Convert Me

0) So I get no rebuttal on this. Christianity is just one crazy theory out of a million. There are a lot of other religions I could belong to. There are a lot of crazy-atheist hypotheses, like the matrix or illuminati, that I could believe in. As just another random ideology, christianity has no special appeal. In fact, it is infinitely improbable. 1) A) Not Christian At best, Einstein only proves that I should believe in god. Even if I accept there is a god, it is not sufficient to get me to be Christian. I have to believe the BIBLE to become Christian. B) Argument from Authority Pro's only defense of his Einstein quote is that it is credible because he is an expert. This is an appeal to authority. If Einstein is right, pro should be able to explain Einstein's argument. Instead he relies on Einstein's authority to bolster his argument. This is a logical fallacy. Pro goes on to claim that the argument from authority is itself a logical fallacy. He thinks its because it raises the "what if its false?" question, which is actually legitimate. But specifically, it merely points out that there is no necessary link between a person's authority and the correctness of their propositions. In fact, authority is DERIVED from correctness, not the other way around. C) Counter Argument from Authority Pro just runs his mouth on this sub point. First he says listing atheist scientists is irrelevant, which I agree because arguments from authority fail. But if he thinks quoting brainy people is enough to win debates, then he should accept this point. Oh well. He then goes on to say something about how this relates to QM. It doesn't. He quotes a lot more famous people who don't like QM. I could easily do the same, but won't waste space on it. I assume its trivial that at least some people think QM is reasonable. D) QM is Reasonable He says "who cares"? Well, I care. Because if QM is as reasonable as regular physics, or entropy (which it is analogous to), it isn't as crazy as some made up theory like Christianity. People didn't find QM written in some random book and start believing it for no reason. 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. I get no Re on this, only more quotes. The quotes don't even demonstrate anything substantial. Its just a bunch of people saying "omg quantum mechanics is stranger than one might expect!" 2) A) Fenyman on QM First, I've actually provided reasons why QM might be more acceptable than Christianity. Second, if QM really IS crazy, I should at least limit the amount of crazy things I believe. So its not enough for Christianity to be as reasonable as QM. It has to be intrinsically reasonable. I provided QM as an example of something I BELIEVED was reasonable. If I was wrong, and QM is actually crazy, then the definition of reasonable does not change. I was simply MISTAKEN about QM. My standards for reasonableness remain the same. I could just as easily have chosen regular physics, or electro-magnetism, or that the earth is round. Don't let him change the goal posts just because he blew one example way out of proportion. Indeed, he is trying to prove QM's absurdity by APPEALING TO MY STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS. So he clearly understands that the two are separate, and distinct things. B) Arguments against QM backfiring Pro just complains that there's no way for him to win. There is... he just can't win by focusing on QM. QM was simply an illustrative example. If I'm actually wrong about my illustration, so what? Something I thought was reasonable is no longer reasonable. And now I don't believe in QM OR Christianity. Pro then goes on to a rant... sorry for the organizational confusion In R1, he demonstrated that Christianity was just one of infinitely many insane theories. In R2, he continues to misunderstand the resolution – I'm not asking for anyone to prove that god exists. I'm asking for proof that a CHRISTIAN god exists. In R3, he takes the QM example too seriously and attempts to simply depreciate QM instead of bolstering Christianity. I really don't understand how he, or anyone else can be confused. The title of the resolution is "convert me". It is not enough to prove that god exists, or that some of my existing beliefs are already crazy. This is all noise. He has done nothing to show I should believe in Christianity. C) Tertullian of Carthage Pro doesn't give me a Re on why I should believe things BECAUSE they are absurd. He keeps pretending like I have this double standard and I'm making special allowances for QM and not for Christianity. That's irrelevant to this point. If I'm wrong about QM, he should say so. And then I won't believe in QM and I won't believe in Christianity, and you vote him down. D) Absurdity is Absurd – Upping the Ante No counterargument! I repeat! "If my opponent believes that absurdity is a better guide than reason, he ought to disbelieve absurd things in an effort to be more absurd." E) Reference to Biblical Jesus No, I couldn't have done this in R2 because the first time you significantly reference the bible is in R3. Second, you can't go to the comments section. We're supposed to have the same amount of words. You already wasted about 2000 characters repeating yourself and going off on tangents. Show some restraint. F) Conclusion Pro concludes that because some people said QM was absurd, then Christianity must be okay too. He doesn't prove that they are equally absurd, and of course, they cannot be. Christianity is just one random, unverifiable theory about the universe picked out of some ancient book. QM has been verified repeatedly and can be expressed mathematically. /shrug. 3) A) QM is useful Its not a necessary, but it is a SUFFICIENT condition! B) QM is reasonable He concedes that it is reasonable, but also absurd. This is confusing to say the least. C) Christianity is not reasonable I get no real Re on this. Reprinted here: "Pro has given a lot of discourse on smart people who believe in god. This is not only a fallacious appeal to authority, but does not even come close to justifying a Christian god. His BOP is to prove Christianity, not generic theism vs generic atheism. All his arguments are an attempt to get me to believe crazy stuff, so even if I do, I still won't be a Christian..." Pro's Conclusion 1 – The resolution is only one sided in that PRO has the BOP to demonstrate a particular religion is reasonable. His discourses on generic theism are insufficient. 2 – Pro was at least TRYING to fulfill the BOP in round 1 because he uses Christian mythology in pascal's wager. My strategy was to point out that Christianity is just one of a million religions he could have picked. 3 – I let PRO introduce new arguments in R3 to try and get a better debate. I naively thought he had just misunderstood the OP (somehow), and wanted to give him a second try. 4 – Pro blows QM wayy out of proportion. At best his arguments are merely false. In reality, they blow up in his face because I will disbelieve QM if it actually is nonsense. 5 – I don't insist sources are fallacies. Arguments from authority are. Quotebombing is not a valid debate style. Con's Conclusion 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. 2) His most sophisticated arguments are quotebombs from old physicists. He does not directly rebut my explanation of QM, which is reasonable. 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.