Convert Me

So instead, I am going to highlight things that have already been said, and offer voters reasons to go Pro. <<#1- Vote Pro to punish Con for side stepping a legitimate debate. >> In R1 Con offered this to instigate the debate: "The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion. I'd prefer one of the abrahamic religions because the audience will appreciate it more. But if you think you have an airtight case for hinduism, then go for it. " I took up his offer to discuss the qualifications of a particular theism vs no theism (atheism) and gave him a reasonable case for Christianity. I offered Pascal's Wager and I assumed the integrity of my opponent when posting this case. But since I've been around the block, I went ahead and cut off the possible abuse that could come from the vague resolution. I preempted this with an observation: "O2) it would be disingenuous to propose a debate in which one desires reason for conversion from atheism to a particular religion and then merely negates that religion by comparing it with other religions. For example, I say that he should worship Christ and he says "But in Islam that is heresy" or I say there is a Hell and he says "not in Sikhism". Etc. I'm serious abut this, if my opponent merely clashes Christianity with other religious views he side steps the open invitation he began the debate with and limits the pro world. If he wanted a debate between basic classical theism (the only option left when all religions must compete) and atheism, he should have said so at the onset. " Con as it turned out did not intend to have a serious discussion about the merits of Christianity, or any other particular theism for that matter. He merely plotted to use a vague resolution to over limit his Pro opponent, just as I had feared. Con responded: "I didn't even state my philosophy in the OP. Hell, I could be hindu and he might not even know it… He says he thought the resolution was Atheism vs Theism of choice. Well, its kind of not. " Con then changed the resolution: "What I'm looking for is – Even if you believe god exists, what leads you to a CHRISTIAN god? " I protested: "CON needed to debate Christianity v Atheism straight up, otherwise he should have clarified that what he wanted was a debate where one theistic religion must prove that it is over and above the others, the one true religion. A wholly different debate. " Con continued to demonstrate the abusiveness of his framing of the debate: "Pro hasn't done anything to differentiate Christianity from any other crazy theory, religious or not. Since crazy theories cancel out, I don't have to believe in any of them (since there are infinitely many possible worlds where reasonable agnostic people to go heaven). " After getting some flack from spectators who have probably been burned by a bad resolution written by a limitless Con before, Sieben changed his tune in the comments area: "I've even extended Pro the option to introduce new arguments in favor of actual Christianity. " I took him up on his offer and presented a new case based on a new resolution he proposed in his conclusions of R3. But not before mocking him in a home-made video . http://www.xtranormal.com... <<#2 Vote Pro because I reasonably equated Christianity with something Sieben does believe: Quantum Mechanics. >> As Con was offering a do-over in R3, he also offered a way to determine how he see's something as reasonable enough to believe in. He gave an example: "What I'm looking for in a reasonable argument is actual logical or empirical proof. For example, I believe in quantum mechanics. Not because my knowledge will ever be useful, but because its reasonable. " I took him up on his example and sought to prove that C-ity was about as reasonable as the theory of QM. I offered that: "[1) Einstein believed in God and rejected QM. 2) Leaders in QM believe it is logically absurd, which C-ity can easily live up to. 3) Sieben doesn't require something to be useful by his own admission (see previous quote), so he may as well accept Christianity even if he thinks its useless. ]" In this new case I offered evidence for all three of these claims. In R4 and 5 Con tried to pick these apart but mostly missed the mark. Einstein may not have accepted C-ity either, but that's just one more thing they have in common. QM may in fact have lots of neat bells and whistles, but Sieben doesn't require this to believe in it. The case stood despite his attempts. <<#3 Vote Pro because I used evidence throughout, Con merely whined and said using sources is a fallacy…I'm not kidding>> To bolster the argument that QM baffles the mind and most physicists do not deny its absurdity (which C-ity may share in common), I quoted a Nobel Prize winner and leading Quantum Physicist. "In his book ‘QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. ', he elucidated quantum theory saying it deals with: ‘Nature as She is—absurd. '" Con stated that: "This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). " Con also linked to a Wikipedia page that showcased Atheist Scientists, which had absolutely no connection to the debate whatsoever. After being shocked by him calling using sources a fallacy, I decided maybe he needed more sources in order to believe this wasn't one crazy guy's theory, so I quoted: Erwin Schrï¿½dinger . http://en.wikipedia.org... Richard Feynman . http://en.wikipedia.org... William Bragg Sr. . http://nobelprize.org... And even the Father of Quantum Physics- Niels Bohr . http://en.wikipedia.org... In response, Con said that using sources to back up my original source was "quote bombing", and that he personally knows better than my sources that QM is actually very simple: "His basic strategy on QM is to quote a bunch of people saying that its a little wacky. Okay, but I rebutted that when I described how simple QM was in the previous round. " The point was made and stands: QM is absurd, and Christians have accepted C-ity along with its logical absurdity for thousands of years (See Tertullian and Kierkegaard- more sources that I guess are fallacies because they are authoritative). <<#4 Vote Pro because Con's voters are invalid>> "Con's Conclusions 1) He's dedicated maybe 400 words to Christianity the whole debate. Even if he convinces you that there is a god, he has not convinced anyone that there is a CHRISTIAN god. " --Pro dedicated R1 to Christianity as a logical choice. Con left the resolution and hid behind every theism possible. Forcing the new Pro posture of comparing C-ity to QM. "2) His most sophisticated arguments are quotebombs from old physicists. He does not directly rebut my explanation of QM, which is reasonable. " --Pro demonstrated (without contention) that experts (not Sieben) see QM as absurd. Since C-ity may also be absurd, Sieben should also allow C-ity since he allows QM. "3) He's done nothing to differentiate Christianity from all the other insane theories out there. I'd be just as reasonable if I were Hindu, or believed we were in The Matrix. So I don't have any special reason to believe Christianity. " --He's again relying on his original, over-reaching, infinity of theologies, argument. But be that as it may, Pro proved that C-ity is as reasonable as QM, which Sieben has offered as an example of something he will accept (though later he disavows even QM as he abandons ship). Pro has affirmed all Cons resolutions.