Sye Ten Bruggencate versus a ham sandwich

I have to say, after hearing Sye Ten Bruggencate in several “debates” and learning more about this bizarre branch of Christian apologetics called presuppositionalism, I have to say he and his ilk make St. Augustine look like Friedrich Nietzsche. Case in point:

If you don’t want to watch the painful 13 minutes, much less the entire head-scratching debate, Bruggencate’s argument, in his own words, goes like this:

Why is it reasonable to believe that God exists? Quite simply because it’s true that he exists. Here’s my argument. Premise one: It’s reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise two: It’s true that God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists. … I say it’s true that God exists; therefore, it is true that God exists. My argument is sound, and the debate is over.

Wow, that was fast. He just singlehandedly solved thousands of years of religious debate and philosophical inquiry. I mean, Bruggencate says this with such force and so matter-of-factly, as if by merely saying words, any words whatsoever, in public, they become true. Here, let’s try it out.

Me:

Why is it reasonable to believe that Krishna exists? Quite simply because it’s true that he exists. Here’s my argument. Premise one: It’s reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise two: It’s true that Krishna exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that Krishna exists. I say it’s true that Krishna exists; therefore, it is true that Krishna exists. My argument is sound, and the debate is over.

Me again:

Why is it reasonable to believe that Osiris, god of the afterlife, exists? Quite simply because it’s true that he exists. Here’s my argument. Premise one: It’s reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise two: It’s true that Osiris, god of the afterlife, exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that Osiris, god of the afterlife, exists. I say it’s true that Osiris, god of the afterlife, exists; therefore, it is true that Osiris, god of the afterlife, exists. My argument is sound, and the debate is over.

Me a third time:

Why is it reasonable to believe that Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, exists? Quite simply because it’s true that he exists. Here’s my argument. Premise one: It’s reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise two: It’s true that Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, exists. I say it’s true that Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, exists; therefore, it is true that Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, exists. My argument is sound, and the debate is over.

As easily as Bruggencate worked out the problem of God for us, I just singlehandedly willed into existence two gods and created a whole new one. Hey, this creating gods thing is kind of fun! Maybe I’ll make some more gods tomorrow. For now, let’s all offer up some prayers to Hammy, Our Heavenly Lord of the Lunch, and a new god I just felt like inventing 30 seconds ago, all hail Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast. Do you dare doubt the existence of Cutletzimasha? If so, this should clear it up for you:

Why is it reasonable to believe that Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast, exists? Quite simply because it’s true that he exists. Here’s my argument. Premise one: It’s reasonable to believe that which is true. Premise two: It’s true that Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast, exists. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast, exists. I say it’s true that Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast, exists; therefore, it is true that Cutletzimasha, Almighty Ruler of the Roast, exists. My argument is sound, and the debate is over.

My work here is done.

2 thoughts on “Sye Ten Bruggencate versus a ham sandwich

  1. Sye’s logic, or rather lack thereof, really does make me scratch my head and wonder if he’s serious and actually believes what he says. I still haven’t decided where I stand in that question.

    Regarding the content of the argument, on an episode of the Atheist Experience that aired not too long after the debate, Matt acknowledged that he missed an opportunity during the debate to point out a serious flaw in premise one. He pointed out that there are, in fact, many situations where it’s actually not reasonable to believe that which is true. Until you’re given a reason to believe something, it’s actually UNreasonable to believe it. For example, given early man’s ignorance of astronomy and Newtonian physics, it would have been unreasonable for them to believe the Earth rotated around the sun and was not the center of the universe. Or, if my wife has cheated on me but has provided no evidence of an affair, it would be unreasonable for me to believe she has been unfaithful.

  2. Thanks for the insight, Tim. I'm conflicted on Sye as well. Part of me thinks that he actually might have the intelligence of a door knob and what he says is completely logical in his own mind. But he doesn't strike me as a complete halfwit. So, I'm led more to think that he knows full well that his logic is bunk and that he wants God to exist so badly that he uses presuppositionalism, sort of the last frontier of apologetics Christian, to try to defend it, an approach that just comes off as comical and arrogant.

Comments are closed.