Debating Dillahunty (full documentary)

[@zendean5207]

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.

[@kevinomondi1084]

Let's repent

[@monsterram6617]

Zen Dean - How much did Sye pay you to say this?

[@joshuamilloway9178]

Zen Dean Why don't you challenge sye to a debate then.

[@mastaoogway]

How would you have handled it?

[@westernriteorthodox8719]

Atleast your honest, Which you don't need to actually do in your Worldview, So I applause that Zen.

[@aussj4link]

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.

[@MegaRzen]

No one won this debate, because it wasn't a debate. Sye does not debate he preaches.

[@Godisgood13208]

You can not debate someone that doesn't believe they can be correct

[@nateperez6587]

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...

[@tompaine4044]

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.

[@elvancor]

@@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.

[@ReubenCohn]

@@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.

[@yeshuaourking1614]

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.”

[@benacker1983]

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]

If you knew the depths of your sin, you would realize that a miracle salvation is!

[@yeshuaourking1614]

@@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

[@gracefaith1282]

Absolutely brilliant quote.

[@rubydanon209]

Proves that the Bible actually comes from THE GOD, then we talk.

[@TheDiamond872]

I saw the full debate. Matt came on top by miles. Sye was more interested in preaching than actually debating Matt.

[@judethree4405]

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.

[@misternu]

Watch the full debate.

[@salomondahlberg6432]

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

[@bhandy21]

Same result

[@playzfahdayz]

Same result, Matt's world-view is intellectual absurdity. The end.

[@yhwyorthehwy2476]

Salomon Dahlberg did. Matt lost

[@MC-cs2xx]

That's NOT enough, watch MORE, watch the all Matt's video and spot the inconsistency

[@911jdc]

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?

[@StLee-ex2ee]

Easy, because Romans 1:18-20 says that there is no such thing as a real atheist, only those who deny God.

[@chazgirl6186]

Because there is no real atheists only professed ones.

[@911jdc]

I'm not sure I understand... Are you saying that I'm only CLAIMING to lack a belief in a god when in reality, I actually DO believe in a god?

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

911jdc everyone believes in God, there is no such thing as atheism its a delusion

[@playzfahdayz]

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.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@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.

[@Towndrunk26er]

No reason for AnswerAnyone to make a damage control video if they think Sye did well, his performance at the debate would speak for itself.

[@answeranyone]

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.

[@MDoorpsy]

You mean his videos where he analyzes the debate he participated in? He does that for every debate, regardless of how well he did.

[@answeranyone]

You might want to check when he started doing that.

[@TheItachiRulez]

@@answeranyone wrong. he had done it before and nice ratio of likes/dislikes hahahaha

[@agentadams1302]

Interesting damage control video

[@adelarscheidt]

Watch the full debate

[@wajutiem08]

where can I find the full debate please. search terms?

[@answeranyone]

Link in the video description.

[@salomondahlberg6432]

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

[@JustinVK]

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...

[@bhandy21]

Same result.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

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*

[@mslisasierra]

A clear loss for all who fight against God’s Holy truth! Matt included.

[@calebbrookes7896]

@@mslisasierra lmao if you really think that that sye had any success in that debate. I think god accidentally sent a clown to the wrong address

[@calebbrookes7896]

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

[@reformedcatholic457]

"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.

[@ryanfloch6054]

You seem to believe the world is atheism or christianity 😅

[@aaronquinn6626]

😂😂 the hot mic moment is hilarious, so much coping before the debate even started. They know.

[@maskouye9222]

Does anybody know where I can find the after debate which we saw in clips in the documentary? Thanks

[@SabbatarianCalvinist]

Just watched the debate and it was even worse for Matt in the full recorded debate.

[@alejandrovillalba3143]

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.

[@quintonsm2616]

What debate did you watch?

[@rageforthemachine]

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.

[@edcarson3113]

rageforthemachine you’ve got that wrong buddy

[@twelvedozen5075]

Why do you say humans are incapable of voluntarily repenting?

[@shockawenow9382]

We are supporting the winner of the debate and it happens to be Sye.

[@STRAINEDPRUNE]

if your still above ground you are receiving God's mercy. Will you repent?

[@protruth1]

rageforthemachine agreed, iam an evangelist and calvinism is unbiblical and a violation of mans autonomous will and the need to preach the gospel.

[@marianoosp]

This highly edited video makes you look even more dishonest than the actual debate. Sad.

[@rockys201]

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

[@kyriacostheofanous1445]

Wouldn't surprise me at all if that were true. Atheist are extremely dishonest.

[@Kvothe3]

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?

[@MrDorbel]

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.

[@playzfahdayz]

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.*

[@icemachine79]

@@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.

[@TheMagnificentGman]

Is this the same syeten youtube channel that makes cartoons

[@AnarchoBearBear]

After reading this comment section all i can say is that you have to watch the entire debate. The actual debate.

[@playzfahdayz]

Watched the full debate 10 times.... Sye won...

[@Mazzolium]

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”.

[@icemachine79]

@@Yue4me Oh, the irony of using reasoning to tear down the idea of reasoning. You presuppositionalists are an ouroboros of ignorance.

[@fr33thinker69]

Matt shown Sye for what he is con man whos feelings get hurt when you question his money maker.

[@jamesgrosso4372]

Yes ...wow. I watched it and Matt was super crushed for two hours.

[@jamesfraley5596]

Picture with who? Maximally curious.

[@santa_christ]

When Sye “fizzed” on one of his parishioners in 2021 and had to step down from his church, was that fizz true or false?

[@taowaycamino4891]

That lady projecting her sexual twisted fantasies onto Sye is pretty sickening.

[@HesDylan]

Time stamp?!

[@taowaycamino4891]

@@HesDylan 33:56 and on.

[@jamesnewman8011]

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.

[@TNCelt1]

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.

[@firstnamelastname2552]

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?

[@Harpazo_to_Yeshua]

That is what I tell these hardheaded atheists who troll on KZbin 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.

[@icemachine79]

@@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.

[@darkjb48]

@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua lmao . 😂😂😂😂 i cant believe i read this . What a funny guy

[@grazianogiacobone4321]

@@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.

[@donkink3114]

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.

[@ianaustin4422]

I think Sye should write a book on this specific apologetic.

[@1977Jackofalltrades]

Read anything by Gred Bahnsen or Cornelius Van Til.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

John Frame is good too, for presuppositional apologetics

[@FeddaCheezy]

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.

[@jackburton7483]

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.

[@thomeilearn]

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.

[@Bbrits1]

Sye - tell me what you know...... Matt - I don't claim to know...

[@ReubenCohn]

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

[@SickestDisciple]

@@ReubenCohn why is misrepresenting someone a good argument to you?

[@ReubenCohn]

@@SickestDisciple I stand by this two year old comment.

[@DEAD4LIVE]

@@ReubenCohnalso Matt - evidence doesnt matter and nothing is true

[@ReubenCohn]

@@DEAD4LIVE wrong.

[@nateperez6587]

The atheist can count, he just can't account for counting.

[@captclyde7233]

-Jeff Durbin

[@goranmilic442]

Nobody can account for counting, that's why nobody should try account for counting. Every religions is illogical attempt to account for counting.

[@03chrisv]

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.

[@eamontdmas]

Nobody needs to account for counting. As long as it works, it's fine. If it stops working it's subject to revision.

[@guym1234]

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

[@kennorthunder2428]

"Matt is his idol"...... um, no. Sye had focused on him like a laser by watching so many videos, and this focus is the natural consequences.

[@ruthanneism]

honestly that was so bizarre

[@fellipedasilva99]

There was a lot of tips fedora atheists in the crowd that day it seemed like. And Dillahunty is their role model.

[@dutchchatham1]

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?

[@captclyde7233]

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.

[@erikrohr4396]

Because the atheist alternative is not an option.

[@dutchchatham1]

@@erikrohr4396 sure it is

[@erikrohr4396]

@@dutchchatham1 Even Matt D. said he doesn't know anything.

[@dutchchatham1]

@@erikrohr4396 I believe he said he has no path to absolute certainty. Whereas sye claims he does, from god.

[@christiansteward4327]

11:52 why didn't the debate end here? Because Matt doesn't want to believe in God. Because he loves his sin.

[@BMB535]

To brother Str Didnt Rom 10:17 says faith comes from hearing i.e senses or reasoning?. What's ur opinion about that?.

[@BMB535]

Sorry. To sye.

[@joshuamilloway9178]

@@BMB535 Sye does NOT say that everyone senses and reasoning are invalid, he's simply saying the only way to justify your senses and reasoning is through GOD; AND that no other worldview can validate one's senses and reasoning according to their own worldview.

[@toddcote4904]

Are yoi a believer in Jesus and familiar with the scriptures?

[@BMB535]

@@toddcote4904 yes iam a believer of the Lord Jesus.

[@toddcote4904]

@@BMB535 Try to understand Romans 10 in light of Jesus' teachings. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Rom 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and >>>hearing (comes) by the word of God.

[@signposts6189]

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]

Matt did not lose. He is just tired of the same old bad arguments. It is difficult to reason with people who are delusional.

[@signposts6189]

@@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.

[@themanwithnoname469]

@@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.

[@signposts6189]

@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.

[@signposts6189]

@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.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

I had no idea how philosophically brilliant you were in this debate until I examined the statements carefully.

[@ReubenCohn]

"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.

[@captclyde7233]

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.

[@ReubenCohn]

@@captclyde7233 no, that's not what I believe.

[@troydrury12]

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).

[@aaronquinn6626]

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.

[@89bavaro89]

He would be trying to get one to believe not be absolutely certain. I don't see the problem with what he said in the context you laid out.

[@alexandradietrich4159]

@@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.

[@aaronquinn6626]

@@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.

[@brandonfry7246]

@@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").

[@gregormann7]

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.

[@anitahyche1]

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.

[@dartskihutch4033]

​@@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.

[@BibleSamurai]

i dont think chic at 00:57 paid attent at 12:33

[@grazianogiacobone4321]

Why this video is so full of cuts and modifications? On youtube there's the full debate, free...

[@MC-cs2xx]

Watch the full debate is not enough. Watch MORE! Watch more of Matt's video and you will spot the dodge

[@1977Jackofalltrades]

Who’s dodge, Matt’s? Sye doesn’t dodge because he doesn’t need to.

[@thanushaanyoga2698]

@@1977Jackofalltrades What do you mean?

[@1977Jackofalltrades]

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.

[@thanushaanyoga2698]

@@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...

[@1977Jackofalltrades]

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.

[@MyNameMeansGiftFromGod]

Dunce Dillahunty says he is maximally certain...so is he absolutely certain that he is maximally certain?

[@ZhangK71]

“Arguing pointless meta-points proves my god!”

[@benjaminnolanfe]

I can see why so many people interpret Romans 1:18 wrong because in reference to the things that have been made at creation, people tend to imagine a spinning globe hurling through an ever expanding universe. It makes a lot more sense when you look at geocentrism.

[@Live-Life-Freely]

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]

Watched the full debate 10 times.... Sye won...

[@ianworcester4640]

@@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.

[@icemachine79]

@@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.

[@darkjb48]

@@playzfahdayz rofl

[@DevinKime]

@@playzfahdayz You'd have to be completely illogical to think that just presupposing God is the same as proving one exists. Absolute madness.

[@protruth1]

why did Matt get upset when he asked if he was a liar? does it matter to matt whether matt is a liar or not?

[@stevencorey7623]

Matt getting Sye to call him a liar is a claim. Another claim Sye won’t be able to back up. That why Matt kicked back and chilled after she said so

[@way2jaded1]

Wow did it really take 4 years to make this?

[@answeranyone]

No, it's been available for purchase since 2014 and was just released for free.

[@dannheb1435]

@@answeranyone I hope alot of people, good people, bring the truth more and more freely. Thank you for sharing your documentary on KZbin.

[@donkink3114]

Lol purchase? Lol why does you God need you and money?

[@user-di7bt5um4s]

Thank You Lord Jesus. My King Eternal. God of gods. Lord of lords. King of kings. Everlasting Father. My Savior and Redeemer.

[@rickrouse7865]

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.

[@ryanfloch6054]

**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.

[@JaZoN_XD]

The discussion section was a slaughter. Wow.

[@tward1737]

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.

[@toddcote4904]

Interesting

[@ChuckChuckWood]

Genuine question, why were you an atheist and what made you change your mind?

[@tward1737]

@@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.

[@tward1737]

@@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.

[@ChuckChuckWood]

@@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.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

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

[@henryskipper5507]

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"

[@wesleygafoor7050]

​@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.

[@judahmarx9742]

People choose absurdity because they love their sin. 13:06

[@santumos]

Sye's only escape route to defend he couldn't be a brain in a vat boils down to "revelation". Apparently only "revelation" is an event (or state) powerful enough for one to be absolutely sure their knowledge, foundations of logic, and reasoning are not being fed from a computer or something of that nature. The problem is that "revelation" is a very vague term, it's not part of the scientific nomenclature, nor fully recognized by historians, and it is not explored enough in churches. Most churches will claim "god reveals himself to someone through scripture" but most likely disagree on the specifics of how "revelation" works or how it's proven different from conviction, epiphany, religious experience, or something else. Therefore Sye is also unable to demonstrate he couldn't be a brain in a vat (the bible doesn't explicitly discard that possibility either), and he is forced to step down to the same position Matt is. However, whenever Sye gets outsmarted, or proven to respond poorly, he bounces back to a high horse he has convinced himself exists but doesn't, losing the debate in my opinion.

[@way2jaded1]

Seems to me the last thing the maker of this documentary wants is for people to watch the debate lol

[@answeranyone]

It's linked in the video description.

[@RTrevino16]

Your kidding right? Matt got schooled!!!

[@143ioc]

Based on what? Did you even watch it?

[@errolhenry9546]

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.

[@playzfahdayz]

Watched the full debate 10 times.... Sye won...

[@toystory3224]

This channel is blocking comments

[@benitaalmond3991]

"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!

[@ZhangK71]

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

[@benitaalmond3991]

@@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

[@ZhangK71]

@@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”.

[@benitaalmond3991]

@@ZhangK71You explain to me how my favorite superhero has anything to do with the existence of God.

[@JohnDoe-gk7ok]

I notice that every time Matt participates in a debate, his fans come out of the woodwork and proclaim that he won. I’m curious… what would it take for you to admit that he lost? Or does he inherently win every debate because he happens to defend the position that you believe? Following this, was there ever any debate between a theist and atheist that you believe the theist won? If yes, then what is your measuring stick for who wins a debate?

[@BScott7220]

Matt loses most trans issues debates. He displays religious thinking on the issue.

[@dougmasters4561]

​@@BScott7220To be fair everybody's fans seem to do that. But Matt wins a lot of these debates because a.) he has the easier position to defend and b.) he is superbly good at doing so.

[@timcollett99]

I'm an atheist, and I would argue that Matt lost to Jay Dyer.

[@Hootie-s2k]

How did Sye prove god? He didn’t

[@JohnDoe-gk7ok]

@@Hootie-s2k so are you saying that no theist can win a debate against an atheist unless they prove that God exists? What if the atheist can’t answer a single point, trips over his words, makes no sense, makes numerous false statements, and continuously goes off topic? Even if the theist cannot prove God exists, does that atheist still win the debate simply because he agrees with your position? You are clearly confused on what we are discussing here. To illustrate my point, let’s imagine the debate went something like this: Theist: “God exists because there must be a first cause and that cause must be infinite and intelligent.” Atheist: “I like to eat cherry pie.” Theist: “Okay, but what about my argument?” Atheist: “Your argument is wrong because dogs eat grass.” …. According to you, did this atheist win the debate?

[@TimpBizkit]

The thing I'm thinking is this proves the atheist world view is inconsistent with itself, yet the Christian worldview is consistent with itself, but does it prove that the Christian worldview is true in the absolute sense? For instance if I was converting atheists to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could I use the same argument? I know with Islam there is a refutation based on the Quran's claims about the Bible. Obviously if that's not really what you believe you're just trying to use sillyness to dodge obeying the real deal God, but I'm curious as to whether this argument only works for Jesus Christ. As a seventh day adventist, the Sabbath stands of proof of the real God but one flaw is it requires fallible humans to successfully observe it and pass it down the generations yet in the modern world it's often business as usual and the rat race of spiritual oblivion and secular profiting barrels through the Sabbath and out the other side as if God's day did not exist.

[@goranmilic442]

Atheists' world view is not inconsistent. But you're right, you can use Sye's argument to any deity and it would be same.

[@twelvedozen5075]

Belief systems aside, are you able to see how aggressively Sye was able to deconstruct Dillahunty?

[@averagejoe112]

Low quality bait

[@AdamSmith75th]

....erm.....no?

[@alexandrospapadopoulos8598]

where? where did he deconstruct matt?

[@AdamSmith75th]

@@alexandrospapadopoulos8598 He can’t tell you where, you just have to have faith

[@517hectorhernandez]

@@AdamSmith75th It was in your face and you still deny it - a mantra you know too well.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

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.

[@evangelistmatthew783]

Met Sye in real life.. the man truly has a heart for the lost. He took his time to answer all my questions and imparted some valuable knowledge.

[@themanwithnoname469]

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.

[@markmartinez7715]

@@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!".

[@themanwithnoname469]

@@markmartinez7715 the person who tells you not to jump. How does this question prove that a god exists?

[@jim7831]

those that are lost or those that are either vulnerable, ignorant or gullible..

[@Spartanthermopylae]

1 Peter 3:15 makes it clear that we MUST present evidence/proof/a reasoned evidence. Sye demonstrates his revisionist dogmatism of the bible.

[@aaronquinn6626]

To whom? People who say faith in god is crazy? Don't be naive. Expose that they know God already then you can provide your evidences.

[@Spartanthermopylae]

@@aaronquinn6626 "People who say faith in god is crazy? " "god" rather than 'God?' "Expose that they know God already then you can provide your evidences." Do a Sye Ten job?

[@Spartanthermopylae]

@@aaronquinn6626 "To whom? People who say faith in god is crazy?" Is this what you tell people in the street that they're "crazy" for NOT believing in "god?" Is this meek and humble? Is this the message Jesus preached? And if they say that they believe in a pagan "god" then they're NOT "crazy"...at least they believe in a "god" as you've pointed out.

[@Spartanthermopylae]

"First Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” It's interesting that you've demonstrated neither gentleness or respect. You're obviously NOT a Christian. In the immediate context, the apostle Peter discusses suffering for doing good (1 Peter 3:13-14). Persecution and suffering are to be expected in the Christian life (John 16:33), but a believer’s [Christian] response to suffering should point others to Jesus. Peter emphasizes that Christ suffered and died to provide eternal life for those who believe in Him, and His example of suffering for doing good should strengthen all of us (1 Peter 3:17-18). Instead of fearing persecution, Christians are to make sure they suffer for righteousness’ sake, “honor Christ the Lord as holy,” and be prepared to give a defense of one’s hope in Jesus (verse 15, ESV). A believer should always be ready to tell others the good news of salvation in Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:2-4). From the Greek word comes the English apologetics, “the discipline of defending” the CHRISTIAN faith. Notice that Peter does not say that the job of giving an answer is only for the pastor or professional apologist. All CHRISTIANS need to be prepared to give an answer or defense when someone asks them the reason for the hope that they have. Peter wrote to the persecuted CHRISTIANS in Asia Minor. Peter exhorts the believer to answer unbelievers gently, respectfully, and with the example of one’s life (cf. Colossians 4:6). Believers should reflect Christ’s teaching of gentleness and “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, NLT), which you've completely failed to do.

[@signposts6189]

1 Peter 3:15 isn't advice for a formal debate. It is encouraging believers under persecution to always be ready to explain one's hope as a believer IF SOMEONE ASKS ABOUT IT. Sye wasn't in this to primarily answer Matt's questions. He was in this to debate and make a case for the reasonableness of belief in God over and against Matt who was in this to debate and make a case against it. And in a situation like this, Sye's opening remarks were more in line with 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 in approach. Sye exposed Matt's false arguments by demonstrating his lack of justification in any way for his beliefs which necessarily proved the unreasonableness of Matt's position no matter the proud obstacles and rebellious thoughts he spouted afterward. So, Sye showed the reasonableness of his position by exposing the unreasonableness of his opponent's position, whereby Matt lost his footing to even ask questions of Sye on any meaningful basis. What Sye did was actually brilliant. This is lost on many unbelievers (and some believers unfortunately) since the thought is that Sye didn't prove anything except supposedly make "unproven" assertions or as you allege "demonstrates his revisionist dogmatism of the bible." Ah, not so much. The thing is the debate wasn't about "proving" the existence of God but rather about the REASONABLENESS of belief in God. Sye proved that his opponent's position was laughably unreasonable by highlighting his inconsistencies and flat out contradictory statements on knowledge, truth and reason in public. In so doing, Sye's point that unbeliever's actually already know that God exists is established in this situation. Notice that the unbelievers hate him and attack him for his position even as he shows a genuine concern for the wellbeing of their souls at the event. While no Christians present at the event ever attack, jeer or show any hate towards Matt in any way even as he shows no concern for them in any way except to win a debate and "prove" Christianity wrong, and move on to the next debate to "win."

[@gracefaith1282]

"You can laugh all ya want. I'll keep going. I'll just preach to ya." That made me laugh out loud. 🤭

[@megachristianx6592]

Lol

[@MrMattSax]

it was an admission of failure

[@johnnelligan7093]

It was actually perfect

[@frenchfilmmtheband2556]

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

[@supersmart671]

Sye just exposed Matt's inconsistency

[@throwflowers8410]

He’s just a crowd pleaser

[@JNich-yc6cc]

Sye tens opening was brutal. Matt had no possible way of getting around it and never did.

[@mottgirl13]

His closing so heart felt.

[@robinrobyn1714]

The Dillahunty Dodge.

[@robinrobyn1714]

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!!!'

[@cascadianapplications7124]

19:50 This is where I believe Sye goes off the rails. The idea that being presented with information makes you a judge, you cannot know anything because then you will have taken the mantle of judge upon you. That being said, Jesus said to Judge righteous judgment. So, "judging" isnt an inherently ungodly thing. There is also a big difference in, "judging" information and judging peoples souls. I cannot judge someones soul, that is against biblical teaching. However, deciding to deny God or to believe in Him and follow Jesus, IS a, "judgment," or rather a choice we ALL must make. This runs concurrent to biblical teaching. Let he who is righteous, be righteous still. Choosing God is choosing God, and it is not wrong to show people that the creator they deny is the biblical God of the bible. Its better than just saying some thing along the lines of, "you know Him but youre really just lying."

[@SickestDisciple]

Imagine an atheist being so hung up on who “won’ that they come to Christians YT comment section to sound off. Damage control? For whom? No one that actually knows Sye and his work for the kingdom would say his rep was damaged by this at all. But misrepresenting our worldview and bashing is perfectly moral to the truth suppressor, just ‘cuz. I remain praying for God to draw the lost to Himself in repentance and faith in our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

[@melissabowers6268]

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.

[@finchvalor]

I know I'm a bit late here, but after listening to this and reading some comments, I am amused by the response. In my circles Sye is seen as a buffoon, a clown, a child covering his ears and chanting "nanananana", a delusional religious quack, that sort of thing that I'm sure everyone's heard plenty before. It's great to see the response from viewers here though where people have an equal and opposite feeling about Matt and the side of skepticism and critical thought. I think it's good to see the real influence Sye has on people who are convinced and persuaded into thinking God wants them to accept Christianity or supernatural claims on faith with no justification. It reminds me of going to those Flat Earth convention videos where you can watch thousands of people eagerly lopping up the insane claims of Flat Earth demagogues. Of course there's no way for anyone on our side who advocate for logic and reasoned arguments to persuade any of you who have been convinced that reason and logic is some evil demonic tool that leads one away from God. That's unfortunate, but I think maybe I could compel some with a more emotional argument. I think it's just straight up cowardly and childish to be so afraid of death that you need to believe in a magic being that gives you immorality. It's far more noble and courageous to accept reality as it is, even if the truth is scary or unpleasant. There's nothing strong or respectable about desperately holding onto an obvious lie simply because it makes you feel better or less scared. It's honestly pathetic and sad to watch grown men behave this way. I'm proud to say I don't do this. I prefer a hard truth to a nice pleasant lie. This is part of what being an actual real man is about, and I think this is why Sye and his sycophants find this to be so alien and absurd. They have never even considered living one's life in this way with self respect and integrity and intellectual honesty and humility.

[@User-jd3pt]

I’m happy you think so highly of yourself but I have a question for you. How do you judge something is a lie and something is true? By what standard

[@jeremiclement5723]

Two things I would say 1- We absolutely do not believe that reason and logic are tools of demons. This is absolutely not true. We love reason, logic, knowledge and the scientific method because we know that God is the author of it and commands us to be logical. 2-I'm not sure that you would think that the gospel is a "pleasant lie" if you truly understood it. There's nothing comfortable or pleasant in repenting... I would even add that it's not pleasant to know that the people who are close to you, your friends and family who aren't saved, are going to hell... It's not a pleasant idea at all. It was a hard pill to swallow for me. Still is. Having been on both sides of the fence now (I was an atheist), it seemed to me that thinking nothing happens to me after I die was pretty comfortable...

[@neno5rov]

Let's say presuppositionalim is true. We can't prove we weren't created 2 seconds ago with all of our previous memories. I guess everyone presupposes at least some things. But how will you argue with people who accept this stance and yet say their standard is the correct one. There will be chaos in discussions if everyone goes by their own standard

[@joshuamilloway9178]

You have misunderstood Sye's argument. Simply put Sye is saying that the only way you CAN prove ANYTHING to be true is because GOD exists. " I guess everyone presupposes at least some things." that's not what Sye is saying either. He is saying that EVERYONE KNOWS with 100% certainty that GOD exists, therefore it is NOT true that EVERYONE presupposes some things. Hope this is helpful.

[@neno5rov]

@@joshuamilloway9178 I haven't watched the debate, I only gave my thoughts for presuppositionalism in general. I agree with you completely that everyone knows God exists. That's the clear teaching in Romans 1. In clinical psychology you might say people surpress some memories that traumatized them in the past. And the surpessed memory cannot be vacuous, it is always replaced by a false proposition or a "lie" people tell themselves. I simply dislike the method Sye is using. For example, If a person says something stupid like there is no air, you might be tempted to reply that the only reason he is here spouting this nonsense is because he is being sustained by the air he breathes. Very obvious to you and me, but not convincing to the other person. What I would do is provide evidence for the existence of air and make a hypothesis which proposes air as the best explanation to the facts. If he refuses to follow where the evidence leads, then he is hopeless and cannot hide behind "reason" anymore.

[@ianworcester4640]

@@neno5rov You havent watched the debate ? In the debate Sye is stating scripture is his ultimate authority. Therefore Romans 1 is Sye's foundation for truth that eveybody knows God exists. Matt and every other athiest have no ultimate authority to claim God does not exist . The athiests presupposition is based on what ? chemical fizz ??

[@icemachine79]

@@joshuamilloway9178 Sye is wrong. He certainly cannot connect his "god" concept to the God of the Bible. Once you reject the foundation of rational thought you have no tools at your disposal to prove anything.

[@MissAprilMarie]

Anyone here in 2024?❤️

[@RationalThinker1859]

"I'm what you would call a pre-suppositionlist. You see, we all get the same evidence, but we examine the evidence according to what we already believe and we come to different conclusions based on what we already believe." STB Oh, that's not good is it... 24:04 in the video

[@Congruesome]

RationalThinker1859 It’s pathetic obnoxious ignorant drivel by a disgusting fraud and liar.

[@matthewaustin9790]

"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?

[@dwayneab1]

Beautiful finish to the documentary

[@curtis3057]

Are we allowed to download the video?

[@answeranyone]

Sure, just don't sell it or upload it elsewhere please.

[@playzfahdayz]

@@answeranyone Upload, don't sell. Christ *wants* this everywhere Sye. Get real.

[@garrettscott9427]

@@playzfahdayz link to it

[@runsontrails3091]

This was so heartfelt and just great. Thank you.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@27:54 Sye lied right there. Presenting and arguing for evidences is putting God on trial. He is in no way an evidentialist

[@CuauhtemocVasquez-ld8cn]

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

[@Dennistube001]

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]

man, you are so desperate to believe!! you need it! you NEEEEEED it!!

[@CuauhtemocVasquez-ld8cn]

@@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.

[@CuauhtemocVasquez-ld8cn]

@@MrMattSax absolutely!!!

[@MrMattSax]

@@CuauhtemocVasquez-ld8cn I understand that’s what you believe. What I’m saying you’re needy about is your belief. You need to believe.

[@valerieprice1745]

Truth is a trick to rebellious children who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

[@ADV_Moto17]

Matt dillahunty debunked many times

[@SaltyApologist]

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.

[@protruth1]

matt operated in cowardice when he wasnt in charge of a phone that he could just hang up on you.

[@calebbrookes7896]

Wait what debate was you watching because Matt was confident the whole way through? 😂😂

[@XYisnotXX]

Jesus Christ is the light of the world, outside of him there are no answers. None!

[@thomasdwyer1690]

Matt won this debate in his opening when he correctly deduced everything sye was going to say in advance with a pre written response. It was as beautiful as it was devastating. I couldn't take sye seriously from that point on, especially when he just gave up debating and just started preaching instead, made even worse when Matt asked him if he thought he was lying about his beliefs and sye called him a liar to his face. Principle of charity much? Sad

[@Spartanthermopylae]

As a Christian, I agree.

[@qwerty_L]

Now start listening to what he said even if it was pre written, because Matt couldn't answer anything, because he doesn't know anything

[@thomasdwyer1690]

@@qwerty_L we must have watched different debates cause I have no idea what you are talking about

[@qwerty_L]

@@thomasdwyer1690 we must have, name one thing that wasn't true from Sye (remember, Matt came to a debate and sai he can't know the truth, and didn't know it, and wasn't saying the truth) If you didn't catch when he said this stuff over and over, watch the debate again

[@thomasdwyer1690]

@@qwerty_L being psychic and claiming Matt believed in god and calling him a liar when he said he wasn't. I don't care what your holy book says, it might as well be a comic book as far as I'm concerned, hell I don't even care what any hypothetical god you believe in says, I KNOW my mind better than you do, and I know whether I believe in a god or not, and I don't. And by his word, neither does Matt, the fact that believers like you and sye claim he does shows how deluded you are.

[@sadieesther9721]

I don’t understand why in Matt’s rebuttal, he says that Sye wrote his ahead of time? Didn’t Matt do the same thing?

[@kilted_commenter9565]

Sadie Lanier he didn’t say sye wrote his ahead he said he wrote his ahead

[@johnnelligan7093]

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

[@tommyrudiger2248]

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?

[@camallison7199]

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.

[@rms-vp6hf]

@ 8:11. The point at which Matt realized he just hates God and that he really doesn’t care about that truth.

[@DevinKime]

Complete nonsense. Why would us atheists hate something that there's no good reason to believe exists?

[@FECtetra1918]

Atheists don’t hate imaginary beings.

[@GuilleMas]

Shouldn't Dillahunty present his own views? When you spend so much tiem stating what you say the other person says, you don't really have a point..

[@GuilleMas]

@Jules D That's called ad hominem. It's funny, because ALL you are doing is mentioning errors of the others (atheists).. It's so nice when someone criticize something but at the same time all he does is the same thing he criticizes.. Better luck next time..

[@GuilleMas]

@Jules D All you had to do is ask. Did you ask? You are still waiting for something you never asked for? Who's fault is that? My view is that god is an invention of humans to explain a universe that's very complex. That's why there is no proof that god is real. Because there is no god.

[@GuilleMas]

@Jules D In a debate, where what's expected is that everyone presents their OWN arguments. But this is not a debate, is it? "You are a liar and a hypocrite AND you are self righteous. Passive aggressive too." You know what ad hominem is? I recognize I might be wrong. In that case, someone will present evidence that god is real. Until that day, I will sustain my view. If you want to present evidence for a god, you are welcome.

[@GuilleMas]

@Jules D I didn´t. I made a comment on the video and you replied attacking atehists. Then I addressed a comment at you. But i f you want to debate, it's ok. I will debate. Do you want to make a statement or should I present your statement?

[@GuilleMas]

@Jules D "Normally people make a point of their own position before they criticize one of the debaters" Alright. My fault for overestimating inteligence. If you had the ability to understand sarcasm, you would have understood my fist message: Bruggencate should have made a presentation about Bruggencate's arguments and let Dillahunty to present Dillahunty's arguments. That's MY point. And that's what my comment means. My comment reflects MY POINT, being that also a critic to Bruggencate's presentation. So, it seems you disagree. Explain why. If you want to avoid using insults, that would be fine. Inteligent people don't need those. But I understand that you have to be yourself. "I dont think there would be a point in debating you when you cannot be honest." That's understandable. Anyway, I usually give dishonest people who don't make sense the opportunity to debate, as you can see.

[@Tigerbythetoe]

Sye tried every one of his semantic tricks to try and make Matt look silly. All Matt did was batt each of them away and keep pressing Sye to put the sillyness aside. To that end, Sye was never committed to truly saying anything that was in keeping with the the topic of the debate. I think Matt did a wonderful job of exposing how deficient Sye’s aguement really was. Matt defended reason and logic pretty well despite all of the bs Sye was throwing at him. In the end though I think that Sye will think twice about debating someone on Matt Dillahunty’s level ever again. Matt effectively turned Sye’s arguments into childish drivel.

[@Theology_Matters]

Did we watch the same debate?

[@scottsponaas]

The fact that you refer to basic logic and straightforward argumentation as “semantic tricks” displays that you don’t understand what’s being said. I watched this entire debate and all it consisted of was Matt doing the Dillahunty dodge or resorting to terribly fallacious reasoning. By all means, feel free to elaborate on how Sye is equivocating or somehow using “trickery.” When asked how he knows he can trust his own reasoning, Matt condescendingly barks out “based on its consistent reliability” and gets a cheer. Of course, if you analyze that response for a second you’ll see it’s nonsense. If by reliability he means it produces the same results time and time again, then that doesn’t answer the question. Something can be reliable and produce the wrong answer all the time. If by reliable he means trustworthy then he’s just begging the question. It’s like saying “I trust my reasoning because it’s trustworthy.” It’s total tomfoolery and Sye exposed it.

[@LukeO9]

there was no debate because there was never an agreement on the framework - ie no consensus on definitions.

[@roybotha8356]

At the end of the age a generation of men will rise up, turn their attention to the gospels and INSIST upon its LITERAL interpretation..... You are one such man...STAY rooted, grounded and VIGILANT....

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

Sye is the poster-boy for presuppositional-apologetics. I am also a presuppositional-apologist, in that I don't attempt to prove God. I do have a few solid evidences I tend to offer, not to make a case but just to offer some helpful awareness. See, the thing is that the deceived are so deceived; so I am glad to have discussions and chip off some of the strength of the deception which holds them captive. I never try to claim that I can offer reason enough that the interlocutor should agree, but instead I admit that only God can make them alive. From there I have much freedom to answer every question sufficiently, to stand bold against every gotcha-moment, and to surprise them that every good refutation they think they have is nothing against the True God. They can dodge all they want, but when their swords hit Christ's Body without drawing blood they get a glimpse that God is invulnerable; which to us who trust Christ it doesn't sound like much of anything, of course God is invulnerable, but these people exalt themselves as god-above-God and if they must constantly dodge and cower while God just stands invulnerable... that really does demonstrate the folly of their self-exaltation. Ultimately, that self-exaltation is their deadness, and their sole motive for denying the Creator. I don't think we need to be limited to presuppositional-apologetics; but that does need to be our footing and our invulnerable strength. The battle belongs to Yhvh.

[@Spartanthermopylae]

"I don't think we need to be limited to presuppositional-apologetics"...don't let Sye Ten - the self-professed god of Presupp - hear you say that. For him, there is ONLY Presupp apologetics.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

@@Spartanthermopylae Yeah, Sye is all heart. I learned alot from what Sye does right and from what he does wrong. It was after I knew God makes sense that I fully trusted, when I thought God didn't make sense I couldn't fully trust.

[@Spartanthermopylae]

@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah I'm pleased, genuinely, Nicholas, that you've gained from Presupp apologetics, but you also said that you don't restrict yourself to ONLY this approach. I think this is part of the key. Sye Ten approves ONLY of Presupp. I agree with you that our foundation should be the Christian Gospel and Christ' finished sacrifice on the Cross. I don't believe, as the Scriptures I've provided have demonstrated, that we should weaponise the Bible or any system to exclude any group out of hand or use that system to crush and beat down sinners - since we have ALL been in that position (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10, 25). Our basis should be the Scriptures, not MERELY a philosophical system - devoid of the use of Scripture - to win for ourselves, at the cost of someone's soul and a victory for God (not for us). I know that You DO know what I mean. Dismissing other approaches of apologetics, dismissing atheist, dismissing anyone, who isn't 'Orthodox' in their beliefs...this suggests that we are slowly substituting God for our subjective opinions. We are making a god in OUR image, and not according to Genesis 1:26, 27. Many use the Presupp method in such a way that it is devoid of love, compassion, care, concern and is used as a baton to beat people down- emotionally, spiritually, socially , where they walk away from any hope of faith. The calvinist, in many instances cover their backs by claiming these people were probably not even predestined or one of the elect. A great cop-out, requiring NO responsibility. Where, in the Bible, does the bible say to avoid evangelising or preaching to, or doing Bible Studies with a certain group of people? So, Sye has decided to usurp God's authority, and adopt a revisionist approach to the Scriptures.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

@@Spartanthermopylae I sure do hear you. Sye's public debates and private preaching are not the same, so I don't want to overstate his unwillingness to fully engage others. I have a video where I discuss my apologetic approach with a friend (it's on his channel) and when I make a new video on the topic (shorter, more focused, up-to-date) then I will hopefully remember to send you that link. Here is the one that's already up; thing is, it's 2 and 1/2 hours... kzbin.info/www/bejne/o2W1qnyuZcRjfKc

[@Spartanthermopylae]

@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah Thanks, Nicholas. "thing is, it's 2 and 1/2 hours... " I can take it :)

[@atanaciobalmania3293]

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, END OF THE STORY

[@oxidize11]

Nah.