Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on the Sye vs Matt Dillahunty Debate

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 2:01:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

Arguments from epistemology aren't inherently abhorrent, the main thing about Sye and Presuppositional brand of apologetics is that no arguemnt is ever given for the existance of God. The whole thing is a game, rather than an argument,

The presup's argument is that "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever", however there are two obvious problems in how this is presented:

1. Sye always shifts the burden of proof here, and doesn't demonstrate this in principle, he just asserts it and plays a script to seemingly justify it by asserting the atheist hasn't justified his logic and reason.

The problem is, even if that atheist cannot justify his logic and reason in practice, it doesn't demonstrate the truth of the premise "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever" in principle.

2. *Even if* this premise is true, we are still no closer to demonstrating God's Existance. We merely at worst stand on an unjustified epistemology.

It's really that simple, Sye and his followers simply fail right out of the gates for those two reasons, the "argument" is dead,
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:01:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

Arguments from epistemology aren't inherently abhorrent, the main thing about Sye and Presuppositional brand of apologetics is that no arguemnt is ever given for the existance of God. The whole thing is a game, rather than an argument,

The presup's argument is that "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever", however there are two obvious problems in how this is presented:

1. Sye always shifts the burden of proof here, and doesn't demonstrate this in principle, he just asserts it and plays a script to seemingly justify it by asserting the atheist hasn't justified his logic and reason.

The problem is, even if that atheist cannot justify his logic and reason in practice, it doesn't demonstrate the truth of the premise "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever" in principle.

2. *Even if* this premise is true, we are still no closer to demonstrating God's Existance. We merely at worst stand on an unjustified epistemology.

It's really that simple, Sye and his followers simply fail right out of the gates for those two reasons, the "argument" is dead,

I managed to press one of his local disciples, scmike2 into saying that all of his logic came from "divine revelation, direct and indirect". Since he claimed that I received my ability reason logically the same way then challenged him to explain how they felt to him so I could compare the experience. Needless to say he tap danced with all his might. Then I asked him to demonstrate the existence of the source of these revelations and he danced even harder. It was amusing for a while but I finally grew tired of hearing the same script over and over. I finally stopped talking to him at all.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 3:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

It's impossible to find the Truth between atheists and theists who have no clue who God is or how He created everything. They can only speak about what they observe in this world without understanding the invisible vibrational existence we were all born of.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 3:24:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:27:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:01:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

Arguments from epistemology aren't inherently abhorrent, the main thing about Sye and Presuppositional brand of apologetics is that no arguemnt is ever given for the existance of God. The whole thing is a game, rather than an argument,

The presup's argument is that "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever", however there are two obvious problems in how this is presented:

1. Sye always shifts the burden of proof here, and doesn't demonstrate this in principle, he just asserts it and plays a script to seemingly justify it by asserting the atheist hasn't justified his logic and reason.

The problem is, even if that atheist cannot justify his logic and reason in practice, it doesn't demonstrate the truth of the premise "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever" in principle.

2. *Even if* this premise is true, we are still no closer to demonstrating God's Existance. We merely at worst stand on an unjustified epistemology.

It's really that simple, Sye and his followers simply fail right out of the gates for those two reasons, the "argument" is dead,

I managed to press one of his local disciples, scmike2 into saying that all of his logic came from "divine revelation, direct and indirect". Since he claimed that I received my ability reason logically the same way then challenged him to explain how they felt to him so I could compare the experience. Needless to say he tap danced with all his might. Then I asked him to demonstrate the existence of the source of these revelations and he danced even harder. It was amusing for a while but I finally grew tired of hearing the same script over and over. I finally stopped talking to him at all.

I wish I can hold a debate with him. But from what I'm told, he refuses public debates, and I can't find him in forums anymore. I got all the time and patience for pressupositionalists.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 3:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 3:24:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:27:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:01:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

Arguments from epistemology aren't inherently abhorrent, the main thing about Sye and Presuppositional brand of apologetics is that no arguemnt is ever given for the existance of God. The whole thing is a game, rather than an argument,

The presup's argument is that "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever", however there are two obvious problems in how this is presented:

1. Sye always shifts the burden of proof here, and doesn't demonstrate this in principle, he just asserts it and plays a script to seemingly justify it by asserting the atheist hasn't justified his logic and reason.

The problem is, even if that atheist cannot justify his logic and reason in practice, it doesn't demonstrate the truth of the premise "without God you cannot justify logic/reason/whatever" in principle.

2. *Even if* this premise is true, we are still no closer to demonstrating God's Existance. We merely at worst stand on an unjustified epistemology.

It's really that simple, Sye and his followers simply fail right out of the gates for those two reasons, the "argument" is dead,

I managed to press one of his local disciples, scmike2 into saying that all of his logic came from "divine revelation, direct and indirect". Since he claimed that I received my ability reason logically the same way then challenged him to explain how they felt to him so I could compare the experience. Needless to say he tap danced with all his might. Then I asked him to demonstrate the existence of the source of these revelations and he danced even harder. It was amusing for a while but I finally grew tired of hearing the same script over and over. I finally stopped talking to him at all.

I wish I can hold a debate with him. But from what I'm told, he refuses public debates, and I can't find him in forums anymore. I got all the time and patience for pressupositionalists.

You can debate me.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 4:27:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

I saw the video a few weeks back. For being so long, it went really quickly, so that is a good sign. I already knew what Sye was bringing to the table, so I was very interested to see what Matt brought to the table. Of course, I agree with Matt-- "We do the best we can with what we have," so to speak.

Unfortunately, Sye doesn't seek debate; he seeks ways to shut down debate before it even gets going. He claims that because we cannot solve the epistemology problem and the solipsism problem but that God can, we cannot question God's existence or methods. He uses semantics and sophistry as a sledgehammer. And it's been said that he isn't a very nice person...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 4:46:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 4:27:56 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/2/2015 1:54:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I'm sick and I figired I should listen to some podcasts. One of the podcasts I had was the recorded audio of the Refined Reason debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. This was courtesy of the Thinking Atheist and the audio was actually pretty decent and clear. As I watched, I noticed that while Matt would directly address the rebuttals for each argument, all Sye did were the following

1. Read a scripted presentation for each round
2. Made straw man arguments and tried to refute them
3. Mocked Matt's words from the atheist experience show
4. Redefine words in a confusing manner.
5. And reassure us that we all know God exists.

Matt obviously was the victor and I wish he could have faced somebody much more worthy like Dinesh D'Souza or somebody. What are yalls thoughts. If you haven't seen the debate, I'll leave a link below.

http://youtu.be...

I saw the video a few weeks back. For being so long, it went really quickly, so that is a good sign. I already knew what Sye was bringing to the table, so I was very interested to see what Matt brought to the table. Of course, I agree with Matt-- "We do the best we can with what we have," so to speak.

Unfortunately, Sye doesn't seek debate; he seeks ways to shut down debate before it even gets going. He claims that because we cannot solve the epistemology problem and the solipsism problem but that God can, we cannot question God's existence or methods. He uses semantics and sophistry as a sledgehammer. And it's been said that he isn't a very nice person...

He ain't. He refuses to discuss scripture with somebody who isn't a believer in God. Which sounds wrong because that's him refusing to evangelize to other people. Sye should recieve the next crocoduck award.