge. The typical atheist has a subjective scientific point of view in which nothing is truly certain.

@@twelvedozen5075 they're full of it. Put both Sye and Eric in different rooms and ask them the same questions and see if you get the same answers. If they're getting "divine" revelation from the same source it should be almost exact. We all know it's a word game. They better hope their God doesn't exist because they're dishonest arrogant assholes who use circular reasoning because they don't know enough about their own bible to debate what's in it. That's why they repeat the "how can you know for certain" line before even getting anywhere. They create atheists by the day.

This is approximate to the argument I was imagining. So I'm really glad he had the wits to get up there an speak it. All they can do is recoil and mock.

Dammmmmmmmmm he killed both of them wow.

From there on in, the show is pretty awesome. Just get to sit back and watch as they fall apart.

Everyone around them goes like: lol. And sye and hovind just never seem to realize that what he did was EXACTLY the same thing they do.

agreed, and sye then comes up with "all of you know that he's not speaking the truth" GOLDEN, exactly sye, exactly. reminds me of that atheist experience where one of the hosts asserted that she created the universe (in response to a clown who stated that the christian doctrine is the only one that cannot be wrong or the like), the caller then claimed she does not have the authority to make that claim! beautiful.

Shangori I was surprised too! It seems they were not aware of the irony of it all...as they are so deluded in their own world that they can't seem to fathom their position using a different deity.

matias2309 What's even more funny is that they called Tyler's "force" an absurdity. He said he believed in a force that validates logic and reasoning and it's not conscious and it reveals things to us, and that we all know it and believe in it... and Sye and Eric said that this was an absurdity... they just called their own argument... an absurdity!! It's fucking classic!

Lol... I like your ( ) comment... I 100% agree with you... love that im an atheist

worse than admitting you can’t know anything?

It's not just "no reason to disbelieve." It's that combined with overwhelming sensory impressions giving direct positive reasons.

nor does denying it. 'sides you cant prove the non existence of anything

I especially like the part where Sye tries to argue that he gets to use special pleading to excuse his special pleading.

DonMezzo Yes, that's what they always do. :) The challenge at 1:21:00 also ends with the same no true Scotsman fallacy. :>

Oh and later on there's predestined free will, and them not believing in the same God. :>

MMDE "predestined free will" - One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. He is a Calvinist, so the real surprise is that I'm just now hearing him say that.

MMDE I love that part. They don't even try to refute it, they just accuse him of lying, then the atheist guy even hit'em with their own "you believe it too".

YES! That's the lie presuppers have to cover with their faith, that ultimately "God" is a stand in for "I don't know." The difference between atheists and presuppers is that we revel in not knowing, in questioning what we do know, in breaking away from old doctrines and questioning received wisdom. Every atheist should go up to the presupper preachers and happily proclaim "I have no fucking clue what's real, and that's a good thing! Unlike some gullible saps, I won't be taken in by any old shyster selling me salvation from an old book! Give me evidence that seems incontrovertible, and I'll make it my life's mission to disprove it, and if I fail, at most I'll begrudgingly call it a "scientific theory".

milesbennettdyson Miles may I please ask you a few questions about religion?

I responded to a similar question recently in regard to Christianity and Creationism: A belief doesn't automatically earn respect just because you hold it. James Randi put it best when he said, "No amount of belief makes something a fact." Isn't the larger, more important question to ask: "Is it true?" instead of "Does it make me feel all warm and gooey?" And Creationism, demonstrably false, is being addressed by the skeptical community because it is constantly being thrust into political platforms, school systems and the vulnerable brains of young children. Religion isn't a benign, happy "hobby" that carries no consequences. Religion is a virus, spreading exponentially. Religion is an army perpetually on the offensive...pouty, self-righteous and indignant over the slightest resistance, nonplussed that anyone would have the nerve to push back against the tide. If superstitious activists weren't constantly pushing bogus history, pseudoscience, indoctrination and guilt, our response would not be necessary. Unfortunately, it has never been more necessary, and free-thinkers are growing in numbers and courage. Here in the Information Age, the God's bullies are realizing that they no longer dominate the playground, crying the tears and throwing the tantrums of spoiled children. To them, the scenario was only fair if they acted without challenge and spoke without rebuttal. But those days are over. To the religious: Play the victim all you wish. It doesn't mean you are one.

Because atheists don't knock on your door and convince you that something isn't real and if you don't believe us then you will suffer. Likewise we don't want something we don't believe in on our currency, in laws and I could go on to write a novel but....

I think that +Colonel Sarge Pretty much nailed it, but I would just add that for some people debate is really, really fun. I enjoy having polite conversations with my intelligent religious friends because its a challenging form of entertainment that leads me to self-reflection and a desire to learn more!

Wikey9 Thanks for the response and I do appreciate those people out there, Atheists or Agnostic, who truly do respectful debates/ask questions, and instead of doing what a lot of them do - complain, attack, etc, some out there actually listen and have things explained to them and that is awesomesauce

+Eric Wells "Not trying to be rude or anything but to any atheist I have a question for you. If you do not believe in Christianity, God, or even any other religion, then why need to have a debate about something that you do not believe in?" It's not rude to simply ask honest questions. Those you have posted are fortunately very easy to answer. Why would I argue against belief in gods that we don't believe in? Because while I don't believe in deities, I do believe in theists, and the demonstrable harm they cause. I'll not give an exhaustive list here for brevity, but I will respond with a lengthy list of the evils religion has done and continues to do upon request. If theists kept their religious beliefs inside their heads, and never let those beliefs effect their actions, then you wouldn't hear much of anything from atheists. But that doesn't happen. Beliefs inform our actions, and such an important and all-encompassing belief as Christianity will affect quite a lot of your life and decisions. This is why we're constantly having to fight religious politicians trying to get laws passed supporting their religious beliefs. I don't bother debating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster because no one is killing or discriminating against others in the name of belief in Nessie. "Also, why is it that some atheists out there have so much hatred for those who believe in Christ?" I don't hate those that believe in Christ. One of my best friends is a Christian. She doesn't try to convert me, and it rarely if ever even comes up. But I think you'll find a pretty good store of animosity in many atheists. We're marginalized, and even had a US President state that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. We are in fact demonized as a group. Theists keep telling us that we're going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular religion, and it's very common to be ostracized from a group or even family when you're an atheist and they're Christians. This was in fact my experience. Since they believe I'm destined for hell, and could potentially drag others down with me, it was safer to cut ties with me. "If you do not believe in Christ, then why get angry over something you do not believe in?" Answered above. We're tired of religious people trying to force their religion on us. We're tired of fighting to keep laws based in religion out of our legal system. We're really tired of fighting to keep one specific creation myth out of public school science classes. And we're really tired of being told that various forms of science aren't correct because they contradict their holy book. "Or is it the fact that while you do not believe in it, you already know the truth but are suppressing it, as the Bible says, in unrighteousness?" This is one of the most stupid and offensive passages in the entire bible. You know what it is? A philosophical escape hatch - a get out of jail free card for god. It's much like "You shall not put the lord thy god to the test" or however that was phrased. Nothing but cheap dodges to shift the burden of proof. After all, the bible explicitly states that we all know god exists, and some only suppress the truth. I'd like you to try applying this asinine argumentation in any other aspect of life. When disagreeing with someone, inform them that they already know you're right, and are only suppressing the truth, and see where that gets you. It's idiotic, unfalsifiable garbage. This also makes no sense. If we all have knowledge of god's existence and the consequences of hell, exactly what kind of lunatic would suppress this? If we're talking about an eternity of conscious torment, after a comparatively very brief time here on Earth, what insanity could possibly induce anyone to suppress this truth and think that would accomplish anything. Were this concept of heaven and hell reflected in reality, this would be much like walking off a building while suppressing the knowledge of the consequences of gravity. No one would do this. It's beyond insane. Also, it's very arrogant to assert that someone knows something. Telling someone else what's inside their own heads is not only arrogant, but extremely offensive. I can only think this passage was added to the bible to excuse the billions who've died without ever hearing about Christianity.

Sally Wolf Frauds? WLC possibly...but Krauss is not by any means a fraud. Do you know what he has done in the field of physics? He has actually played a huge role in progressing our understanding of the universe. I would hardly call that fraud

I didnt say anything about him. Did you watch the video?

oh wait I thought i was replying to another video lol. my bad man

True, but he couldn't have recouped later. But you're right: god could reveal things for certain, but how does one know that god is revealing those things?

Well you also couldn't be certain it was God doing the revealing in the first place. It could be Satan or Zeus or a computer program or your own mentally disturbed head.

Ryan Slingerland That's what I mean. You don't know if it's god. It could be someone else, as you say. However, if you did know it was god for certain who was revealing, how do you know he's not lying? That's where the independent verification comes in, as you originally posted.

deosullivan3 It's even worse than that. God himself has no way of knowing that he's not a brain in a vat, so he doesn't have a certainty to reveal to you!

Tiberius Vetus LOL! Well, presumably an omniscient god would know. But point well taken.

A great job at embarrassing christians, indeed.

***** The question is, why are you guys obsessed with us? Seriously, you don't believe in Santa, so why don't you go to the mall and argue over his existence?

***** Then go argue with kids about Santa.. why are you here?

Why do Christians insist that: "God gave his only son". No he didn't, not at all, no sireebob. God never had a son. He created a human incarnation of himself specifically for the purpose of being sacrificed as a scapegoat. Saying he "gave his only son" is a pathetic appeal to human mammalian sympathy. He's God for fuck's sake, he could knock out a gazillion sons (or daughters) if he wanted - a child is worth nothing to God - he can create or destroy them at will - as he appears regularly to do.

Stew Taylor funny!. Good point, why is it a big deal that Jesus came and died? Just make another Jesus. It's not a sacrifice. If anything Jesus is a scape goat.

Well said.

Well, according to sye, god isn't loving, he hates some. That's his convenient reason... God just hated you! /smh