The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
willyxiao
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Free will vs Problem of evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 3 votes the winner is...
izbo10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,200 times Debate No: 17904
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

izbo10

Con

My opponent will have to make the case that the problem of evil is refuted by free will, I will take the counter that free will is no an adequate rebuttal to the problem of evil. First we must define the god we are talking about, as right from the beginning the problem of evil is only a problem for specific gods. So lets define god: The all powerful, all good, perfect creator of the universe and heaven.

By adequate, I mean that the response makes it possible for this god to exist.

My opponent should start his argument in the first round but, not argue in the final round but simply put the word "done." Anything more then that should automatically forfeit the points for conduct.
willyxiao

Pro

Quick question. If I lose points for conduct, I can still win right?
Second, I will not make any arguments in this round, you may begin in Round 2, thus it is fair for me to submit the final round rebuttal correct?

Third - what is "problem of evil/free will" please define in our next submission.

Fourth - do i get ground on the existence of god/who god is? As of now it's still rather vague.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

To start, my opponent is new here, so I can't say it was intentional, but to not argue in the first round when strictly asked to, does come off as a shady way of trying to shift the burden of proof. This argument was designed for him to put forth the positive argument, and me to refute the argument that free will debunks the problem of evil. He has in effect put me in the spot to make straw man arguments to debunk it

So, anyway, when the problem of evil comes up in any of its variants theists, presumably Christians, will jump on the free will bandwagon. God gave us free will so he can't interfere is the line of reasoning, It often times comes in the form of: do you want us all to be robots. Again, I don't know that this is my opponents position at all, but blame him for failing to start the debate. So, I will go over this one as I have room to type and a round to waste. There are many problems with this excuse, that is what it is, it is not a rebuttal but an excuse.

God gave us free will so he can't interfere. Many problems here firstly he designed us and is all knowing so he knows the results of our design and free will mixed together, so in the end his design decisions still counter those of a perfect god. He made poor design decisions to say the least. We can see that if a god designed us there were designs that limited out ability to act and commit evil. For instance, I can not punch a man's heart clear out of his chest. Yet, a grown man can rape and murder a child. An all powerful all knowing god could have made a better design where our brains disallowed us to do this. You can't say he needed to give us free will to get around this, why because it has already been clearly pointed out that other design decisions make it impossible for us to carry out this will.

The next problem with Free will is it is special pleading. The only thing we have to compare god to is moral beings. IN no other case would a person accept this. That being is perfecty moral, yet they watched the child get raped. Whether it be a person, or a super intelligent alien, the person observing this would instantly question the morality of the being who just sat and watched a child get raped. So, far the only excuse I have heard is this is god you can't hold him to the same standards as us. Yes,I agree. We are not morally perfect, nor are we all powerful. Therefore when analyzing whether this type of god exists, there is no way we should be looking at something that is so clearly a lower standard then what we expect of ourselves and saying well thats ok for god. We should be holding god to higher standards then us.

Another big problem for this god and free will is this. If god was capable of creating heaven, you know a place where none of these evils exist, then there is no reason that an all powerful god couldn't have just created this place to begin and skip the place with child suffering. Are we just robots in heaven. If we are why do you want to get there so badly if that is so bad? If we aren't how would one justify the claim that not being able to commit such acts as genocide, child rape, torture, and so on would turn us into robots, when in your very worldview you have a place where this does not happen and yet we are not robots. Contradiction much?

Another a problem is usually the people who claim this, will usually believe in the bible. This is strange as time and time again god interferes in the world in the bible. God delivers victory to Jepthah, he inflicts plagues on the Egyptians, he returns as Jesus and performs miracles. These clearly shows god can step in on free will issues. These same people will give god credit for helping them in their lives. This is clearly stepping in, with free will. A god who answers prayers, direct violating the no interference rule, used against the problem of evil, cannot use this as an excuse. The average Christians nonsense idea of this, when they prayed for a raise and got it, god intervened, when a small child prays and is still brutally raped, it is free will. Both sides of the coin much?

The last thing about free will is that free will has nothing to do with natural disasters which indiscriminately kill man woman and child. These people are forced to suffer and die or watch loved ones die, while a loving god does nothing. This has zero to do with free will. It is a disaster that is part of gods apparent plan.

I want to remind my opponent, that this debate is not about whether how we know child rape is wrong, or any of these other things are wrong, so unless he really disagrees with that assertion he should really avoid using that line of questioning.
willyxiao

Pro

willyxiao forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

Im sure according to the genius's on this board that was just a brilliant argument for free will my opponent presented, arguments from last round stand.
willyxiao

Pro

willyxiao forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
izbo10

Con

one more round.
willyxiao

Pro

willyxiao forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
It looks like Izbo10 has won this one, with Willy's forfeit.
Posted by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
Why not simply post the topic in the affirmative (ex.: "free will is no an adequate rebuttal to the problem of evil") and be Pro?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I feel like doing that, I am starting out very likely attacking a straw man, I will start attacking free will as a rebuttal in general. Problem of evil should be pretty well understood, and free will should actually be defined by the person who is claiming it is a valid counter to the problem of evil.
Posted by willyxiao 5 years ago
willyxiao
ahh....why don't you begin by explaining your conception of why free will and problem of evil fails.

You may try to define free will however you so choose, I'll see if I agree and we can have a debate.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
therefore it is not fair, you should have made the argument first you have forfeited a round of arguing, by not following the rules and arguing.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
You were suppose to be presenting the positive claim that free will debunks the the problem of evil, I can't refute your free will argument if I don't know what it is. That is why you were suppose to argue first.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
You heard it here first. This debate will come down to semantics. The issue usually comes down to competing interpretations of free will.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
izbo10willyxiaoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10willyxiaoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Willyxiao forfeited...and thus gave (unfortunately) points for conduct and arguments to Izbo10.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
izbo10willyxiaoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.