Convert Me

0) In my R1 pro case I saw the potential for the trap and observed (O2) that of course that wouldn't fly, then presented my arguments in good faith that Sieben wanted a legitimate discussion and not a quick win based on a shoddy resolution which gives the Con all the ground. I was wrong. Sieben was doing exactly what so many of us have done when we were new to debating, he proposed a vague resolution, took the con so he wouldn't have to uphold it, and then gave the pro no room in setting terms for a reasonable debate, over-limiting his opponent, and defacing the value of debate. [See satirical video I made just for this debate] http://www.xtranormal.com... 1 A) Yes it is a generic God. My point is that Einstein accepted a major tenet of Christianity while rejecting QM wholesale. So when you offered the comparative object of the reasonableness of QM, I observed that Einstein thought God was reasonable, while QM (unrelatedly) was not, and thus you should be inclined toward Christianity which also affirms God. B) I would like to apologize to voters at this time. I wasn't aware it was a fallacy to quote a credible source and make an inference based on it. I probably should have followed my opponent's example and used no sources anywhere in the entire debate (save R4). That way I could avoid the rookie debater error of relying on experts to make truth claims. My bad? My opponent said: "an authoritative claim can turn out to be false" Good point. I recommend he go about proving that authoritative claim false instead of just saying "what if its false? therefore its a fallacy". C) Listing atheist scientists is irrelevant, I never implied that Fenyman had any religious posture. Also, he infers that because he linked to a list of atheist scientists that this negates Fenyman's description of QM as logically absurd (which, by the way, he didn't mean to be derogatory, just as Tertullian wasn't denigrating Christianity by calling it unsound). His counter example is about as pertinent to this debate as Giraffes. Actually, I would have preferred he linked to Atheist Giraffes, at least those godless longnecks would have been entertaining. Further, I think my opponent is still misunderstanding my consideration of QM. I'm not saying QM isn't true, I have no beef with it at all. I'm saying that if QM is the standard of reasonableness to get Sieben to accept something, then Christianity shares much in common with the abstract and relative theory. Anyway, since he will only toss us non-sense links, let's consider what other physicists have said about QM: "Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business! -Erwin Schrï¿½dinger "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" Richard Feynman "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." -Niels Bohr [2] "God runs electromagnetics by wave theory on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the Devil runs them by quantum theory on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday." -William Bragg Sr. [3] My point is this: Physicists do not doubt QM, but they also do not deny its absurdity. My opponent assumes wrongly that anything "absurd" is therefore "bad". This is not the case. And I have argued that his beloved QM is absurd, yet is still reasonable enough for him to believe in, and since he sees Christianity as absurd, I argue that it is still good enough for Sieben to believe. D) Who cares? I'm not attacking QM, I'm pointing out that a very impressive and reasonable genius thinks a central tenet of Christianity is more reasonable than QM. Since Sieben likes QM, he may as well like Christianity. 2 A) "[Even if QM is crazy and] I did believe one crazy thing, there's no reason for me to jump out the window and start believing more." Yes there is, its the only comparative weighing mechanism he offered for me to discern his view of "reasonable". He offered it as an example to emulate. (See his R3 Conclusion which became my R3 case). He can get therapy later if he regrets his belief system and thinks himself crazy, but for now, he needs to let me baptize him (I have one of those little kid pools in my backyard, we can do it there). B) "If pro actually proved that QM was unreasonable and just as crazy as Christianity, I would disbelieve QM, not believe in Christ." Man he will do anything to not lose this debate. What do I have to do? In R1 I demonstrated that Christianity was more reasonable over-against pure atheism. He ran away from atheism and accepted every possible religion. In R2 I demonstrated that all religions vs Christianity is a blatant rejection of HIS resolution. He invited me to give him a new case and gave me a standard for reasonableness: Quantum Mechanics. In R3 I demonstrated that QM is about as reasonable as Christianity in that both are absurd, and he requires neither to be useful to him. He now tosses QM out the driver's side window as a weeping Neil Bohr watches from the side of the road, wearing a feather on his head for some reason. When will Con stop this scorched earth debating style? Voters, please award this debate to the Pro side so Sieben will not do this non-sense to any of you in the future. C) "Pro states [Tertullian] believed in Christianity BECAUSE it is absurd. Should I do the same? We do not believe absurd things elsewhere in life." Yes, he should, and yes, he does. He thinks QM is reasonable enough to believe, even though I have proven (with those things called experts, or as he calls them, fallacies) that it is logically absurd. Just because something confounds our understanding of logic doesn't make it impossible. He has the stomach for one unreasonable belief, why not two? D) "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." I don't believe you. E) "[How do I know Jesus was real and/or fulfilled the prophecies etc]" Glad he saved this for R4 while we are in the midst of a new comparative debate about accepting improbable things (sarcasm). Now he wants to discuss the actual merits of Christianity after he spent R2 and 3 hiding behind an infinity of other theisms. Finally its all about Christianity. Somehow I feel like this should have been his R2 case and we could have avoided all this nonsense. See the comments for my response. F) "I could just be a deist, Pro is failing his BOP." Pro must prove that Christianity is as reasonable as QM. Which Pro has done by proving QM is as absurd as Christianity may appear to be, and noting influential and reasonable people who have leaned toward the latter rather than the former (Einstein). Further, Pro has shown that Con's standard for reasonableness doesn't require utility, which eased the load of proving Christianity useful in getting to heaven or anything like that. 3 A) "QM is useful" Yea I could care less if it allows us to turn back time (fulfilling Cher's wish). My point in R3 was that Sieben doesn't require a thing to be useful in order to believe in it. He said that in his conclusion about QM which sparked all this in the first place. B) "QM is reasonable" Sure, but its also absurd. I'm all for believing it, just as long as he will accept that if Christianity appears just as reasonable as absurd QM he accepts it as well. C) My arguments show his standard of reasonableness at a level low enough that even his diminished view of Christianity could stand on. Conclusion Vote Pro. Why? 1- Con provided a vague, 1 sided resolution. 2- Con overlimited Pro after I fulfilled BOP in R1. 3- Con conceded this by offering a do-over in R3. 4- Pro used Cons own ex of QM as standard for reasonable, and proved C-anity meets it. 5- Con now insists sources are fallacies