Sye Ten Bruggencate

Sye Ten Bruggencate is internet famous for his aggressive indifference towards any reasoned response to his own argument, which consists of a single idea (presuppositional apologetics) that is nowhere near as interesting as he insists it is. It is an argument based upon the widely discredited ideas of Immanuel Kant, with a reworking of a very old problem in the philosophy of mind tagged on the side, e.g., How do we know what we know is true, if we judge the reliability of our understanding according to attributes which are inherent to the very knowledge we wish to measure? Ten Bruggencate's refusal to accept that, when stripped of semantics, problems of this kind are rendered meaningless by accepting the primacy of existence axiom, often sees him play the hurt feelings card and use language synonymous with the "crazy Christian" stereotype.

Questioner: … As a Christian, does your doctrine not state to be kind to other human beings?
Bruggencate: Um, I don’t know. You’d have to quote the verse.

"If you know something, it is impossible to be wrong about it"

"I submit that you can't know what is ultimately real without revelation from God. How do I know what is real? The same way that all of you do. Revelation from the God that all of you know exists."

Sye's transcendental argument

On his website, Ten Bruggencate says he has a proof God exists. It is a variant of the transcendental argument:

• Absolute truth is "True for all people at all times everywhere"
• Affirming either "absolute truth does not exist" or "I don't know if absolute truth exists" implies absolute truth exists
• Therefore, absolute truth must exist
• Knowledge is "Justified true belief"
• Affirming that a persons knows nothing is self contradictory
• Therefore, people have at least some knowledge
• Affirming logic doesn't exist either contradicts itself by using logic or is arbitrary
• If it is arbitrary to claim logic doesn't exist, then it reasonable to arbitrarily claim that does.
• If you claim logic is "person relative", I can claim that logic is universal.
• Therefore, logic is universal
• If logic can change, then you have no problem with the choice "logic doesn't change" or "logic doesn't change".
• Therefore, logic doesn't change.
• Matter changes.
• Logic is either made of matter or not matter.
• If logic is unchanging, it is not made out of matter.
• "While you may try to account for truth, knowledge and logic without God, the rest of the site will expose your inability to do so and the Christian’s justification for them with God."

"You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you claim to know. Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You admit that absolute truth exists, but cannot account for it without God. You claim to know things to be true, but cannot justify knowledge or truth according to your own worldview. You use universal, immaterial, unchanging logic in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for it. Truth, knowledge and logic are not the only ways God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him."

Counter arguments

The argument is riddled with non sequiturs i.e. his conclusions don't follow from his premises. In fact there are so many errors it is actually a rhetorical attempt to overwhelm any response (Argumentum verbosium).

We don't necessarily have to accept his particular epistemology. Knowledge as "justified true belief" has fallen out of favour with some philosophers due to the Gettier problem. His questions rely concepts like "absolute truth" but most of these are (arguably) meaningless or self-contradictory, therefore don't warrant a direct answer.

Asking for a person to account their use of logic (presumably using reason or logic) is a meaningless request. In logic, we always require at least one premise. This premise is necessarily either arbitrary, subjective or subject to regress, so the argument claims that it is justified to using it's own arbitrary premise. That makes no sense since two wrongs don't make a right.

There is no reason to think his explanation "God" has any way to solve this problem. It's just asserted by the apologist without basis. This is similar to many other apologetics that point to some philosophical conundrum (e.g. the problem of other minds) and then claiming God solves it. This is an argument from ignorance. Instead of showing how God is a basis of knowledge, the apologist shifts the burden of proof on to the skeptic saying they need to justify an alternative. Rhetorically, the apologist keeps the focus on the audience's beliefs rather than what the argument actually says, which is a distraction tactic.

See also

• Presuppositional apologetics

External links

• Sye Ten Bruggencate Rational Wiki