The Instigator
LughHeim
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Perussi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Perussi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 99532
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

LughHeim

Pro

It would seem to me that the second you introduce a 'God' that created humans and is omnipotent/omniscient, you instantaneously rid yourself of the concept of free will. Being that such a God can literally never be surprised and knows the outcome of every single action, that would mean we live in a linear universe. What I mean by a linear universe is one that has no suprises, one that could, if using advanced enough math, could be completely predicted from beginning to end.
This would of course include human actions and reactions. To get a view of this, I would suggest looking up the Law of Identity. So therefore, it would seem to follow that there is not even the remote possibility of humans having free will being that God would have known the outcome of every humans actions and reactions. For example, the idea of the Christian God punishing us for our actions on earth would be redundant being that God himself would have known the end result of our creation before even creating us, thus making the idea of punishing us for our 'bad actions' and sending us to Hell would be absolutely ridiculous being he himself would have made us in such a way that Hell was an inevitable result.
Perussi

Con

Okay, let's do this.

This debate assumes we are talking about the christian god since this is a unique attribute to it. Having that out of the way let us begin.

Two characters: Jack and Mr. Gihilson. Mr. Gihilson is Jack's father. Jack wants to go to a party. Mr. Gihilson lets him go in his car knowing very well that Jack will drive drunk after and get in a crash. Who's fault is it when the car is crashed? Mr. Gihilson wants to teach Jack a lesson but lets Jack make his own decisions. Mr. Gihilson isn't irresponsible or incompetent. More like laissez-faire. In the end it comes down to the decision Jack made. Jack getting in a crash is his own fault. Jack knew very well it could happen and made a wrong choice anyways. It is Jack's fault. Mr. Gihilson knew it would happen and it did and he was essential in it happening but it is still Jack's fault. A god that knows the future and the consequences of the actions it takes still is not in control of the will of the decisions of it's creation if it does not force anything and the creation has a decision.
Debate Round No. 1
LughHeim

Pro

Technically speaking, this attribute could also be applied to the God of Judaism, Islam, and possibly Hinduism depending on your perspective. Anyway, that is besides the point so let me get into the meat of my argument:

While your story is interesting, there are several factors that I would say very possibly refute your own argument. I will list them below;

1.) To start off, God is not a human, and this very human situation does not even come close to applying to the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being. I will further explain in my synopsis.

2.) Going off of my first point, if you wish to get into the area of responsibility, I would still very much so claim that God would hold responsibility. For example, if you were building a robot and you knew that the robot had software that would force it to kill all humans it meets. Now, the creator of the robot has a choice; either let the robot into the world knowing that no matter how much you may wish otherwise that robot is destined from creation to kill people, or you go back and change its software to make sure it does not do those actions. This is the same way with God, in that God would necessarily know for a fact what exactly a human will do before they are born. He would know if that human would accept or reject him. He also knows that He will punish said human with Hell if that human does not accept him, a punishment so horrible it would have been better for him to have never been born according to the Bible itself. Defending such actions seems to me the same as defending the serial killer robot being released by its creator. To any logical person, I believe such action would seem irresponsible, and even malicious.

3.) I would ask you rewrite your last sentence, being I do not really understand what you were trying to say. Please do not think I am trying to attack you personally, I simply wish to understand fully your position.

Allow me to conclude here; my reasoning for suggesting that as soon as you enter an omniscient God into the equation of existence you logically have to get rid of the idea of free will is this: by saying that everything can be known, you are literally admitting that everything in existence has a set path that can be predicted. Going by this logic, the idea that life could have any semblance of free will does not seem to be possible. Thereby, the idea that an omniscient God could create us humans knowing the way in which he was creating us would cause the outcome of our judgement whether good or bad, seems like nothing more than a farce. A fixed trial set up before any point in which we could have existed, with no possibility of changing the outcome.
Perussi

Con

R1). It is obviously a valid analogy regardless of how it is explained. I could just say god and jack but went with an analogy about cars. Your point in one is also just strong talk and is not logical.

R2). "seems" "i believe" Same as defending a serial killer? These are opinions. And Jack, and the robot still have the choice. Still have free will. God didn't make them or force them do anything and god might not have interfered in the first place.

R3). Complex way of saying "An omniscient god that doesn't definately cause something and there had been a choice for the being with free will did not disallow the being to make a choice."

R-Conclusion). You are looking at it from the future, this is wrong. Since we are talking about something that makes the descision at the present we must go from there. The human does not know the future and makes a choice. The human have been led to the choice but was not forced to choose a certain thing.
Debate Round No. 2
LughHeim

Pro

Two characters: Jack and Mr. Gihilson. Mr. Gihilson is Jack's father. Jack wants to go to a party. Mr. Gihilson lets him go in his car knowing very well that Jack will drive drunk after and get in a crash. Who's fault is it when the car is crashed? Mr. Gihilson wants to teach Jack a lesson but lets Jack make his own decisions. Mr. Gihilson isn't irresponsible or incompetent. More like laissez-faire. In the end it comes down to the decision Jack made. Jack getting in a crash is his own fault. Jack knew very well it could happen and made a wrong choice anyways. It is Jack's fault. Mr. Gihilson knew it would happen and it did and he was essential in it happening but it is still Jack's fault. A god that knows the future and the consequences of the actions it takes still is not in control of the will of the decisions of it's creation if it does not force anything and the creation has a decision.

R1.) Being you do not seem to understand at all why I think this is a completely invalid analogy, I will be more specific. First off, you start off with the idea of the father only passively observing his son's decisions and life. You must change this to, God created Jack knowing the way He would create him and the situations he would be put in from the very beginning of his existence would eventually cause him to drive drunk and get killed. Secondly, Mr. Gihlson is quite obviously being extremely irresponsible, even if this was just an analogy of a father and son and even more so if this analogy could exchange Mr. Gilhson with God. If Mr. Gihlson knew for 100% sure that because he would not stop his son, his son would inevitably die from a car crash, that is the very definition of irresponsible. The quote, "With great power comes great responsibility" ring any bells? You yourself even admit in your first argument that Mr. Gihlson's inaction was essential in this horrible result to come to fruition. Such an argument can definitely be used against God as well, but I will worry about that in my second point.
R2.) The analogy I used was in no way an opinion, and doing nothing more to refute my argument other than pointing out the wording I used does absolutely nothing to help your case. The robot in my analogy did not have a choice, WHICH IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. I do not wish to sound or act childish, but I think this might be somewhat necessary being you do not seem to understand my argument. I WANT YOU TO READ THIS NEXT PART VERY CAREFULLY, AS IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION:

The anologies of Jack and the Robot are very different and here is why: In your example, Jack was pre-assumed to have free will and be able to even make a choice at all. In my analogy, the robot had no choice. It was programmed to commit an action. It may think it has free will, but it would not. That is my argument right there.

R-Conclusion.) This is exactly where I knew for certain you did not understand my argument at all. You would agree, I am sure, that the God of the Bible is a timeless being correct? You would also agree that the Bible states that God is omniscient. In other words, He knows everything. This allows us to pre-assume that free will does not exist, for if everything could be predicted in any way whatsoever, which the God of the Bible is able to do, then all actions are nothing more than reaction to some kind of stimuli whether we know what that stimuli is or not. This would allow us to believe that our actions were our own, but were actually nothing more than an causal relationship. Going off of this, we can then argue against the idea of free will as presented by your arguments. Being the Bible claims God made us, and we know that God knows everything, we can assume that God knew from the beginning the fact that the way He made us, being we were not created by some outside force and God is omniscient so He cannot not know the result of His actions, would cause our every action up until death to be pre-ordained. Thus, God has literally sentenced us by His own hands to be doomed to Heaven or Hell.
Perussi

Con

God only goes as far as nurture and a push to the edge occasionally. There is not just nature but also nurture, the nurture of the world. We still make decisions. There are people who go shoot up schools, and god would not make them do it. Free will. People make their decision even when pushed, no matter the degree. Sometimes it is even the opposite. A drug addict for example could know drugs are ruining their life but people keep having interventions and such. Let's say the interventions are god's hand and e addict doesn't stop. Free will. In the end it always comes down to the person who makes the decision. And there isn't always god influencing you, that shouldn't even need to be said. I'm not even christian because of god's plan or actions, i'm christian because i logically see it as right. I made the arguments and made my decision. I chose. Now it may be that god brought me to DDO but i still had to do a lo to get where i am. And god is god, not a worldly father. God is not bound by ethics and being a conscious robot is a far greater horror than maybe going to hell, whatever it may be. Forcing us to do anything is immoral but god doesn't make our desicions, we do.

(this is not a direct rebuttal meant to destroy Pro's argument in round 3)
Debate Round No. 3
LughHeim

Pro

You have not made any argument, so I have no real need to respond to that. Unless you have some way of debunking what I have said in the past, it would seem we are finished here.
Perussi

Con

My argument boils down to: god doesn't force anything and therefore humans have free will.
Debate Round No. 4
LughHeim

Pro

But to argue that, you have to actually prove it through something that defeats my arguments. You have not really posted any which is my concern.
Perussi

Con

My round 3 is my final defence. It is in the voter's hands now anyways. We shall see.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by LughHeim 11 months ago
LughHeim
I am sorry if my second round just seemed like a repeat of the first. I am not used to debating too often so I basically just answered my views on his first argument while trying to repeat my first argument in a more comprehensive way.
Posted by thinkoutsidemybun 11 months ago
thinkoutsidemybun
I am not ignoring anything you are saying. I have broken down just about everything you have said.

I have given factual evidence that I have payed attention and reasoned with everything you have said. Meanwhile, you have just admitted to ignoring my points. Great job, I'm sure you'll win this one.
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
I can ignore your logic if you ignore mine.
Posted by thinkoutsidemybun 11 months ago
thinkoutsidemybun
1. "You even say it is Jack's decision"

The use of the word "even" here implies that I am conceding a point that you made, and that that somehow makes my argument invalid. It does not. Also you are ignoring everything I said after.

2. "And your argument was an opinion. There is not a logical conclusion to it."

Again with the "just your opinion" defense. You look more weak and petty every time you use it. You are just asserting that I am wrong at this point. Great debate tactic, very educated, I can tell.

3. "And yea, you do have free will."

Again, you are just asserting.

4. You did not even attempt to answer my question regarding free will. If you continue to ignore nearly all the points I am making, then you are not debating, then you may as well be closing your ears and going "lalala, you're wrong."
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
You even say it is Jack's decision. Case closed. And your argument was an opinion. There is not a logical conclusion to it. And yea, you do have free will.
Posted by thinkoutsidemybun 11 months ago
thinkoutsidemybun
1. If you are seriously going to dismiss logically backed arguments as an opinion in an attempt to somehow weaken them, you should take a debate class.

2. I understand it is Jack's decision. But Mr. G also makes a decision to not do something that would -absolutely- help Jack.

3. And by help, I mean helping him avoid eternal suffering (are you okay with that as a punishment?)

4. Do I have free will if I know that I will be supernaturally punished with eternal suffering at the end of my life if I do not believe God esists? Please answer this one.
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
1). That is an opinion.

2). There is a long time before you die and Jack could just learn a lesson this time he makes the bad decision.

3). What do you not get about it being Jack's decision?
Posted by thinkoutsidemybun 11 months ago
thinkoutsidemybun
So Mr. Gihilson, are you saying he literally knew what was going to happen? Or that he had a pretty good idea?

Does the conceptual God of Christianity know? Or does he have a pretty good idea?

Depending on how you answer that question, you may be able to justify his inaction (if you will) to an extent. If Mr. Gihilson:

1. Knows for an absolute FACT that Jack will die
2. Has absolute power to stop it from happening
3. Then, due to a policy of his own making, sends Jack to literally be tortured for eternity (really let this one sink in, unending misery)

...then I don't even think there is a word to describe how evil Mr. Gihilson is.
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
I could be interested...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
LughHeimPerussiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Chill it with the all caps (use bold if needed). 2. Mr. Gihilson is highly irresponsible, but it's a fine analogy (they're not meant to be exactly the same). 3. The appeal to consequences was interesting, but non-productive. 4. This debate seems to boil down to are humans more like Jack or The Robot, and is God more like Mr. Gihilson who allows actions he dislikes, or the mad scientist who has the choice to modify the robot when he realizes the murderous programming but does not... Ultimately we're more like Jack in complexity of motivations, and God is more like the mad scientist (each analogy have merit). 5. This debate is about an absolute (those are hard to win), and being predictable does not assure the absence of free will, even if our free will is in serious doubt. ... An all powerful God would have reduced us to the robot, and either way Hell is indeed masochistic.
Vote Placed by AmericanDeist 11 months ago
AmericanDeist
LughHeimPerussiTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct. Pro had better spelling and grammar. Neither used any sources. Con demonstrated that free will can exist, and cited examples such as school shooters not being forced to do that by God.