The Instigator
Sieben
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
WrathofGod
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points

Convert Me

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 15 votes the winner is...
WrathofGod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,360 times Debate No: 13375
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (53)
Votes (15)

 

Sieben

Con

"Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply."

-The Divine Marquis

The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion (No Buddhism because that is not a real religion trollolol). 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.
WrathofGod

Pro

==Resolution==
"The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion"

The only debatable resolution then is "Resolved: It is reasonable for one to accept [insert theistic religion here]".

I offer Christianity, and thus propose that for my opponent, it would be reasonable to accept Christ.

==Observations==
1) Because of my opponents willingness to debate any theistic religion, he must assume a stance of non-religion (atheism).

2) Also, 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.

Instead he must assume two competing worlds- a Pro world and a Con world. In the Pro world Christianity is assumed correct without due consideration of other religious views. In the Con, Atheism is assumed correct.

==Pro Case==

1) Pascal's Wager
I'm from Las Vegas, and am no stranger to gambling. I always warn my visitors that Las Vegas has not been able to build such large hotels and such impressive sights because tourists win in the casinos. I usually say they should save their money, because the odds aren't in their favor. House wins.

Gambling involves mathematics, the consideration of chance, and the taking of risk in a particular direction. The reasonable gambler (and often the successful one) considers the risks and benefits he takes on each of his options, then chooses the option with the greatest benefits, and fewest risks. I intend to argue that my opponent, who is considering religion as opposed to atheism, go all in with Christianity, since it is the safest bet.

Consider the two competing scenarios:
1- Christianity is wrong, there is no Heaven or Hell.
2- Christianity is correct, there is a Heaven and Hell, and acceptance of Christ is necessary to avoid the latter and enter the former.

My opponent must reasonably consider his options before he places his bet. If he chooses to deny faith and remain atheist, this will have differing consequences should scenario 1 or 2 be correct. Consider a bet on:

-Atheism in scenario 1:-
My opponent lives his life free of religion. He has an average life, good times and bad, makes a few friends along the way, probably has some children, bounces some grandkids on his knee, and then dies. After he dies, nothing happens.

Weighing the benefits and risks here are easy. My opponent lived an enjoyable life (+1), and died with no further consequence, whether positive or negative (+0). Atheism only has positive benefits if Scenario 1 turns out to be reality. Now lets compare this to:

-Christianity in scenario 1:-
My opponent lives his life with religion in it. He probably still has an average life, makes a few friends along the way (some of them in church), has a few kids (has them in the youth group), bounces some grandkids on his knee, and then dies. After he dies, nothing happens.

Weighing the benefits and risks here are easy as well. My opponent lved an enjoyable life (+1), and died with no further consequence, whether positive or negative (+0). Christianity has only positive benefits if Scenario 1 turns out to reality.

-Conclusion on Scenario 1- As my opponent considers his religious options, at this point he sees that neither Christianity nor Atheism has a reasonable lead on the other. He moves on to the second scenario to further consider which of the alternatives is the most reasonable gamble.

Now lets consider...

-Atheism in scenario 2:-
My opponent lives his life without religion in it. Again he has a normal life. He dies, but this time there is serious consequence. His conscious rejection of Christianity results in eternal damnation to Hell, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Weighing the benefits and risks: My opponent lived and enjoyable life (+1). But his death resulted in an eternity of torment and suffering (->_1, minus greater than or equal to 1).

-Christianity in scenario 2:-
My opponent lives his life with religion in it. After living a normal life, he dies, and goes to paradisaical place for eternity.

Weighing the benefits and risks: My opponent lived an enjoyable life (+1), and after dying he got to enjoy everlasting peace and happiness (+>_1, plus greater than or equal to 1).

-Conclusion on Scenario 2- Here my opponent sees the difference between his options. In scenario 2, Atheism yields potentially endless harms, while Christianity yields equally endless benefits.

--Placing the Bet--
The reasonable gambler would choose Christianity, because should Scenario 1 be correct, Christianity equals Atheism, but should Scenario 2 be correct, Christianity's benefits far outweigh Atheism's, and Atheism's harms far outweigh Christianity's. Christianity is the safer bet for the largest increase of benefits and the fewest incurred harms. Thus it is reasonable to convert to Christianity.

a) The (+1) Life of Christianity
Richard Dawkins has argued against Pascal's Wager (the above argument) by saying that religious life is horrible and results in a lifetime of harms. Besides this being bigoted and absurd, it is also false. Much evidence points to religious life benefiting the believer.

Religious people enjoy good:

Health
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com...

Social Cohesion
http://www.tulsaworld.com...

Charitable Participation
http://www.hoover.org...

And a slew of other examples,
http://www.psychwww.com...

that prove this is a bigoted and ignorant thing to say. The PRO has not made the argument that the Atheistic life is in any way less fulfilling than a Christian life, and the CON is urged to make a counter argument without reducing the existence of friends and neighbors with stereotypes and ignorant platitudes.

===Conclusion===
The Pro has made a reasonable argument for conversion to Christianity. Because ultimate reality is unknowable to both an Atheist and a Christian, it is preferable to gamble on the side of Christianity as this maximizes benefits and reduces the risk of harms.

Realizing how undeniably powerful this argument is, should my opponent wish to convert to Christianity at this time, I am available to help him do so. Please remember that, as a Christian, I am at risk of being tackled by an evangelism linebacker if I fail to meet my proselytizing quota.
http://www.sermonspice.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Con

== Observations ==

1) I don't have to assume a stance of atheism. Being non-religious means I don't accept any religion. It doesn't mean I don't believe in god.

2) I'm not going to argue that Christianity is wrong because other religions say so. But the whole point of the OP was that I don't have any reason to accept Christianity over any other religion, so this "comparative" argument remains open.

This does not devolve into a "debate between classical theism", because you can actually try and prove that christianity is the correct religion. What I'm looking for is – "Even if you believe god exists, what leads you to a CHRISTIAN god?"

== Pro Case ==

Pascal's wager.......

A) I deny the dichotomy between an Atheist world and a Christian world. He simply assumes that these are the ONLY two possibilities. Clearly, this is false. There are a zillion other religions, and infinitely many possible "worlds".

So even if he thinks that this debate is restricted to Christianity vs Atheism, there are infinitely many atheist worlds too. We should also include non-religious, theistic worlds... The allowance of ANY of these possibilities is enough to blow up pascal's wager.

So there is...
An Athiest World
A Christian World
A Hindu World
A World where I go to hell for helping an old lady across the street
A World where I go to heaven for mass murdering giraffes
A World created by a god where there is no afterlife
A World NOT created by a god where there is an afterlife
And so on to infinity, with every possible permutation of Atheist worlds, non-religious worlds. But there is only one Christian world...

So if we integrate our utility function over all possible worlds, it will balance out to no afterlife advantage. To see this, just consider that "A world where X" is mirrored with "A world where not-X", where X is anything at all.

So Pascal's wager fails on utilitarian grounds because the probability of any ONE world happening is infinitesimally small, and exactly balanced with some other world that is commensurately its opposite.

B) I won't believe literally anything

Pascal's wager can be used to promote any religion. If I write "you go to hell if you don't do jumping jacks" on a napkin, he could argue for that too. This whole argument is question begging – why did you choose Christianity in the first place? What makes it so much more probable than all the other possibilities?

C) Assumptions about risk and values

Pascal's wager assumes actors want to maximize their expected happiness. But what if I want to take a risk? After all, people willingly engage in risky behavior all the time even when their expected gain is negative.

If I believe in Christianity, I'll never be able to participate in a 10 man orgy. How much is that worth to me? Maybe a lot. There's a 50% chance of hell, but I have it within my power to guarantee 100% that I will live a life of libertine hedonism.

Its up to the individual to compare these options, because value is subjective.

D) The (+1) life of Christianity

There are a lot of ways to live healthy and happy... I can just do those things and not be a Christian.

In fact, I'll just turn all these examples on him: All they show is that Christianity is correlated with nice things. But what if the causality is the opposite of what he thinks? What if charitable people are more likely to be Christian? What if being sociable CAUSES you to become christian (because you want to fit in... makes sense)

So the causality can go both ways easily...

This is also another set of value assumptions. I may not care about getting together at the county cook off to drink beer and talk about the high school football team with the other fathers. Anything that tears me away from engineering, exercise, and video games is gonna piss me off... So again, I reject these as merely subjective arguments.

==Con Case==

I have a napkin. On it, I wrote that "Sieben will go to heaven so long as he does not believe in any religion. He gets bonus points if he converts other people away from religions, and also points count double in the last quarter"

This sounds good to me. I don't believe it, but I'd rather believe it than Christianity because I don't have to do anything to go to heaven. This "Atheist Afterlife" is just as probable as the Christian Afterlife, so I get no disadvantage.

VOTE FOR SIEBENISM
WrathofGod

Pro

Well I have to say I honestly feel outmatched. Con has created a debate in which only Con can win. I wish there was a reset button.

Con instigates a debate with a certain resolution, offers no proof nor case to be refuted, awaits a Pro to build a case, offer proof, only so he can change the resolution and smash everything down while standing for nothing. My son does the same thing with blocks. He stares at them until I build him something, then he screams with delight as he swings his arms wildly, sending them back to the floor. Its cute when an 8 month old does it. Not so much here.

===Sieben vs Sieben- Rd 1===

To start the debate he baits an opponent with a seemingly fair resolution:

"The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion"

Then he whines when I offer a case for the reasonableness of conversion,

"What I'm looking for is – Even if you believe god exists, what leads you to a CHRISTIAN god?"

Voters should take note that in his first rebuttal, he *helpfully* redefines what it is he wants the Pro to present, successfully leaving the Pro with less ground than I started with. Good stuff. I never anticipated him changing what little resolution there was to begin with, d'oh!

===Tragedy of Observational Debate===

So here we have to sink yet another would-have-been-interesting debate to the depths of resolution analysis. Here we go...

1) If CON requests the PRO to convert him to any theistic religion of his choice, CON does not retain the right to pit other religions not selected against the PRO. The debate would be incredibly unbalanced. In PRO world, I get the chance to reasonably argue for choosing a particular theism over against a non-theism. In CON world, he gets to use all the other cards in the deck. "Why not choose Hinduism? Why not choose Islam? etc etc ad naseum." My opponent should debate the merits of Christianity, HE OFFERED to enter the subject of the PRO's choosing. He has bailed on this and so forfeits the round.

2) CON comes right out and says there is no way he will face the resolution one philosophy weighed over against the other (Atheism v Christianity). Con begins by saying: "The whole point of the OP was that I don't have any reason to accept Christianity over any other religion, so this "comparative" argument remains open."

Really? The point of "convert me to any theistic religion, your choice" was supposed to be an exercise in comparative religion? Imagine if I opened with a quote about how silly anybody who doesn't drive a Chevy is and challenged anybody to convert me to another make, then when somebody offered the benefits of Ford compared with Chevy, I cackled as I reminded him that "Hondas, Hyundais and Toyotas are comparable to Ford anyway, so who's to say which of those is best, I may as well stick with Chevy."

*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.*

===Arguments from Con worth dropping===

A) He denies the choice between Atheism and Christianity, making the debate "Pro and Jesus vs Con and Everybody Else". Bait and switch from the original post.

Regardless I felt relief when I read this: "So even if he thinks that this debate is restricted to Christianity vs Atheism, there are infinitely many atheist worlds too."

It appeared we were going to have the actual debate now. He was going to present the possible worlds of Atheism to counterbalance my wager and engage the content. Instead, he immediately ran back to his theistic costume shop and picked out a few to try on..."We should also include non-religious, theistic worlds". Then he happily listed his one Atheist option, and then followed with 6 theistic options, being sure to remind us that there are an infinity of others (exactly why Theism should be restricted to my side of the debate).

He concludes with "Pascal's wager fails on utilitarian grounds because the probability of any ONE world happening is infinitesimally small". Of course it is, its a wager. It decides between two competing alternatives. The argument was made in good faith that we both were getting a full hand to play cards with. He gave me one card and kept the rest.

B) "why did you choose Christianity in the first place?" I chose it because I thought it was "Atheism vs Theism of choice". Not "the infinity of possibilities vs the one philosophy I left on the table for you". This assumption was not made ignorantly, his wording was disingenuous, and knowing how I understood his OP (see the opening of my case in R1) he simply said "nope I make the rules" and blatantly side stepped my entire engagement with his infinity theory.

D) I don't mind this argument fading away, I only included it to pre-empt the Dawkins rebuttal, since he didn't go that route that argument is irrelevant anyway. I never asserted Atheists can't have a fulfilling life anyway.

Con case) Just more jibberish where he elatedly basks in the infinitude of his options not realizing he has made a mockery of what could have been a serious discussion.

===Arguments from Con worth keeping===

*C)* Now this was a legitimate argument. And since it is the only actual argument he made that engages my case without ducking off into the bushes and taking a short cut, this small and nuanced area must become the proving ground for the rest of the debate (thus the asterisks around it above). Judges I urge you to limit your voting entirely to this argument, and which of us best captures it. CON, I urge you to swallow your pride, drop the other "infinity vs 1" stuff and take me on squarely on this point. I won't bring that stuff up again either.

1) He argues that people may not want to maximize happiness, that "After all, people willingly engage in risky behavior all the time even when their expected gain is negative." Good argument actually.

Even gamblers act outside of reason occasionally, trusting their gut, or a hunch. It would be ironic if this "leap of faith" sort of instinct defended the Atheistic side of Pascal's Wager. But their expectation is still winning, it's hard to imagine a nihilistic gambler intent on betting everything on a likely loss for no other reason than he likes the sound the chips make when the other players are taking them away. I would assert that taking a risk is neither reasonable nor desirable when one is aware of the odds, especially in this case where the worst case scenario is conscious torment for all of eternity (mega bummer).

2) He continues, "If I believe in Christianity, I'll never be able to participate in a 10 man orgy. How much is that worth to me? Maybe a lot. There's a 50% chance of hell, but I have it within my power to guarantee 100% that I will live a life of libertine hedonism."

Forgoing his misunderstanding that orgies don't occur in Christianity (yay for crazies http://swiftreport.blogs.com...) and his misunderstanding that even if he did have a 10 man orgy that would disqualify him from Christianity (Lk 6:37), this argument is still defeated by the weighing mechanism of the round: reasonableness.

Pro argues that Christianity is more reasonable to the gambler because it maximizes benefits and minimizes harms. Con's argument here don't negate that reasonableness, he merely contends that he may not want to act reasonably. That's fine, he can follow his lust if he wishes, but I'm not sure he wants to. If he is willing to concede that Pascal's Wager leaves him only emotional ground to stand on, and that Reason would lead him to conversion, I'm willing to accept that, because it will cost him the round. The only weighing mechanism was reasonableness.
Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Con

In the OP:

"were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply."

So this is an "even if there is a god, which religion do I pick?" argument.

Furthermore from the OP:

"The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion (No Buddhism because that is not a real religion trollolol). 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."

In other words, you have to show that a particular religion is reasonable. You have only presented arguments that could be used to justify ANY crazy belief, including non-religious ones.

It seems you still somehow misunderstood. Since we have many rounds, I invite you to present arguments in favor of actual Christianity instead of just random idea #109152.

Regardless, even if you think it is really problematic for me to compare christianity against all the other religions, I can still compare a christian world to all of the infinitely many possible atheist worlds. He only wants us to consider narrow, traditional atheism. Well what about crazy stupid made up atheism? What about the worlds where there is no god but there's still an afterlife? What if we're all in the matrix?

So even if he thinks I can't compare religions to Christianity, I can still compare it to an infinite amount of non-religious non-theistic nonsense.

=== Tragedy of Observational Debate ===

1) Con doesn't want me to play different religions, or random ideas, off of Christianity. He thinks this must be narrow, traditional atheism versus Christianity. Well, I can use all the other cards in the deck if he doesn't even try to differentiate Christianity.

"What's the best flavor of icecream?"
"Mango"
"Why?"
"Because if you had a choice between eating Mango Icecream and rotten meat, which would you choose?"

He says I should debate the merits of Christianity, which I am. I'm claiming that so far, Christianity has no special merits over other crazy theories.

2) Con concludes that I needed to set up the resolution to explicitly say that CON BOP is to prove Christianity is the one true religion. Well it basically says that in the Marquis' quote. But also, if Christianity is just one option among many, why would I accept it? The resolution asks him to get a "reasonable" person to accept Christianity. All Pascal's wager proves (at best) is that I should pick >> A << crazy thing to follow just in case.

==Arguments from Con Worth Dropping==

A) He says that I only listed one Atheist option, and presented 6 theistic options. If he had read them in detail, he'd see that the first three are religious, the second last is non-religious theistic, and the other three are atheistic. You can still have an afterlife even if there's no god......

B) He says he thought the resolution was Atheism vs Theism of choice. Well, its kind of not. I didn't even state my philosophy in the OP. Hell, I could be hindu and he might not even know it. I could be totally indifferent or confused about all religions. The default position of PRO is not atheism (not believing in a god). The bare minimum I have to do is show that I should still be undecided about religion.

Con case)

Yes it is jibberish, but it is a possible Atheist world where I can do whatever I want and still go to heaven so long as I'm not Christian. Its an equally good theory as Christianity, except its a lot more fun to believe in, so I should choose Siebenism first.

===Arguments from Con Worth Keeping===

C)

1) He says that people who take risks with negative expected value are irrational. Depending on what their utility function is (subjective), this may not be the case. Even if I believe there is a 50% chance of there being a god, I can still guarantee 100% that I will get to do all this other stuff. So if I'm really set on "other stuff", and am willing to take the risk, its perfectly rational under this value system.

Furthermore, risk taking can be an end in itself. See like, everyone who goes to Vegas.

I'll extend this argument. Most people wouldn't take certain risks even when the expected value is positive. For example, if there's a game with 1/100000 odds, and it costs $100,000 to play, but you win 10^99 dollars, you're probably not going to throw away your life savings a couple times because the small chance of uber payout isn't worth it.

2) Pro thinks Christianity is more reasonable because it minimizes harms. To correct him, it is more reasonable IF you want to minimize AVERAGE harms. This is a value judgement, not a reasonable argument.

== Conclusion ==

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.

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). And I especially shouldn't pay any special attention to Christianity.
WrathofGod

Pro

Con has said in his last rebuttal, and in the comments, that he will allow me to start over mid-debate, since he has changed the resolution and over-limited the Pro.

But before I take him up on that, let's satirize what has happened in this debate up to this point since comedy is the only light in which it can now be appreciated. I call this piece:

"Gon' Fishing: Bait and Switch"
By WrathofGod
Score by Andrew Lloyd Weber

[SEE VIDEO HERE]
http://www.xtranormal.com...

===New Pro Case===

Ok, now that I have got that out of my system, let's try again. I only took this debate because I believed it was straight up Atheism vs pick your poison. That left me with enough ground to say that when you compare those two, Christianity is the most reasonable. Now, with Sieben's new resolution, I must re-write a case where I present

"a reasonable argument with logical or empirical proof. For example, I believe in quantum mechanics. Not because my knowledge will ever be useful, but because its reasonable." (see his conclusion)

**So, I will now argue for why Christianity is more reasonable than quantum physics, and thus Sieben should convert.**

1) Einstein Believed God was more Reasonable than Quantum Mechanics

According to American Public Media's series on "Einstein's God", Einstein held a view of God mostly shaped by his Jewish culture, though also not held captive by it. To quote the man himself from a letter he penned in 1927:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."

The fact that Einstein believed in a God that can equally be accepted by many in the Christian community is not as fascinating as is the fact that Einstein also rejected Niel Bohr's theory of quantum mechanics, ironically enough invoking God in his argument saying:

"I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe."

In the interview, Krista Tippett elucidates Einstein's rejection:

"Einstein found this idea unacceptable. He drew the closest thing he had to a theology from his reverence for the writings of the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza described God's superior intelligence manifest in the determined harmonious order of nature. And Einstein made his most famous quip about God as he disputed the disorderly universe of quantum physics. He said, repeatedly, 'I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe.'"[5]

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. Should he desire to continue believing Quantum Mehanics, he may, but he should also go ahead and accept God.

2) Quantum Physics is Absurd, but Luckily so is Christianity

Richard Fenyman was an American physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and assisted in the development of the atomic bomb. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, and is arguably one of the most equipped men in history to explain quantum mechanics. [1]

In his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.", he elucidated quantum theory saying it deals with:

"Nature as She is—absurd."[2]

Fenyman isn't the first physicist to notice the absurdity of quantum physics, and he's not the first to stick with it anyway. Unlike Einstein, Fenyman clung to quantum mechanics in spite of its absurdity, and perhaps even because of it. This has parallels to important Christian thinking as well.

2nd Century Church Father Tertullian of Carthage believed in Christianity precisely because it was absurd. He believed that because God is "super" natural, his imprint in the natural world should appear to be impossible, illogical, and irrational. Considering such Christian paradoxes as the God-man Jesus and the love of one's enemies, Tertullian penned:

"The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible." [3]

Because the Godman Jesus is absurd to logic, yet was observed by eyewitnesses (just as quantum physics), Tertullian argues we must believe it, despite its unreasonableness.

Kierkegaard, the dutch philosopher and devout Christian, continued Tertullian's thought in his consideration of subjectivity:

"The absurd is precisely by its objective repulsion the measure of the intensity of faith in inwardness. Suppose a man who wishes to acquire faith; let the comedy begin. He wishes to have faith, but he wishes also to safeguard himself by means of an objective inquiry and its approximation-process. What happens? With the help of the approximation-process the absurd becomes something different: it becomes probable, it becomes increasingly probable, it becomes extremely and emphatically probable. Now he is ready to believe it, and he ventures to claim for himself that he does not believe as shoemakers and tailors and simple folk believe, but only after long deliberation. Now he is ready to believe it; and lo, now it has become precisely impossible to believe it. Anything that is almost probable, or probable, or extremely and emphatically probable, is something he can almost know, or as good as know, or extremely and emphatically almost know-but it is impossible to believe. For the absurd is the object of faith, and the only object that can be believed."[4]

The conclusion here being that many Christians have believed in Christ precisely because his story defies their understanding of the natural world. They see this as evidence of God's supernatural fingerprint. Sieben is able to believe in something that even Nobel Prize winning Physicists say is "absurd" and illogical, why not continue this pattern and choose Christianity? Since Quantum Mechanics is reasonable enough for him to follow despite its absurdity, I offer to baptize him into the absurdity of Christianity this weekend. Shouldn't be that big a stretch.

3) Christianity not useful? No worries, neither is Quantum Mechanics.

According to Sieben's own opinion of Quantum Mechanics, he believes in it "Not because [it] will ever be useful, but because its reasonable."

I'm glad he said that. Because now I don't have to do the laborious process of proving that Christianity will get him to heaven or in any way better his life. See, if Quantum Mechanics is worthy of belief without requiring usefulness, Christianity is due that same distinction. So, no more pesky concerns from Sieben about not being able to "prove" Heaven or Hell, or even theology for matter. No, Christianity can be accepted with complete uselessless to Sieben, so long as it appears as reasonable as Quantum Mechanics, which, due to the arguments above, I have demonstrated it is.

===Conclusion===
Understanding Sieben's love for the absurdity of quantum physics has helped explain his debating style in the first few rounds. Now that he has offered to change the resolution and allow me a new case, I have accepted and proposed that Christianity may be just as acceptable to him as theoretical quantum mechanics, a standard he offered in his conclusion.

I urge voters to choose Pro, because deep down, you know you want to.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] "De Carna Christi V" pg 4
[4] Kierkegaard's "Postscript".
[5] http://being.publicra...
Debate Round No. 3
Sieben

Con

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...
WrathofGod

Pro

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 Schr�dinger

"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
Debate Round No. 4
Sieben

Con

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.
WrathofGod

Pro

===Appeal to Voters===
It would be unfair for me to put up new arguments since Sieben doesn't get an opportunity to refute them. 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 Schr�dinger
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.
Debate Round No. 5
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Lol, I think I would've preferred him atheist to Christian.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ahh.... you tricked me. So you're converted to Christianity now, right?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Damn. I had NO idea
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
:I

You don't think this debate ends on halloween by accident do you?

BWAAHAHAHAHA
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
lmao are you serious?
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Actually I got the cell phones of about 10 of my friends and I'm going to votebomb for myself in the last 5 mins with all their ghost accounts.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
looks like it's over
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Yes, my vote gives no one any points. Really couldn't agree with either party, good debate.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Am I a verificationist? I probably don't agree with everything they've ever written, but you have to be able to understand a proposition before it can be true or false...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Austriananarchist 6 years ago
Austriananarchist
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Sojourner 6 years ago
Sojourner
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JLephant 6 years ago
JLephant
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HeartoftheHunter 6 years ago
HeartoftheHunter
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kn1ght 6 years ago
Kn1ght
SiebenWrathofGodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07