Stumbled across an apologetics video where he arguments that atheists don't exist (lol) and says every atheist "knows" God exists they just don't want to see it and look for argument after argument so they can ignore what they know deep inside. He also states he wins debates with the sentence "you know as much as I do that God exists" And he proofs it with Romans 1:18-20 What would be the best response if debating such a guy. P. S. Sorry I know apologetics are a pain in the ass
I think you’ve found someone who you’re better off not wasting any time on and just ignoring.
Participation in a debate lumbers particular requirements on the participants to actively back up their position. For example, arguing in favor or against gun control, abortion, euthanasia, etc requires you to back up this position with sources. But he quotes the same bible verse that is the source of his claim in the first place. This is simply circular.
And his claim that he “wins” - i would go so far as to say that he’s just outright lying. It’s not so much that he “wins,” as much as either: a) reasonable people figure out that he’s irrational, or b) he descends into simply restating his baseless claims around and around in a circle, and the inability to steer him out of this impenetrable - and intellectually dishonest - defence he’s built up to resist honest discussion means there’s nowhere to go.
He “wins” in the same way a troll wins. He doesn’t actually successfully make a point, he just deflects and distracts until people et fed up. And then, as the pigeon he is, he claims victory:
He simply doesn’t understand logic, and he doesn’t understand his burden of proof. To reiterate what I’ve already said before - the burden of proof is always on whoever is making the claim. So, all you need to do is say “I don’t believe you.” Gods, unicorns, Bigfoot, doesn’t matter. “I don’t believe you.” Atheism is only the result of the claims being specifically about gods. But common with other wild claims, the problem is with the humans failing to make their case.
And being that you’re the worldwide expert in what you do and do not believe, then you are authoritative in the matter. If he would like to try to refute the worldwide authority in what you (specifically) know and believe, then he can make his case. If all he can do is quote his little fable, then you can simply say that you don’t believe him on that either. While still acknowledging that you can believe that he believes it - given he’s the worldwide expert on what he believes - but that doesn’t make the belief itself believable.
If he finds this unacceptable and rejects the evidence and the conclusion of the worldwide expert in your beliefs, then he’s simply operating in bad faith. You can therefore assert that every Xtian, and specifically he, knows that Kehless exists and lives and burns in their heart, but they deny him and doom themselves to Gre’thor on the Barge of the Dead. But he’s in denial about Kahless. If he can baselessly assert what you believe, you can baselessly assert what he believes.
Or that the The Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorn also says that everything knows in their hearts that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Also, the Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is itself invisible. Which makes sense since the Invisible Pink Unicorn is invisible. But we know they exist because we feel them in our hearts. And we have a transcription here on this napkin.
Or quote Lord of the Rings to prove that Sauron exists.
But the Elves were not so lightly to be caught. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and perceived that he would be master of them, and of an that they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. But he, finding that he was betrayed and that the Elves were not deceived, was filled with wrath; and he came against them with open war, demanding that all the rings should be delivered to him, since the Elven-smiths could not have attained to their making without his lore and counsel. But the Elves fled from him; and three of their rings they saved, and bore them away, and hid them.
His claim is either true or not true. He can’t claim that every single person in the world believes in a “god” - but only his, of course - without showing how, in the real world, outside of the bible, we would test that, how we would confirm it and how we would disconfirm that. And he hasn’t. He’s just boldly, unjustifiably insisted it. Also, given the worldwide success rate, this means that his god is a failure, because atheists are not the only disbelievers in his god.
For us to give a shit what it says in Romans, he needs to justify why we should care about what the bible says at all. He can’t use the bible to justify god-belief, and then god-belief to justify the bible.
The bible also says:
Proverbs 28:26
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
So he shouldn’t be using heart-feelings about gods at all, nor trusting his bold self-confidence that he’s right. That would, according to the bible, make him a fool. This proverb (stolen, of course, from Egyptian wisdom texts) best endorses the scientific method, as it discourages personal bias and belief, and endorses wisdom gained from external knowledge. In the context of the bible, this source is supposedly “god” but then, once again, the bible is the only source of the claim bible-god exists.
This is actually a conundrum for Xtians, which is why they have such a circular mentality. Either you believe in the Xtian god because you believe the bible is true, or you believe the bible is true because you believe the Xtian god exists. One has to be primary, one has to be the starting point. Either god-belief authenticates the bible, or the bible authenticates the god.
If they believe in the bible, then this is a book that we already know has metaphors, poetry and utter nonsense, such as worldwide floods, talking donkeys and a magical dirt man and his magical rib wife. So, how did they, without appealing to “because god,” conclude the bible is true? Or which parts of it are true?
If they believe in the god as primary, then how did they manage to figure out its existence and identity - without using the bible? And how did they get confirmation from the god that the bible is accurate?
Even though they won’t admit it, I think you’ll find most Xtians believe in the bible, rather than the god. The god only follows by virtue of them believing in the bible.
Without seeing his videos, I’m guessing that he believes in the bible, considering he’s heavily quoting it. But it’s trivially easy for any fiction to insist it is intrinsically known to by all to be true. You just write it into the story.
“All the humans instinctively knew it was He. Galactus had arrived.”
“’I have been there along side humanity from the beginning. I have existed in the dark recesses of your minds. I have always been there,’ The First told Buffy.”
He also can’t just steamroll us into accepting this fallacious, plagiarized and fraudulent book without showing why isn’t any different than Macbeth. Or the quran for that matter.
According to the Quran, Muhammad is the last in a chain of prophets sent by God (33:40). Throughout the Quran, Muhammad is referred to as "Messenger", "Messenger of God", and "Prophet". Some of such verses are 2:101, 2:143, 2:151, 3:32, 3:81, 3:144, 3:164, 4:79-80, 5:15, 5:41, 7:157, 8:01, 9:3, 33:40, 48:29, and 66:09.
You need to ask yourself what you would want to achieve. Sometimes you can cause someone to think. Other times you’re doing it for the silent audience, using him as subject matter, with no intention of convincing him of anything. Teaching them refutations or identification of fallacies. But that has to be worthwhile which would be unlikely if most of his watchers/commenters are believers themselves.
As I said, I think you’d be wasting your time engaging with him at all.