Recently, Texan atheist beserker-in-chief Matt Dillahunty debated shopworn, cranky, smugnorant used-god salesman Sye Ten Bruggencate on the question: “Is It Reasonable to Believe that God Exists?” Please, watch the whole thing here.
Sye, what’s known as a “presuppositionalist”, essentially holds that the only reason you can know anything is because of God, who invented logic, reason and things to apply them to and anyone who doubts that is actively lying because they actually know that God exists and are knowingly denying it. Before Sye even gives you the time of day you have to accept that he’s right and concede the argument, which is kind of the opposite of what debates are for.
Matt, a former Christian and seminary student, seasoned debater on related questions and long-time host of call-in show “The Atheist Experience“, presented the negative position. I won’t recap his argument as it’d be superfluous to most people who are familiar with atheism (though you should watch it anyway, because it’s not only Matt D’s usual well-stated watertight logic, but the argument – including most of his rebuttals of Sye’s points – were written well in advance because Sye, infamous among internetters for his shite arguments and belligerent narcissism, never, ever changes the record and is more predictable than a CSI episode).
Anyway, here’s Sye’s argument in a nutter-shell (which you should also watch for the sheer slo-mo train wreck spectacle of watching a man completely out of his depth and making not even a token attempt to actually address the question – that is, if you can handle large doses of the kind of intense exasperation that makes you yell at your screen):
If you accept Sye’s worldview, which you must, because it’s true, because it has God in it, which Sye believes because it’s true because of God inventing literally everything, then you have to believe in God because if you don’t you’re a liar because it’s completely obvious that God exists (because God autographed your cardiac muscle, which it says in the Bible, which God, who wouldn’t lie, wrote) and so there’s no need to make an argument that it’s reasonable to believe in God because God is the only reason there’s reason – and even things to believe in – in the first place; accordingly, it is entirely reasonable to believe in Sye’s God and completely unreasonable not to, the reason being that if you don’t, God will burn you in Hell, which is perfectly reasonable to God, which has to be reason enough for you, because it is, because God’s Reason™ is beyond you.
That’s essentially the core of presuppositionalist Christian apologetics: your first presupposition should be that the presuppositionalist is right, has won the argument and demolished all possible counter-arguments before you even start the discussion, or they will simply dismiss you as a hell-bound liar. Seems reasonable.
And here I was thinking that nowhere could be found a more vapid, facetious, childish intellectual black hole of Christian apologetics than the far-right fringe fundamentalism that engenders Young-Earth Creationism – but no, Sye strapped a rocket to his pocket and jumped the shark clear into a close orbit of former planet Pluto.
In closing: Matt’s argument was a shiny, airtight space helmet; Sye’s was an old top hat with an abandoned bird’s nest in it. And some cat vomit.