2.36: Presuppositionalist Apologetics

Episode 36, wherein we have a debate with audio clips of Sye Ten Bruggencate, which as far as I can tell is exactly the same experience as having an actual debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate. Which he refused to do any way. So listen up if you want to be able to tackle the extremely unimportant philosophical precepts that were stolen from actual philosophers and pressed into service by the idiots who currently bandy about this nonsense apologetic, Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.

And if that wasn’t enough skunk dicks for you, we do another one too.

31 Responses to “2.36: Presuppositionalist Apologetics”

  1. Awesome. Been waiting for an episode of Chuck Morrison’s Ego Hour on presuppositional apologetics for a while.

  2. Chuck Morrison’s Ego Hour! That’s a blast from the past.

  3. Damn I’m so glad you guys are back. I thought you quit making podcasts.

  4. CrocADuck says:

    Because cutting my wrists is too painful and messy, I guess I’ll self harm by listening to more Sye Ten Bruggencate. However, I may beat my head against my desk as I listen because that is my instinctual existential reaction to his circular bovine excrement.

  5. I don’t remember if this was addressed in the episode or not, so I’ll post it. Sye refutes his own arguments. He states that we all know god exists, but then he asks if we (atheists) could be wrong about everything. Well, the answer would have to be “no” if he believes that we know god exists, yet he uses the admission that we could be wrong about everything to shut down the debate. Since he apparently knows that we cannot be wrong about everything, he cannot say “I can’t discuss this with you because you admitted you could be wrong about everything.”

    Otherwise, if he does shut down discussion due to the fact that we could be wrong, then he is admitting that we could be wrong about god existing.

    Even WLC looks like an expert in logic by comparison.

  6. Yeah, I’m pretty certain that Sye is not in the business out of a concern for truth. He does what he does to browbeat atheists and win souls for Christ (probably in that order) and he doesn’t seem to mind any inconsistencies or the fact that he behaves like an ass along the way.

  7. I haven’t listened yet but, whatever about his bullshit apologetics, Sye’s face is completely wrong.

  8. Personally, I always assumed I was a brain in a vat hooked up to a Commodore 64, that or a figment of a butterfly’s dream. Every time I hear Christian apologists speak I see confirmation that whatever is generating this reality can’t be very intelligent…

    I really can’t stand this presup crap. I’ve even had trouble getting through atheists podcasts about this subject (i.e. Reasonable Doubts). I can honestly say that this is the first podcast on the subject that I’ve enjoyed. Thank you One True Podcast!

  9. I call it pre-suppositorial apologetics, because it’s extracted straight from the ass.

  10. In Sweden we use God’s dental records to prove his existence. We call it ‘the odontological proof’.

  11. Horatio, there’s always a risk of getting too philosophical with this topic. Too much and it feels like you’re in the 3rd Matrix movie listening to that old guy drone on about exactly nothing while saying a bunch of fancy, jargony philosophical terms. Too little and all the bite of the rebuttal vanishes.

    So it’s good to hear we hit the right balance between too much Keanu and not enough Monica Bellucci.

  12. Are you going to see Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas? It’s so phenomenally bad that Brad Jones sent his entire crew to see it – something he has not done with any other movie. Watch this. It’s the most hilariously bad movie of the decade.

  13. I wonder if anybody has ever asked Sy about his numbers. How many atheists has he converted? Does he have any record of anybody ever being convinced by his “logic?”

  14. surely matt has earned his stripes with the fist in ass analogy.

  15. I wouldn’t mind seeing more of Monica Bellucci. Can you get her?

    So, people – are you Team Chuck or Team Matt?

  16. We were going to see Saving Christmas but it appears to be in “limited engagement” and no theaters around us are showing it. Curse you Kirk Cameron, you’ve made such a crappy Christmas movie nobody wants to play it during Christmas.

    I would be very surprised if Sye has converted a single atheist with his dumb street preaching tactics. Presuppositionalism seems more to me a way for Christians to sound intelligent while debating atheists than any means of bringing souls to Christ.

  17. For the record, I’m Team Chuck.

  18. Maybe we should have a Team Hastings as well.

  19. Saving Christmas is getting put into more theaters. You should see it, apparently he argues Christmas is about materialism because Jesus was the material embodiment of god. Also, it’s apparently the worst movie ever, by quite a ways.


    Also, is this what Christianity has fallen to? Word game therefor god exists? What’s next, you can’t say a tongue twister, therefore Christianity?

  20. Would someone please explain to that dumbass Sye that in a court of law evidence is presented to the JURY and not to the judge.

  21. the fist in arse analogy was his breakthrough moment (i liked him before but that made him) but when is matt’s voice going to break? and when he leaves school will he get to be the pilot he imagines he is?
    all the best,

  22. I would like to hear a debate between William Lane Craig and Sye. Would be interesting to hear them demolish each others’ arguments.

  23. The sheer smug in a Craig-Bruggencate debate might combine to cause a singularity that would destroy the known universe. Best to keep them separate, just in case.

  24. I hear WLC won’t debate anyone without a Ph.D. Could I have one in Hovindology?

  25. Good one, treated with the utter contempt it deserves.

    I particularly liked the “sye(d) step” quip.

    Sye “Side step” Brugenrekord

  26. Scrumpyfan43 says:

    I’d like to point out that when he busted out his idiotic syllogism, “1. It’s reasonable to believe something that is true. 2. It is true that God exists. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists,” you rejected premise 2 (on account of it’s begging the question) but conceded premise 1. YOU FUCKED UP CHUCK, premise 1 is just as awful, because it contains the hidden premise that we have access to objective truth at all times. Without having a solid justification, it absolutely isn’t reasonable to believe a thing even if it turns out to be true later on.

    For instance, let’s say you’re about to flip a coin, and declare “I am certain that the coin will land heads.” Assuming it’s not a double-headed trick coin, your belief is unreasonable, and the coin actually ending up landing heads doesn’t change that.

    I was about to say this is an important distinction but there’s nothing important about presuppositionalist apologetics :{}

  27. I wonder what he would answer if someone said “I can be certain that there is no God except God and that Mohammed is his prophet. Without the truth of the Koran there can be knowledge.”

  28. Sye responds in two ways:

    1. Tell people that he only does Bible study with Christians
    2. If pressed, he will state that the Koran says the Old Testament is true. Well, the Old Testament prophesies of Jesus! The Koran says Jesus is a prophet and not the son of God. Therefore, the Koran is false.

    ANNNNNNND done.

  29. Except that there are many different views on whether the Old Testament prophecies point to Jesus. He needs to demonstrate this.

  30. No doubt. But Sye isn’t into demonstrating things so much as assuming them in the first place.

  31. I’m a little surprised that he thinks so poorly of testing God. After all, both Jakob and Giden tested God and they were righteous.