Convert Me

0) Pascal's Wager – Equal probability of insane theories Don't think you can get off the hook so easy >:I I still maintain that the unknown, or what must be taken on faith, could be literally anything. Christianity is as likely as Islam or Hinduism. Christianity is as likely as The Matrix or a Godless afterlife that rewards alcoholism. Since there are infinitely many possible explanations for the "unknown", Christianity is infinitely improbable. I can say with %99.9999999999999999999 certainty that Christianity is not the right answer. That is reasonable. 1) Einstein A) Not Christian This is an argument for a generic god, not Christianity. As pro points out - "Because Einstein believed in an arguably Spinozan and Jew-ish version of God, and also rejected Quantum Mechanics, Sieben should follow in the Father of Relativity's footsteps and choose theism." B) Argument from authority Argumentum ad verecundiam - "is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is: Source A says that p is true. Source A is authoritative. Therefore, p is true. 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). http://en.wikipedia.org... C) Counter argument from authority Atheist Scientists - Steven Hawking, many many Nobel Prize winners http://en.wikipedia.org... I guess since smart guy A disagrees with smart guy B, we're going to have to figure this one out for ourselves... D) Argument against Quantum Mechanics: Pro points out that Einstein wrote: "I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe.". This is a poor misunderstanding of QM. Even if quantum states aren't random, they may as well be because we can't actually know them. See Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Rather, if you assume that each quantum state is equally likely (randomness), you can integrate over all possibilities and come up with average properties of the system. This is not only a technique employed in QM, it has roots in Equations of State, where the "random" behavior of individual molecules balance out to give an EOS. A familiar example is in your high school chemistry class, where you learned the ideal gas equation, which is an EOS. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Quantum Mechanics (QM) A) Fenyman on QM Pro quotes Fenyman as saying that QM is absurd. But it really is reasonable if you understand the above. There's no reason for a faith based approach to QM, and even if there were and I did believe one crazy thing, there's no reason for me to jump out the window and start believing more. B) Arguments against QM backfiring If pro actually proved that QM was unreasonable and just as crazy as Christianity, I would disbelieve QM, not believe in Christ. C) Tertullian of Carthage Pro states he believed in Christianity BECAUSE it is absurd. Should I do the same? We do not believe absurd things elsewhere in life. We do not have absurd beliefs about how telephones work, or doors open, etc. D) Absurdity is Absurd – Upping the Ante If it is reasonable to believe absurd things, then it must be absurd to disbelieve absurd things. 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 I don't believe anything in the bible for one second, particularly not miracles. The Divine Marquis strikes back: "How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime? As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I'd be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon? Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there's the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them. Your Jesus' feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable." F) Conclusion "The conclusion here being that many Christians have believed in Christ precisely because his story defies their understanding of the natural world." This is a slight of hand here. He's been talking about god and the underlying structure of the universe. Not necessarily a Christian god or a Christian universe. I can agree with everything these guys say and just be a deist, not a Christian. So Pro is failing his BOP. 3) QM not useful A) QM is useful See the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org... I don't feel the need to elaborate on this. QM, like regular physics, chemistry, math, biology, is so obviously useful that I don't need to dedicate many paragraphs to describing its success. B) QM is reasonable See above discussion on integrating over possible quantum states, EOS's etc etc C) Christianity is not reasonable 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... ==Conclusion== Pro wants you to vote for him because Christianity is absurd, and absurdity means correct in reverse-opposite land. He hasn't really talked about Christianity, any of its core teachings or beliefs, but only focused on what a handful of cherry-picked "smart guys" have thought... presumably in an effort to be even more absurd. So, vote CON if you want to be reasonable and not absurd Vote PRO is you want to be absurd and vote for bad arguments But if you buy that logic and understand that it is absurd to disbelieve absurdity, Vote CON. I eagerly await your reply. http://imgur.com...