Paul Baird vs Sye Tenbruggencate Round 3


When a debate begins with an opening statement like this one, you know it’s going to be a doozy. And this is actually Paul and Sye’s third go-around.

I’d like to thank the viewing audience for taking the time to join us for this debate, I’d like to thank Eric Hovind for hosting this debate in the Creation Today Studios, I’d like to thank Paul Baird for his renewed and apparent undying interest in debating this topic with me. I’d like to thank my brothers and sisters in Christ for their prayers and support but most of all I’d like to thank my lord and saviour Jesus Christ for giving me the opportunity to represent Him before all of you today. Today Paul and I will be debating the existence of God. Since this is our third go around Paul is well aware that my line of argumentation is that the proof that God exists is that without Him you can’t prove or know anything. Proof requires knowledge, truth and absolute laws of logic to name but a few, none of which can be accounted for outside of the God of Christianity. I submit that the only way one can know anything to be true is by or through revelation from God. But Paul and I both claim to know things. A few days ago Paul, on Pauls blog he affirmed that very thing when he said and I quote “The one area of my worldview that seemed to be a problem is much less so, i now know how much I don’t know, which is rather comforting in a strange way”. Well Paul admits that he doesn’t know much he admits that he knows some things but how can Paul know anything since it is my claim that God is a necessary foundation for knowledge.

Bare assertion == truth! I say God is necessary for knowledge, ergo if anyone claims to know anything, God must exist!

It only gets worse from there, but Paul is more than up to the task. Good read.

How much more ground will Sye cede before he abandons presuppositional apologetics? My guess: all of it. He will cede every inch of ground before he abandons the notion that by presuming he’s ceded no ground, he automatically wins any argument.

Comments

  1. says

    S: Look, you’re a Christian, and you know you’re a Christian,
    P: No, I’m not, I’m an atheist.
    S: You’re a Christian, you’re just in denial.
    P: Nope, I’m still an atheist.
    S: Well I’m a Presuppositionalist and I can show you that your worldview depends on a denied knowledge that the Christian God exists.
    P: Really ? How long would that take.
    S: About seven hours.
    P: Well, I’ve got to go out soon and I don’t like drawn out arguments, so how about we just agree that I’m a Christian ?
    S: Ok, what sort of Christian are you then ?
    P: I don’t know – the Roman Catholics are quite popular.
    S: Oh, dear.
    P: What’s up now ?
    S: You’re not a real Christian.

  2. says

    Hey Paul, I haven’t listened to the audio. Did any of Sye’s more ridiculous lines of argumentation get cut from the final piece? I’m thinking specifically the “currency” bit. Because that “currency” stuff actually got me to thinking — the analogy is not that there are counterfeit Gods and one real God, the analogy is actually that there are multiple explanations for how the universe began, and that Sye is claiming that only the God brand “counterfeits” are legal tender. The universe might have other ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>