Answering Sye
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2016, 09:33 AM
RE: Answering Sye
(30-01-2016 07:14 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:04 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've been watching some videos of debates between Sye Ten Bruggencate and various atheists. It's clear that he has a script that he follows and he is counting on his debate partner's ignorance of certain issues in order to create a gap for him to squeeze his God into. Here is what I would say to him.

Sye: Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Me: Of course not Sye. I know for certain that I got up and had breakfast this morning, I know for certain that I am married with three children. I know for certain that I've never climbed Mt. Everest or been to Australia. I know for certain that I don't play basketball for the Chicago Bulls. I know many, many things for certain.

Sye: How do you know?

Me: I know by means of reason Sye. Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material brought to me by my senses. My senses tell me there is something there but they don't tell me what that something is. That's the job of my reasoning faculty. I identify and integrate what I perceive by means of concepts. A concept is an open ended mental integration of two or more concretes on the basis of their similarities by the process of measurement omission. We retain the similarities while abstracting away or de-specifying their specific measurements. Thus we can unite an unlimited number of concretes as a single unit. This allows us to deal with a vast amount of knowledge, organize and integrate it into a cohesive whole.

Sye: Do you use your senses and reason to validate your senses and reason?

Me: Are you trying to suggest that I'm somehow involved in circular reasoning with this question? As I've said, reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the objects that one perceives. Now once I've performed some conscious activity, that activity can be an object of my consciousness, albeit as a secondary object. I can observe through introspection the process I go through in identifying and integrating and I can identify and integrate those actions by means of concepts, Sye. Are you suggesting that this is somehow circular. Circularity is something that applies to a deductive proof, but not all types of validation are deductive in nature. Also Consciousness is an axiomatic concept, Sye. Since my senses and reason are the means of my consciousness, their validity is also axiomatic. I would have to employ them in any act of validating anything. Their validity is a precondition of the process of validating anything and your question presupposes that my senses and reason are valid. You are certainly expecting me to be able to perceive your question accurately and you are using concepts. Reason is the conceptual faculty and you certainly are expecting me to be able to understand the concepts you are using. Also Sye, the senses are self-validating in a non-circular way. I can use my sense of touch to validate my sense of sight. I can also validate my sense of touch and sight by my other senses. If I see an apple on the table I can reach out and touch it. I can also take a bite and taste it and I can smell it. I can hear the sound it makes when it crunches and I can say with certainty that, yep, its and apple.

Sye: How do you account for knowledge and the abstract, invariant laws of logic?

Me: I account for knowledge and the abstract, invariant laws of logic by means of the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts.

Now let me ask you a question. Since knowledge and logic are conceptual in nature, and your worldview has no theory of concepts, how do you account for knowledge and logic?

Sye would say that god reveals knowledge to him and that's the only way knowledge is revealed, he would then try to machine gun other inane questions at you, talk really fast and simply say he only discusses the bible with other believers when you try to pin him down.

His arguments aren't really arguments, he's just saying, I'm right because my god controls our brains and god communicates with me because I'm in the right religion.

It's circular on it's face, I suppose any person listening to this nonsense without being able to dissect it, just leaves with a sense that they've been lied to, and they would be right. I don't think this is anything but a way of pissing people off, if someone is really looking for answers to the question of god's existence, I don't think this mental masturbation is going to impress them at all, it leaves you with a sense of the hollow nature of apologetics and the hollow answers that religion provides.


Yes, I hope he keeps pumping out videos because he does do great damage to Christianity and theism in general. Maybe we should start a go fund me for Sye.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
30-01-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Answering Sye
(30-01-2016 09:26 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 08:43 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I loved this exchange (not verbatim):

Matt D: Can you explain how you know I know something I don't know?

Sye: Everyone knows god exists.

Matt D: Yeah, but I can tell you that I don't know god exists.

Sye: Well the bible says that god is written on everyone's heart.

Matt D: (clearly more annoyed) Right, can you tell me how you know that I know something when I can tell you that I don't know?

Sye: Well, how can you tell me you're not a brain in a vat?

[Image: giphy.gif]
I saw that one. I could tell Matt was getting frustrated. I think that Matt and other atheists who go up against him are reluctant to claim any knowledge, and so they kneecap themselves. Over and over in that debate, when confronted with "how do you know that" he says "I'm not claiming that I know.

I kind of wonder whether some debate these guys because many christians have never heard of them or their arguments. I thought Matt made Sye look completely stupid. At least Matt Slick looked somewhat intelligent and prepared when they debated. That is why I think guys like Sye are actually hurting their cause.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 11:25 AM
RE: Answering Sye
(30-01-2016 10:28 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 09:26 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I saw that one. I could tell Matt was getting frustrated. I think that Matt and other atheists who go up against him are reluctant to claim any knowledge, and so they kneecap themselves. Over and over in that debate, when confronted with "how do you know that" he says "I'm not claiming that I know.

I kind of wonder whether some debate these guys because many Christians have never heard of them or their arguments. I thought Matt made Sye look completely stupid. At least Matt Slick looked somewhat intelligent and prepared when they debated. That is why I think guys like Sye are actually hurting their cause.

I think he did much better than most. I've got some issues with some of Matt's ideas, such as justified true belief as the standard of knowledge, but I think he is an excellent debater. The thing is that Sye will hardly let him get a word in edgewise during that debate and he speaks so quickly and changes directions so quickly that it is hard to answer him. If his God belief were rational then he wouldn't have to use these cheap tactics. I also think Sye thrives on the negative audience reaction. He seems to take it as a sign that he's being effective.

One of the most shocking things in that debate was when he said that a Christian theocracy would be the best form of government. I don't know if he really believes that or if he just is just trying to throw a bomb and get a huge reaction.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: Answering Sye
There is not even one theist in here defending poor deluded Sye.

Curious, that. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-02-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: Answering Sye
(29-01-2016 11:23 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 11:02 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yeah. Sye, we don't need to disprove an arbitrary hypothesis before we can claim knowledge. You should study logic 101 and then take a break and think about the way you conduct your cognitive activity.

But how can you claim knowledge if you can't prove we're not a vat brain? If you can't disprove that, then anything could be real or not real.

Exactly. If his goal is to stuff his god into the gap he's created by "but can you really know anything, man?", then he's effectively arguing for a god that is quite likely a delusion. I mean, anything he says after that point can be effectively countered by repeating his own argument.

The whole point of discussing solipsism in Philosophy 101 isn't to get people to reject all knowledge or to only pay attention to anything that they like (cuz who knows, man?); it's to get people thinking and to realize that it's possible to make statements that are 100% true, yet yield no useful insights to the observable world around us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-02-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: Answering Sye
(29-01-2016 10:04 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Me: I account for knowledge and the abstract, invariant laws of logic by means of the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts.

Now let me ask you a question. Since knowledge and logic are conceptual in nature, and your worldview has no theory of concepts, how do you account for knowledge and logic?

Honest Sye: A mystical, ethereal Jew that lives in a magical plain of existence above our heads.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2016, 02:15 PM
RE: Answering Sye
Sye's argument is flawed based on the fact that there are to many versions of christianity.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
03-02-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: Answering Sye
(03-02-2016 02:15 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Sye's argument is flawed based on the fact that there are to many versions of christianity.

The mans argument that Islam is wrong is because Islamic teaching says the teachings of the Bible and NT are correct... For many reasons of varying ideas of gods in the world it's flawed.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: Answering Sye
(03-02-2016 02:00 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:04 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Me: I account for knowledge and the abstract, invariant laws of logic by means of the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts.

Now let me ask you a question. Since knowledge and logic are conceptual in nature, and your worldview has no theory of concepts, how do you account for knowledge and logic?

Honest Sye: A mystical, ethereal Jew that lives in a magical plain of existence above our heads.

One which we have no other alternative but to imagine.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2016, 03:45 PM
RE: Answering Sye
(03-02-2016 02:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-02-2016 02:15 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Sye's argument is flawed based on the fact that there are to many versions of christianity.

The mans argument that Islam is wrong is because Islamic teaching says the teachings of the Bible and NT are correct... For many reasons of varying ideas of gods in the world it's flawed.

So I am guessing the jews were right as well, seeing as Christianity needs that.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: