Debate Teacher Reacts: Epic Debate Over God's Existence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- On this episode of Debate Teacher Reacts, we're looking at one of the most viewed apologetics debates of all time on TH-cam! This is the Epic Debate Over God's Existence. Who did a better job? The Christians or the Atheists? Find out in this video!
Link to the full debate: • Epic Debate Over God's...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
I greatly appreciate your honesty and transparency in your videos. I feel a kinship with you because you're "real" and don't fall back on platitudes, double standards, or religious rhetoric.
I think we can see your real personality and character through your videos, and it's refreshing that you're never a flat caricature of Christianity
I agree with this.
Totally agree. Also, it’s kinda spooky how your syntax makes me feel like I’m reading a comment that I posted.
@@GeetarAdam I'm honored! Thank you - I've never had a comment like this lol. But great minds think alike...
@@3irdcity902oooh
That “debate” was a train wreck for the Christians involved. Your assessment was spot on from where I'm sitting.
From my perspective, as well.
It felt embarrassing to see the way these Christians handled themselves.
The "don't know, don't care" comment was crushing.
Pray for these Christians. Pray for these atheists as well. The spirit may be stirring.
Great review I really enjoyed that. Even though you more or less scolded it, this is what Christian debates need, a solid dose of iron sharpening iron! I hope in the future you have some of these speakers on for a discussion. This debate really springboarded my interest in a lot of Christian content on TH-cam back in the day.
I think one of Durbin's major mistakes is that a lot of his questions commit the fallacy of the complex question (or what lawyers call "assuming facts not in evidence"). He also uses loaded language. If I were an atheist, I would probably find him manipulative and dismiss his arguments as sophistry. He is a smart guy, though. I've watched his TH-cam channel lots of times.
I can’t speak clearly to Sye’s heart in that moment, but I know I’ve gone into flesh-mode before when conversing with unbelieving friends and making comments I really regret (I remember spitefully telling a close atheist friend in high school that I felt sorry for him one time, yikes). What tends to happen is I hit a point when I’m struggling to answer a difficult question, and because I’m afraid of looking silly or I’m a bit unprepared for the question or just frustrated that my conversation partner can’t see my position the way I would present it if I could, I resort to trying to prove my intellectual superiority in a way that ends up just demonstrating my pride, rather than leaning on the Spirit for my assurance and demonstrating some humility. I hope that Sye sought forgiveness and repented after this, but it definitely reminds me that we all, Christian and non-Christian, need the grace of God.
Thanks for this video, it was thought-provoking and helpful. I agree, I really like watching Jeff debate but I kind of wonder if the awkward tension coming from his right threw him off his game. At least Sye didn’t demand the atheists drink antifreeze though :)
Well said, it makes me look at how I talk to unbelievers. Like Nate said where is Christ in that statement. Thanks for your comment because it resonated with me. God bless you and I pray that you are well a year after your comment.
I think it could’ve been said better and if it wasn’t a debate could’ve been talked about more but the story was irrelevant to the argument. This was clearly seen when he says he didn’t think about God and therefore seems that he’s made a point that God doesn’t exist. Sye, understanding this, cut through the emotional language to address the here and now and show the invalidity of the position. I think Sye’s major issue is tone.
Unsurprisingly, it was Sye who at one time convinced me that Matt Dilahunty was a proficient debater through his performance. He is possibly the worst Christian apologist I’ve heard.
What a disappointment. Christians did such a poor job defending their points and being so disrespectful. Thank you for reviewing debates. It’s so educational and entertaining.
43:20 - that Atheist seemed (I don't know for sure) to be open to what the Christian's had to say. At that point, he let himself be a bit vulnerable in his thinking and wanted to hear real reasoning - potentially a soul saving moment and the Christians just made jokes, talked over him, insulted. This is the exact way you lose people to Hell. This was beyond frustrating to watch, I almost didn't make it through the video.
Well, Sye certainly isn't known for being polite or coming across with any degree of humility in debate settings. However, in some interviews he's done he seems kind of sweet actually.
Interviews with Christians or secularists? Because if it's the former that doesn't prove much. It shows he is tribal. If you're going to get on stage with your enemies you better be ready to show the love of Christ to them.
@@keepclimbing2015 Christ was not always polite.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 Christ was never unnecessarily cruel to the degree of Sye's comment "Don't know, don't care." That was said with the clear intention of meanness, not with edification in mind, which was always the goal of Christ.
@@cambridgehathaway3367 Yes it was edifying to call people white washed tombs and pit of vipers? This weak version of Christianity some propose is ridiculous.
I'm generally not impressed with Durbin or White in a debate. This shouldn't be a huge surprise given Durbin learned everything he knows from White.
I find they often obfuscate or avoid points. While their questions are often good, their answers are normally terrible.
For those who have a major issue with Sye on this one, I'm wondering if you've pondered Durbin's poignant, two word reply to Bruce the Atheist, or simply seen the t-shirt that he wore during the debate. In my opinion, Sye is much more of a bull in a China shop than Durbin, but I wonder how much more uncouth we would deem many saints of yesteryear if we witnessed their engagements with God mockery (whether the passive or active type). Especially since secularism has now produced its own fundamentalism and pharisees. May iron sharpen iron as grace and truth collide in the body of Messiah.
Hmmmm well, no one says mockery or verbal assault has no place. Jesus calling the pharisees a brood of vipers is about as bad as it gets for that group because He was calling them the children of the serpent. Satanists. But it requires enormous dicernment to know when it will be effective. When someone opens up about a possibly traumatic event(whether you know the ulterior motive or not), it's probably not the best time to be the hardened badass fighting satanists. The goals is souls as it were. We bear God's image. Bear it not in vain. Bring the love of God to the table.
The fact they were saying there was no atheist perspective immediately means they were obfuscating..
Just based on this cross examination, this is one of the worst performances from Christians in a debate I have ever seen… wowzers 🤦♂️
As bad as this was, I've seen way worse debate performances from presuppers
It's difficult for them
They dont have much of a case
Cringey and painful to watch. I'm Christian, but as far as THIS one debate goes the Christian side was just embarrassing.
Love this channel and these debate critiques
if he genuinely had a near death experience and says he didn't think of God hes lying. in fact, how would he even know to bring that up if he didn't think of God? when you are faced with death and the human mind has exhausted every single other possible solution, the thought "God?" will be the last thought that runs through every persons mind. it is beyond our control
Basil, meat, mushrooms, tomatoes, garlic and marinara belong on pizza! A close second would be pineape, depending on other ingredients.
Is it true sye get exposed for a moral failing with a vulnerable female not long after this ?
Guy in the middle on the Christian side came off like he had something personal against the Atheists.
18:35 social contract theory
The problem with this theory is that for nearly all of human history (and still today) that tribes fight against other tribes.
Those that attempt to refrain in western societies- what changed? What influenced? Is it just an evolution? Or is it a revelation?!
In contrast- Take a quick peek at at those atheist countries- not pretty.
I think presupposition is the best way to view Scripture and reality, but boy do i take issue with the way some of the most influencial are must bad at explaining what they mean and how they got there. No patience in it. Thats sad to me.
Nate, Sye was merely following Romans 1 in testifying to the innate revelation of God’s existence in every human! He’s not being “Snarky”! Why would you see it that way? Doesn’t Paul’s observations about innate knowledge of God have a claim on the conscience of atheists? How is Sye’s contention inappropriate?
We’re not from star dust. We’re from the dust of the earth before stars were even made.
The best apology is changed behaviour..... Lets hope and pray Sye TB can turn that corner ( Do some research in him and you will get what I mean)... - From Cape Town South Africa- Shalom
18:20 the better answer from the atheists to this lone of questioning would be, its not that we chose these values on purpose, butnthat had we not developed those values by chance we wouldnt be here to consider where they came from. its not a great argument but the only one they have
Neither side definitively won as both failed to establish their positions and provide evidence of support. It was frustrating to watch; painful even.
The debate was centered around the existence of the Christian god. How exactly do atheists provide evidence for the nonexistence of something that’s never been proven to exist in the first place?
You’re basically asking for evidence of the nonexistence of unicorns.
@@jacoblee5796 I imagine it will depend on how one defines evidence. If evidence is (from Oxford English Dictionary) "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" is the definition being applied, then the information or facts used to reach the conclusion that the Christian God, in the case here, does not exist would be the evidence to present. How did those on the neg side of the debate reach their conclusion? That is what should be presented from that position in the debate.
A minute before Sye said ‘I don’t care’ you were fawning over how much he oozed with charm. I think you seriously misunderstood what the emphasis of his words meant. When given the time he developed his answers much more fully but you seem quite unable to hear him.
It is every classical apologists' dream to cross-examine Sye!! 😁
33:25 I totally disagree. Durbin gave a totally coherent answer (even though he was cut off). His point was that the presuppositions and claims the atheist made cannot be used as tools for atheism unless he can justify their existence. And the atheist had no answer for that. Jeff said you’re appealing to and using things you have no basis for - that’s not just restating your claim, that’s making the framing of the entire situation clear.
37:20 I don’t think “don’t know don’t care” is an inherently unchristian response. Sy makes it clear that he doesn’t know or care in regards to the debate and whether or not it proves anything - and he’s right. This is like me saying, “you think I love hamburgers. When my best friend died, if I loved hamburgers, do you think I’d crave one for comfort right then?” And you respond don’t know don’t care. Correct. Because whether or not I craved one in that moment is both unprovable and irrelevant to discovering whether or not I love burgers.
Man, this debate ain’t the best but this review is… also not great.
I would love to see you debate Nate 😀
part of the problem was the other two christians with jeff. sye kept interrupting
The problem is that materialism and free will are incompatible ideas. If humans are just biological machines, predictably responding to stimuli according to learned patterns, then with perfect information you could predict every choice someone will make throughout their entire life. In fact the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote a very famous series of books about that very idea. If then, as the atheists argue, morality arises from a social contract born out of a Darwinistic imperative, then what they're really saying is that morality is a construct set in motion by the prime mover of the universe; in other words, morality comes from God.
I think that the popularity of a debate on TH-cam is inversely proportional to its quality of content.
Did somebody say they weren't convinced?
In Sye's defense, I understand where he was coming from...the points he was trying to make, but they were playing to an already believing audience, and not effective instruments of debate. I don't actually think he "doesn't care" about Gleason's soul, but I think he was speaking out of frustration with the man's argument...and the "I don't care" applied to the argument that was being presented. I had to take a step back from online debates because, while I've had some great discourse over the past 10 years, I've noticed a definite decline in the substance of the average atheist's arguments. I believe it corresponds to the rise of professional atheists like the "four horsemen" and the army that's gathered on their heels. I was never quite as crass as Sye, but instead, I found myself going into long autobiographies attempting to explain in a somewhat comprehensive yet concise manner how I myself went from atheist to Christian. This was an attempt to show my opponents that I've "done the work" and DO understand the points they're trying to make...probably better than they do. But, it was almost always a waste of words....making a short story long, so-to-speak. In this enterprise, it's very easy to stray off the path. I sure appreciate your content. It helps us to examine ourselves and our tactics objectively. God bless, Nate.
Sye Ten Bruggerncate is proof that not all Canadians have a nice, pleasant personality. 😲
In the atheist cross-exam they were talking past each other and not understanding the Christian's worldview
OK how's this then. He say if we eat babies we'd be no longer. We eat cows. Are they still here? And if so how.... follow the logic. Why is that wrong.
I Have an atheist friend who is highly educated and articulate, he usually wins when debating me about the existence of random evil, and the multitude of gods I excuse his offensive speech and dismissive arrogance just because I'm Christian, my responses to his argument on evil; that is a necessary condition for free will : and on contradicting gods; that the God that reveal himself to the Hebrews also reveal himself to the Chinese and to the Mayas (Since there is only one God).. its just that among these cultures we take the Hebrew understanding of the revelation as more self corrective, accurate and useful to live a meaningful moral life. I think the Christians have some excellence points and won the date, or maybe I'm just bias.
Offensive speach from atheists? How about Christians who regularly tell me I'm going to burn in hell for eternity and I deserve it?
Name me ONE thing am atheist has said to you that is more offensive than threatening someone with eternal torture. You won't have the integrity to respond.
@@anthonymitchell9793 When atheist claim "that Christians believe in the mean spaghetti monster in the sky, or that we serve him out of fear or because we don't have the moral or intellectual strength to survive without a protective imaginary daddy". I think that is very offensive damaging.
on the other hand if atheist do not believe that they will burn in hell anymore than a unicorn will run them over next morning, they have a shield of rationality over a false statement.
@@samanthacanales9102 So you think mocking somebody for their beliefs is more offensive than threatening to torture someone for eternity.
Imagine an adult says they believe in Santa Claus. Another person mocks the belief. The first person says they have a friend who is going to set the second person on fire because they don't believe in Santa Claus.
You think words are more offensive than torture. And that is what you consider morality.
@@anthonymitchell9793 I don't get your point, what do you care if I say that Santa will not bring toys, but instead he will bring a gun to shoot those that don't believe? when obviously both cases are false..
I think you may be overstating your offense.
@@samanthacanales9102 You think it is more offensive to mock a person's beliefs than it is to threaten them with bodily harm. That is bizarre.
One person tells your child that his/her beliefs are stupid. Another person threatens to set your child on fire. Are you really more offended by the person who attacked your child's beliefs?
That would be negligent parenting. My response to the first person would be to sit with my child and go over the evidence for the beliefs and discuss why the person was wrong. My response to the second person would be to phone the police.
But I guess your view of morality is different. Hurting your child's feelings is more offensive than threatening to hurt their health.
That's weird to me.
Calvinism doesn't not equate to Christianity. There were multiple presuppositions made by the "Christians" that are not biblically supported, giving rise to justifiable critique from the atheist.
One example is the presupposition of God's revelation of himself. The way it was stated by the Christian left room for plenty of critique by the atheist because the Calvinist left Christianity to cite John Calvin on his reason to believe. John Calvin is not scripture, and his explanation falls short of scripture.
I appreciate your videos, but reformed theology has some flaws as well, which must be addressed before assuming it accurately represents all of Christian thought and doctrine.
What a mess. Where’s the compassion from that so called Christian? He’s supposed to be representing God but just acts like a jerk. Horrible arguments from him also. I think the Christians need to go back and re-examine how to argue logically and not emotionally.
34:13 No wonder I always cringe watching Jeff Durbin debate. 🙈 I am sure he is highly intelligent, and I am a fellow believer...but his forceful style is painful, whether he's talking to people on the street or a well-prepared debater. 😬
I have a question do any of them fear God and why or why not
I KNOW you don't believe in God! I KNOW what's inside your head!
I don’t eat babies because god said so.
I almost ate a baby yesterday.
Then I remembered to not do that because god said stop.
So dissapointing. Everytime Sye would derail the debate. Durbin was doing well at the end and i was really interested to see his kicker of a question and then he was cut off to ask some stupid petty rallying question. So dissapointing.
I lost almost all respect for Sye and Jeff in this debate. Presup should offer confidence but they derive arrogance from it.
Same problem I have with Calvinists and predestination. It makes lazy and disconnected saints.
Jeff durbin is way too confrontational for my taste
Thirty minutes in and this is the biggest mess I have ever seen 😢😮😅
I agree with Nate on this one. Basil sholud be on pizza.
Wow ugh it’s just like when I watched Doug Wilson debate in universities
THEY SUCKED AT IT
They love hearing themselves yap their doctrines … no heart in it
Here’s my simple didntgotoseminary answer to HOW DO I KNOW
I NOW HATE WHAT I USE TO LOVE AND LOVE WHAT I USE TO HATE …REVELATION IS A HEART OPERATION … MY HEART CHANGED!!!
Ahhh very hard to watch, cringe, so Sad to see Christians try to defeat there opposition instead of win them, win the agreement instead of the person.
We can all learn from this, thankyou wise disciple
Only sith deal in absolutes.
Toy
gifted to you, early years,
made you mind, and eased your fears,
taught you how to bow and pray,
hold it tightly, be okay,
I won’t take your toy away,
don’t you think, to give it up,
without it, you’re not enough,
gives you hope and strength each day,
so I won’t take your toy away,
yours is right, this much is true,
for millions out there, have one too,
though not the same, to hold and feel,
with different faces, weights and build,
you just smile, you know the deal,
for unlike theirs, your toy is real,
talking to it, every night,
in your bed, by your side,
there against you when you wake,
never take your toy away,
though you’re older, ain’t it strange,
knowledge comes but you remain,
burdened by religious chains,
yet never care to prove a thing,
about that toy to which you cling,
but don’t mind me, for it’s okay,
will never take your toy away,
I’ve been around, and seen enough,
learned that some things, mean too much,
and faith stomps out, the will to know,
like a favorite toy, you won’t let go,
still I’m here, got your back,
with my life, be sure of that,
stand beside you, right or wrong,
however hard, however long,
always here to ease your hurt,
when despite your faith, that toy don’t work,
at this point, it’s safe to say,
no one can take your toy away…
Jarrod Nichols
I like Jeff Durbin, I don’t agree 100% with him theologically but he loves the Lord and I have discernment and the ability to agree/disagree. However: in this debate he came off smug. Considering I’m not a debate teacher, I know that you know best regarding the “why” and what have you (that he said and did the things he did), but thought I’d comment.
I think what you missed is Durbin did not bring up eating babies out of nowhere. In the atheist's opening statement he said "atheists don't eat babies".
Here is a good case for why presuppositional arguments cannot be the ONLY tools at the apologists disposal... Poor approach by sye especially, I agree this should have been a 1 v 1
I would consider myself presuppositional but watching this debate in its entirety was extremely difficult. I think you can be presuppositional while still using tools that are classical to get to a point. As the other commenter mentioned, it can be done well as Bahnsen demonstrated.
presuppositional arguments shouldnt ANY of the tools at the apologists disposal
If you think presuppostional is not a good method go follow frank turek as an evidentialist when he face silverman. Then you will understand.
This is presuppositionalism not done properly. Check out Eli Ayala’s TH-cam channel if you want to see proper presupp.
Definitely not a case for this at all. In fact, many of the evidences that classical apologists appeal to only make sense in a presuppositional framework.
Great video, brother. I am a reformed believer, am becoming more presuppositional, and general fan of Apologia and much of their work. However, my mouth dropped with yours when Sye, a professing Christian, said "don't know, don't care" about a tragic event in the atheist's life. Completely unacceptable. Christ was not in that statement. If engaging in debate tempts you to interact with people in that way, you need to stay away from debate and repent.
And in general, presuppositional apologetics can be effective in some cases, but those who use this method need to be extremely careful and wise about how they present themselves. I don't think that was done here, unfortunately.
Love the content, keep up the great work. I seriously enjoy your commentary and insights. God bless.
sad... that's why we need a balance of empathy and head knowledge...
@@ROMEYYOUROCK The most charitable guess is that the atheist's story unrelated to the topic.
@@mariembuenaventura1278 I think you mean compassion, or sympathy.
I start with Evidentialism, usually. Why? Because Verificationism is where most internet atheists reside. The first step is to get them to admit that they presuppose naturalism. Atheist generally hate admitting this, bit it's easily identified contextually. They will say things like "Only naturalism can explain phenomena", or "I need demonstrable/sufficient/extraordinary evidence", "You can't demonstrate God" etc. These are all admissions to a naturalistic preuspposition.
Once you get them to Verificationism, switch to presupp and "demonstrate" that their naturalistic presupp is usually justified by emotion, incredulity, and precieved abuse from the church.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Great insight, brother.
Sye is the Arron Ra/ Lawrence Krause of Christian Apologetics. No business engaging in debates. I’m sure he’s a great man but this doesn’t seem like a space where he’s best suited to share the gospel. He’s far too emotional and pompous while neglecting sound structure.
Comparing Sye to Lawrence Krauss? Hilarious. Sye is more like a two year old.
@@anthonymitchell9793 lol Lawrence Krause had the buzzer thing with William Lane Craig. Both are immature and unnecessarily hostile.
Not that I could add anything to the great perspective WD always brings to these debates, but I think having a precise, well defined debate topic that all interlocutors agree on would help mitigate some of the pointless dialogue.
This! ^^^
@@WiseDisciple I would love to see your reaction to David Silverman vs James White on "Is the NT evil?" - it is a very long time of cross examination, but very useful and engaging nonetheless.
Sye: “This might be helpful to you”
Narrator: “It was not”
I do wonder why you did not cover the one good point Sye scored on Bruce when Bruce said does not have faith, he has confidence and Sye revealed that confidence is latin for with faith.
Because they clearly had different definitions for confidence. So his “point” didn’t matter to anyone but the Christians in the audience
The cringe 😬...
😬😬😬
I would never want Sye beside me on the Christian side of a debate. Gosh the cringe!!
The moment he said "dont know dont care" the others immediately knew they lost because of him.
Thing is, only a Christian can point out why it is wrong to say that. An atheist can take issue with him saying that, but they literally cannot explain why it is wrong. According to their worldview, it is not right or wrong for Sye to not care-it just _is._ For any unbeliever to get upset with him for it is to appeal to an external source of morality, which is contradictory because they do not believe in God.
To be an effective interlocutor it takes so much practice. This was just practice round that got published by mistake. 😉
😉
Would love to see James White Vs. Bill Shishko partially because it is an internal debate on baptism and would be a little different flavor than Christians vs. non-christians
I think this is the hard part, when it turned into some subjective, experiential appeal, Sye comes back with a very "unChristian" response. At that point, you stopped judging a debate and judged Sye, rightly or wrongly. I no longer keep up with Sye, but this is what he constantly appeals to in his methodology. He believes that we are often competitors, and enlightened, aspiring sophisticates, when we should be evangelists and those who hold people to the standards they continually appeal to. So, yeah, he's raw, but I believe he is offended by deception, the destruction of humanity, and blasphemy of God, while many others tend to be more offended by intellectual and emotional harm of neighbor. In the end, winsome pontification with bait-and-switch arguments is what drives presuppositionalists nuts, while many others are awed by this method. I think Sye's often too coarse, while a large majority of other apologists on the planet tilt the other direction. Just my $.02.
@Ryan P Sye was apparently forced to step down from his position, because he had an affair of some sort 😕
@@brando3342 Yep. He definitely misrepresented God in his actions. The ultimate reason that adultery is wrong. He definitely acted hypocritically, which is only damnable if we bear God's image, which bestows dignity and accountability.
@@brando3342 yes! I read about it. He had to leave for having s3x with a vulnerable woman. That is the only info I can find. He was always a bit aggressive and that is not how we are called to reach people. Giving someone a bloody nose turns them away. We need to give them the truth but do so lovingly.
@@brando3342 he was repentant, stepped down, and was restored
@@PurpleHeart99
But you are giving them the truth, the real truth. Sye's behavior, by far, isn't the only thing that turns people away.
I agree totally with Seth, where is Christ in that disgraceful "don't know, don't care" statement? That was utterly embarrassing. He should be ashamed. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Good lord this was a train wreck.
Saying GL is blasphemy.
@@opalbeauty1578 No it isn't. You are trivializing blasphemy.
Hello. Sad to say it it seems you don't know Christ if you think that is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is NEVER trivial. It's a SOLID COMMANDMENT that everyone is to obey. I point it out to others to let them be aware they are sinning against the God that made them (and you) and the Lord Jesus that died on the cross for them to save them from the pit of hell. All blasphemy, along with every other sin, will counted to us in judgement and if someone hasn't repented of sin and trusted in Jesus alone for salvation they face a wrathful God and they will be justly punished. Jesus does love us but he came out of love not for love. Jesus came to die that none should perish but all have everlasting life. I suggest being on the side of righteousness. Reading the book of John in the New Testament is a good place to start. Peace be to you.@@cambridgehathaway3367
Can we appreciate how it looks like they got 3 atheist stereotypes for this?
- Middle parted mid length gray hair
- Oversized 90s goatee
- Angsty youth
“This is very frustrating to watch.”
Welcome to every time Sye Ten Bruggencate interacts with anyone. 🤦🏼♂️
YES
OOOOOOF OOF OOF OOF. So much OOF. Calvinists… big OOF 🤦♂️
As soon as you have presuppositionalists in a debate it is a waste of time. When you start with a baseless premise that God is proven to be true nothing can be gained.
I'm going to continue to post the same response to all your videos:
Theist: God is real.
Me: Do you have any evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
Theist: No.
Me: I only believe things based upon evidence. Come back when you have some and we will talk.
One of the more important things I've learned in apologetics - and even your debate reviews- is knowing how to communicate effectively. Its very easy to speak Christian jargon. Ot takes more effort to communicate the same ideas of our jargon un such a way the non-Christians can mutually understand.
That problem with what you said is that is not biblical. What you called "Christian jargon" is what will convert a non christian. No philosophy, or humans words will convert someone, but only God throught his Word.
@@thomasglass9491 , wholeheartedly agree that faithful preaching of the Word and the move of God's Holy Spirit are what change hearts.
My main point was that the Word still requires faithful preaching which often requires effective communication and exposition.
@@thomasglass9491 If i quote John 1 in Spanish to a German non-believer, do you think that will help to convert him? Not at all. There is nothing wrong with translating truth into language that will be properly understood by the hearer.
@@cambridgehathaway3367 I agree! That has nothing to do with my point.
I bet Durbin wishes he had different debate partners.
Definitely. The hairs on the back of Durbin's neck were standing up in astonishment over Sye's comments. Gross.
I'm hoping Sye has come a long way after 7 years, I think he has but not sure
I’m so glad you were unbiased on this one. I think you were too nice, to be honest. I cringed all through this one.
I think the presup is good for Christians. It is a good fall back on why we believe what we believe. I don’t think it is an apologetic that is effective or transforming when dealing with an atheist, and it is very ineffective for other theists in my opinion.
Thanks again for your objectivity. The atheists handled themselves better.
This is a really bad example of presup, and we ought to decide on the merits or otherwise of presup on the basis of what it looks like when done well rather than on the basis of what it looks like when done badly. A better example of presup approaches being used in debates can be seen in other debates Nate has reviewed (the Bahnson debate and any of the debates with James White).
The only effective way is God's Word only.
To be fair I don’t think presup is even effective for Christians to hold their own faith. I don’t think anything about presup adequately even points to christ, nor any specific God, because no premise about it entails the god of the Bible. Plenty of other dieties can occupy Presup requirements.
But other dieties cannot explain the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I think that makes evidentialist claims much stronger.
Asking “what’s the atheistic perspective on eating babies?” Is like asking what’s “what’s wrong with eating babies from the rock climbers perspective?”…….. it has nothing to do with it. It’s a very weird question as there is no “atheistic perspective”. Perhaps he could ask from the “materialistic perspective” or “naturalistic perspective”
In seeking common understanding, theists almost universally frame atheism as a faith system mirroring their own. If your entire world view is rooted in a faith proposition, stepping outside that epistemological framework is much harder than simply hacking away at opposing epistemologies until it resembles your own.
Same thing happens when sola scriptura Protestants debate muslims and think the Quran is the only authoritative text in Islam.
If Sye Ten gets you worked up (and I dont blame you at all for feeling that way Nate) then never ever ever review a Darth Dawkins debate.
Unless you like going bald from pulling out all your hair in exasperation.
Duly noted!
You're right on that one!
May I not pass this mortal coil before we get the Dilahunty vs Darth call on the Atheist Experience
Just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't necessitate cannibalism. Durbin is being foolish.
41:31 - Another moment that made me cringe was when you took the Lords name in vain.
I think you might be misrepresenting sye when he said he doesn’t care, it’s not like he was saying he doesn’t care about the fact he almost died, instead he doesn’t care about the story in regards to this debate.
No, he said explicitly I don't care about YOU then. This is a classical example of someone getting wrapped up in a debate and their goal of winning rather than actually caring about the other person's soul. But that's Sye in basically every "apologetics" situation.
Sye is there as red meat for Christians. He may as will be Donald Trump at a rally.
The guy on the left and Durbin are a bit more reasonable, but Sye just annoys me. I have watched his whole documentary exposing other apologetics and I have to say that I'm ok with presuppositionalism. I don't agree with it's perspective as it is a reformed apologetic and I'm not reformed anymore, but it's fine. However, I can't stand Sye's use of it.
If this is the worst you've seen I'm guessing you haven't seen many of Sye's debates. And, Nate, your characterization of Sye's "I don't care" is spot on. Also, another debate I saw comes to mind. You should checkout the debate between Sonny Hernandez/Theodore Zachariades and Leighton Flowers/Johnathan Pritchett. I can pretty much guarantee that it's one you won't forget!
"Nice" to people openly rebelling... 🤷🏼♂️ Not sure why it bothers folks so much. He even clarified that he wasn't saying he didn't care about the man. He says he doesn't care what the man was thinking as it pertains to God. The answer was obvious that he didn't think about God...
I'm totally with you on basil and pizza. But I'm also a fan of Basil Pouledoris, or however you spell his name.
I understand interruptions when one is not answering the question posed by another Durbin and his team need to learn restraint and patience /self control instead asking question, making a statement and then a question before a response is given for what was asked and presented from the first question.
A Christian Apologist’s desire should be the conversion of those they debate, over winning arguments. When I first saw this full debate it seemed as if Sean Taylor just needed a tiny bit of evidence for God’s existence to believe. However, the presuppositional side continued with the T.A.G and as one who holds to the presuppositional methodology myself, I remember hoping that maybe for the sake of Sean Taylor the other side would give any evidences. He seemed so close. After I finished watching I assumed a classical approach is what Taylor needed, until I found a dialogue he had with Sean McDowell called “Easter with a skeptic”. After a 40 minute conversation saturated with evidences, Sean Taylor still rejected God. Therefore, leading me to conclude it was not an information issue, rather, a suppression in unrighteousness issue.
I Enjoy your videos and analysis on this topics and debates. I don't like those types of men who claim to be Christian and person of faith, love and so on.
Debating is more than dismantling the other side’s arguments. The way the Christian side comported themselves was awful. Even if you had adjudicated a victory for the Christian side, I’d still say they lost due to how unpalatable they acted. The gospel of Christ is offensive enough to an unbeliever, we don’t need to heap offense on top of it by our conduct.
Nate you are my new favorite apologist. I'm stuck on your channel. Your reaction to the 'dont know don't care' and the look on your face was such a righteous anger, it made me admit that I completely missed this the first time I watched this debate way back when. As Christians, we need to approach non-believers with compassion and humility and sometimes I forget this. God bless and God speed.
Being a good debater tells you nothing about the validity of the arguments they put forward. Durbin is a combination of sophistry and Gish galloping. He believes that because he has developed an internally valid argument that if therefore defeats any external argument, just because it does. There is no future for the Church disappearing down the rabbit hole of presuppositionalism. It sounds clever and no doubt gives some a warm feeling of self-satisfaction, but it is in fact the Church in full retreat.
I would like to see you review the 2004 debate of James White v Doug Wilson “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?” It’s witty and fun and the debaters actually like each other
“Don’t know. Don’t care” really shook me. That’s such an apathetic response, even in a debate. Yikes. You have to think of the unbelieving audience outside of the debate that will hear that and likely no longer desire to listen. Come on man…
"Don't know and don't care..." I had to pause the video to comment, in shock. Wow! 😅 Nate's face! 😂
The Fallacy of Division is strong on the theistic side. "How can particles/stardust be... etc"
I think there's merit to questioning the secular foundations of morality, but yeah, it was done in a very unsophisticated way in this debate.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 46:28 math does not tell us something about the world!!!!!???????? Can we just tsckle that one!!!! MATH IS THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE. you cannot comorehend science, the explanation of the world, the d3sign of God, WITHOUT math!!!!!!!!!! The distance of the moon, the speed of light, how we explain why their is human life on earth and not on mars or mercury. I am going to die that it was let slide.
He was just trying to walk his statement back. That's all it was. He was trying to provide context to it knowing Christians and atheists alike know good and well what he meant 😂
I think presup is the scriptural way for Christians to view the world, but it doesn't work in a debate setting because the presup Christians would have to argue from a neutral ground, which goes against the entire presup structure.
Is not every apologetic encounter a "debate," i.e., a defense of answer of the faith? This is simply why presuppositionalism doesn't actually work at all (unless you do it acting like a classicalist). The neutral ground is called general revelation, including a person's conscience and mind.
I only recently discovered your channel, and I am hooked! Thank you so much for your interesting, intelligent and thought-provoking comments about these debates. Very much appreciated!