The Instigator
hldemi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 1 vote the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,529 times Debate No: 78550
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

hldemi

Pro





Common 4 round debate structure.


Round 1: Acceptance of debate and definitions.
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and Final conclusion ( no new arguments )

Definitions :

Omniscience - is the capacity to know everything. (Omniscient - All knowing ; having infinite knowledge )

Free will - The ability to choose between different possible courses of action.



If you don't agree with definitions don't accept.

Voting rule - Voters will not vote in spelling and grammar category since I don't want grammar to make any difference in the outcome. Any vote in S&G will be taken down by moderator.


Good luck to Con.
Illegalcombatant

Con

My understanding is that Pro will seek to justify that there is a contradiction/impossibility between the following two propositions.

1) The existence of an all knowing God.

2) The existence of free will for any other person other than God.

I as Con will seek to negate Pro arguments.

I look forwards to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
hldemi

Pro

Thanks for accepting Con.

Opening argument:

Here are 5 premises and conclusion. For the Con it is necessary to prove that at least one premise is false so that the conclusion is false.


1. A being with free will,given two options A and B,can freely choose between A and B.
2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
3. God knows I will choose A as my final decision in that choice.
4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
5 .From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B as final outcome of a choice.

Conclusion: From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

Following Argument 1

I do not claim that God foreknowing something causes you do act that particular way. Its enough to know what will definitely be chosen prior to "action" in order to leave "actor" unable to choose anything else.

Following Argument 2

Usually people say that the problem is assuming that premise 5 necessarily follows. I do not understand how does the invoking of necessity change anything. If I cannot choose what I wont choose and what God knows I wont choose then there is no free will for me.

If there is a definite knowledge of my final decision of any choice I make prior to me making that choice ( that is foreknowledge which means "to realize beforehand" ), then my decision is known before I decide it. So no free will for me.



I'm gonna leave it here for now.

Good luck to Con.



Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument

There is no EXPLICIT contradiction in the existence of an all knowing God and free will. As such Pro in order to make his case must use added premises to get from point A to point B. But what are those premises and should we accept them ? and even if we do accept them do they logically entail the conclusion ? I don't think so and I will now explain why.

Consider Pros premises that state..........

3. God knows I will choose A as my final decision in that choice.

4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.

5 .From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B as final outcome of a choice.

Hang on how did Pro go from Gods KNOWLEDGE that Pro will choose A to therefore Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A ?. Pro makes an unjustified leap here.

Even if Pro chooses A, and even if God knows Pro will choose A before it happens (from Pros point of view) that does not prove that Pro could not have chosen B. You could of chosen B................but you won't.

Considering the following thought experiment..........

There is no all knowing God, and assume free will exists, you go to the fridge, in the fridge is a Pepsi and a coke, you choose one, in this case a coke.

Consider the same situation but an all knowing God exists, you choose the coke. Does the fact that God knew before you knew you would choose the coke mean that free will suddenly disappears or is logical incompatible with the existence of an all knowing God ? no.

Consider another thought experiment........

Again no God and you go to the fridge, coke or pepsi, after staring into the fridge for a bit you take the coke.

Consider the same situation but this time an inter dimensional alien life form called Bob exists. The thing about Bob is, is that he has the ability to slide back and forth on our time continuum as he pleases. So you choose the coke, but Bob already knew that before you did, you see he leaped ahead 30 seconds to see what you were going to do.

Does the fact that Bob knew what you were going to do before you did it some how negate the existence choice ? no.

The moral of the story here is that knowledge of a free will decision before it happens (from the person making that decisions point of view) and what it will be is compatible with the existence of free will.

Closing comments

Pros argument rests on a faulty assumption, that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 2
hldemi

Pro

I thank Con for their opening argument and rebuttal in a round that was not meant for rebutting but only for opening arguments. I don't mind this however. I like it when they attack me right away.

REBUTTALS

My opponent claims that there is no EXPLICIT contradiction in the existence of an all knowing God and free will. This cannot be simply asserted. It needs to be soundly argumented. So lets rebut his arguments and expose why they are not sound by showing why the premises are false.


Con wrote:
"Hang on how did Pro go from Gods KNOWLEDGE that Pro will choose A to therefore Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A ?. Pro makes an unjustified leap here."


Knowledge about some event that is prior to the event is called foreknowledge. Foreknowledge : Knowledge of an event before it occurs. Now the definition of free will I gave is that it is "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action. " Now if God foreknows that I will choose A then I cannot choose B since it would mean that God`s foreknowledge is wrong and it cannot be wrong by definition of omniscience. This means that B is not possible course of action. It is impossible to choose B since God foreknows that it wont be chosen. So there is no choice to be made.

So Conclusion is that Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A. If A is the only choice to choose then you have no choice but to choose it. So it is "no choice" by definition since there are no alternative possibilities to be chosen.

Now It can be counter argued that this is not an argument against with free will but against the ability to execute it since there can never be a true choice to be made.
But I argue that if there is no possibility for you to execute your ability then that ability is non existent. For example if I can travel faster then light but lets say some law of physics or the special relativity renders me unable to do so then I dont really have that ability do I ? If my ability presupposes impossible circumstances then the ability is impossible.

So conclusion is - NO CHOICE = NO FREE WILL

Con wrote:


"Even if Pro chooses A, and even if God knows Pro will choose A before it happens (from Pros point of view) that does not prove that Pro could not have chosen B. You could of chosen B................but you won't."

The problem is that if your future action is known then that means the future is determined already. Since it is the only way to be known. If it wasn't determined then its logically impossible to have definite knowledge about some future event.
So if it is determined then you cannot have free will since you cannot act the way it was not determined for you to act.

Pro argues that you could have chosen B... but you wont.
If God knows what you will choose before you do it then it is only the illusion that you could have chose B. B was never the possible option if it was known not to be chosen prior to the choice actually happened.

Take this example: If I know that what lottery ball numbers will be winning ones. Is there any other option for those balls to be picked ? If I know that you will do A is there any other option for you to do ?

Con wrote:

"There is no all knowing God, and assume free will exists, you go to the fridge, in the fridge is a Pepsi and a coke, you choose one, in this case a coke.

Consider the same situation but an all knowing God exists, you choose the coke. Does the fact that God knew before you knew you would choose the coke mean that free will suddenly disappears or is logical incompatible with the existence of an all knowing God ? no."

Yes. Because the only way for God to know what will be chosen is if it was already determined. Also in the example with all knowing God you didn't chose Pepsi since you could not choose Pepsi. If I know that someone is gonna punch me then that must happen. If that must happen then any other option is not possible.

Con wrote:

"Again no God and you go to the fridge, coke or Pepsi, after staring into the fridge for a bit you take the coke.

Consider the same situation but this time an inter dimensional alien life form called Bob exists. The thing about Bob is, is that he has the ability to slide back and forth on our time continuum as he pleases. So you choose the coke, but Bob already knew that before you did, you see he leaped ahead 30 seconds to see what you were going to do.

Does the fact that Bob knew what you were going to do before you did it some how negate the existence choice ? no."

First if Bob knew that I will make some choice then He already knows the future before He goes in the future. But lets say for the sake of argument that He was in the future and saw you choosing coke. Then He comes back at present and He knows what will happen.

Ok so this scenario supposes that leaping among future and past and present is possible. This means that you can observe the effect and come back before the cause even caused that effect. So this is the case of a non-linear causality which we never observed and this poses so many paradoxes. This basically allows the effect to go back in past and cause itself. This is ridiculous to the extend of it being logically impossible.

And more importantly it means that future is determined. Its like a movie. In an already recorded movie do actors have a free will ? If future is known by Bob and if it is possible to travel to past from future then everything is already been determined. It like rewinding movie from the end to the start. Only possible if the whole movie is being already recorded ( determined)

The person in the future might have the choice to make ( the person that made a choice prior to Bob observing and knowing the outcome). But that instant when Bob observed it and gained knowledge about it, then the past is effected by that. This person in the present ( when Bob comes back from the future with newly acquired knowledge) is now unable to do what He didn't do in the future. Any option not being chose in the future is not possible to be chosen. So no free will.


Con wrote:

"Pros argument rests on a faulty assumption, that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens."

You need to show why the assumption is faulty. But yes, "in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a "free will choice" will be before it happens."

Because:

A. Such knowledge can only be acquired in a deterministic model of universe.
B. Non linear causality poses so many paradoxes that is may as well be logically impossible. This theory is cherry picked on a bases of it fitting the argument by Con and it stands on no empirical grounds.
( side note "free will choice" is a tautology .)
C. It is not necessarily the knowledge that causes you not to have free will. Its the fact that this knowledge can exist that causes you not to have free will. Since it implies deterministic universe.


Conclusion of round 3:

The problem is when you try to fuse the natural world with concepts of infinite anything. You get those paradoxes. For example God by having infinite knowledge presupposes that He must know everything that will happen (future). How can this be so ? Has the future already happened ? Was is always that way so it never even happened ? In our physical reality we can only make a predictions. If we can predict something 100% that means that this something operates under set of rules that it must inevitably follow and by which it can only result in that one predicted outcome (no free will). So I state those three options :

1. God knows future because it is knowable - DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE- We don't have free will
2. God predicts our actions with 100% accuracy- We act like robots by following our, not chosen by us, set of rules to make the illusory choice. God knowing those can predict our actions with 100% accuracy.- We don't have free will
3. God cannot know the future - God is not omniscient.



I look forward to Cons reply.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

[Explicit vs Implicit contradictions]

Consider where Pro says..."My opponent claims that there is no EXPLICIT contradiction in the existence of an all knowing God and free will. This cannot be simply asserted."

Well actually I can, when you understand the difference between an explicit contradiction and an (alleged) implicit contradiction.

The following are examples of explicit contradictions

1) The earth is flat, the earth is not flat
2) God exists, God does not exist
3) Free will exists, free will does not exist.

You will notice with explicit contradictions straight of the bat they contradict themselves by stating X and not X are both true.

But there is no such explicit contradictions when stating X and Y are true for example...

1) Rabbits exist, Horses exists
2) God exists, aliens do not exist
3) Pro exists, Con wonders why he has to explain what an explicit contradiction is or is not.

So when some one claims or implies that X and Y contradict each other they need other premise/s to make that connection, but what that premise/s is and whether it can be justified is the question when dealing with implicit contradictions.

[Knowledge of A vs Free will choice (or not) of A]

At the core of Pros argument is about how if a choice is made but that choice is known beforehand (From the choosers point of view) with 100% metaphysical certitude this entails that no free will choice of A is even possible. I still maintain this is a non sequitor.

Recall how Pro argues..."Now if God foreknows that I will choose A then I cannot choose B since it would mean that God`s foreknowledge is wrong and it cannot be wrong by definition of omniscience. This means that B is not possible course of action. It is impossible to choose B since God foreknows that it wont be chosen. So there is no choice to be made."

Notice the conflation between the impossibility that God can be wrong about you are going to choose A and the impossibility of being able to choose B.

That was the purpose of my thought experiments to try and show more clearly these are two very different things, knowledge of choice A (even before it happens from the choosers point of view) vs the free will choice made in the present (from the choosers point of view).

They are two different things and thus impossibility of one (God having false knowledge about your choice) does not entail the other (therefore you have no choice).

Pro decides to counter with arguments about the impossibility of time travel, well that isn't really the important point here now is it ?

[Gods knowledge of Choice A dependent on determinism ?]

Consider where Pro says...The problem is that if your future action is known then that means the future is determined already. Since it is the only way to be known. If it wasn't determined then its logically impossible to have definite knowledge about some future event."

&

"Yes. Because the only way for God to know what will be chosen is if it was already determined."

But must such knowledge be dependent on determinism ? for example a common conception of God is one that stands outside of time so too speak. Thus from Gods point of view what we would consider as our past, present, and unknown (to us) future is an observed event from Gods point of view.

But even if this isn't true, why must Gods knowledge of choice A be dependent on determinism ? because that is the only way that humans could know and thus that must mean the only way that God or anything else could know too ? well that's an unjustified leap there.

[Closing remarks]

As I said in the previous round Pro argument rests upon the premise that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens. (Pro admits as such).

Pro can't get past that the impossibility of God being wrong about Pro making choice A (before Pro makes it from Pros temporal point of view) does not logically entail therefore Pro will have no choice when it comes to Pro choosing A (again from Pros temporal point of view).

But, but, but I hear you say, I have not made the decision yet (from my point of view), thus God or anything else can't know before I do and if they do then I don't really have a choice.

Sounds a bit like a dummy spit to me as opposed to rationality.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 3
hldemi

Pro

Thank you Con.


Con is absolutely right that there is no EXPLICIT contradiction is a statement that God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will. I was not aware of the context of the usage of the word EXPLICIT here. This however means nothing for this debate and is not important by itself since it is not counter-argument and all my arguments are focused on explaining why and how omniscience contradicts free will. Never I have asserted or claimed this without supporting it with arguments/premises. Con is trying to shift BoP on me with this. I don't mind that. It is on the judges/voters to decide if his defensive style and counter arguments are good enough for him to win this debate.


Lets see now what counter arguments Con has offered and lets see if they are sound. Its important to note that this is the last round so no new arguments are gonna be made here (same is expected from Con). Only extensions of the old arguments and rebuttals are gonna be made here.

REBUTTALS

Con wrote:
" At the core of Pros argument is about how if a choice is made but that choice is known beforehand (From the choosers point of view) with 100% metaphysical certitude this entails that no free will choice of A is even possible. I still maintain this is a non sequitor.

Recall how Pro argues..."Now if God foreknows that I will choose A then I cannot choose B since it would mean that God`s foreknowledge is wrong and it cannot be wrong by definition of omniscience. This means that B is not possible course of action. It is impossible to choose B since God foreknows that it wont be chosen. So there is no choice to be made."

Notice the conflation between the impossibility that God can be wrong about you are going to choose A and the impossibility of being able to choose B.

That was the purpose of my thought experiments to try and show more clearly these are two very different things, knowledge of choice A (even before it happens from the choosers point of view) vs the free will choice made in the present (from the choosers point of view)."

This is a bit hard for me to understand (the argument). Why is there a conflation here ? Omniscience also means that God cannot be wrong in his knowledge. So if God knows that you are gonna pick A how can you pick B ? This is very simple question that should be addressed properly by Con.
Con asserts that there is a God that has his point of view which knows everything that is gonna happen in the future and then separate point of view of chooser that can choose freely between two or more possible alternatives. How is this possible. If this God is in every instance of present time (every point in time, future or past) and in each of those He knows what you are gonna pick then there was never a point of time when you made that choice with real possibility to chose freely between two or more possible alternatives. You were always determined to choose what God always knew that you would choose.

I understand the purpose of Cons thought experiment. This is why I rebutted it.

I explained why alien example was flawed analogy since with Bob that can travel to future and past, there was a point of time where the result of your choice was not known by Bob and that time your choice was not contradicted by Bobs knowledge.
This is not the case with God since God always knew your every choice in every point of time.
That instant that Bob acquired that knowledge about you choosing A and traveled to the past that past was determined already with all the choices made in there.
The mere possibility of time travel and knowing the future means that that physical world is deterministic one. How else can one go into the future if the future has not already happened. And how is it possible to travel to past if past was not "recorded" somewhere along the line of time... If there is past and future and it is accessible by someone at will, then it implies determinism. You cannot travel to somewhere nonexistent. If future is existent then it already happened. This needs to be properly rebutted by Con.

This far He addressed it with this :

"But must such knowledge be dependent on determinism ? for example a common conception of God is one that stands outside of time so too speak. Thus from Gods point of view what we would consider as our past, present, and unknown (to us) future is an observed event from Gods point of view."

Ironically, this is argument for deterministic universe. How can God observe future if it has not already happened/been determined ? Think about it. Lets assume for the sake of argument that God being outside of time is true hypothesis. Lets also assume that future is an observed event from Gods point of view. How does this counter the deterministic world model ? Observed events need to happen/be determined before they are possible to be observed.


Lets see what else Con offered us:

"But even if this isn't true, why must Gods knowledge of choice A be dependent on determinism ? because that is the only way that humans could know and thus that must mean the only way that God or anything else could know too ? well that's an unjustified leap there."

Well if you are going to play that card then this debate is pretty much pointless. You can as well say that God can make it so that His omniscience and Free Will are compatible, He can do anything right ? Here we are trying to use rational arguments to see if Gods omniscience is compatible with free will under laws of nature/our physical laws. If you are gonna appeal to special pleading with God being able to do even the logically impossible then anything is possible, even the absurd. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to refute the validity of every canon of rational argument.


So we are left with rebuttal of Cons closing remarks

Con wrote:

"As I said in the previous round Pro argument rests upon the premise that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens. (Pro admits as such)."

It is not exactly and only thing upon which my argument rests upon. There are many unaddressed arguments of mine in round 3. Also I didn't admit as such. I used "" marks on "free will choice" since this is the problem. First of all I argue that there is no free will to be had to make free will choice in the first place. Second there is no choice to be made as also argued at the start of round 3. No choice = no free will. Hence I also wrote that free will choice is tautology.


Con wrote:

"Pro can't get past that the impossibility of God being wrong about Pro making choice A (before Pro makes it from Pros temporal point of view) does not logically entail therefore Pro will have no choice when it comes to Pro choosing A (again from Pros temporal point of view)."

This is hard to follow because its messed up. I cant get past the possibility of God being omniscient and being wrong, yes. How can I have a choice If there is no possibility of me picking anything except A because God foreknows that I will pick A.

Con keeps referring to choosers point of view. Choosers point of view does not matter since He is determined to pick A as long as God knows that He will pick A. There is no freedom in Omniscience. Omniscience means that everything is known to God. This is only rationally explainable in deterministic universe as I argued many times.



Lets post this argument as the extension of my previous ones:

1. Something that is undetermined cannot be known.
2. Future is known by omniscient God
3. Future is determined.
4. Every future choice is determined.
5. Free will-The ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
6. If choice is determined there is no different possible course of action to choose but the one known to be chosen.


Conclusion: If 2 is true then by 6 we cannot have 5.




FINAL CONCLUSION:

I will end with 3 possible outcomes :


1. God knows future because it is knowable - DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE- We don't have free will

( Con needs to explain how does God know future if it is not determined already )


2. God predicts our actions with 100% accuracy- We act like robots by following our, not chosen by us, set of rules to make the illusory choice. God knowing those can predict our actions with 100% accuracy.- We don't have free will

This is the only way to know something that has not happened yet if it wasn't determined already. I would love to hear other possibility.


3. God is not omniscient or that his omniscience does not involve knowing the future. Lets say that future is unknowable and that God cannot know everything but only everything that is possible to be known.



For the end I would like to make a little analogy to the probability examples.

We only calculate probabilities of unknown events since events that have already happened and are known, have probability factor of 1.

For example if I already rolled 10 heads in a row (of a coin toss) then this probability is 1 (100%) since it already happened. Untill I have done it, this probability was 0.0009765625. Why is this so?

Because our probability in this example is based upon our empirical knowledge about coin that has nearly equal chance to land on both sides. However If there is definite and infallible knowledge that 10 heads are gonna roll then the probability of that event is 100%. The coin is not random but determined to be 10 heads. Why ? Because it cannot roll tails. This 10 rolls it must roll only heads. If you are unaware of this you may think that the probability is still gonna be 0.0009765625 but it is gonna be 1.

Same with the chooser. From his point of view He may think that he has choice to make but the probability to choose A is 1. and to choose B is 0.







Big thanks to Con for participation and his effort. Good luck to him and thanks to all the voters in advance.



Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their response.

[Burden of proof, what is important what is not]

Lets be clear here, Pro can ask as many questions as they want, they can dispute time travel, aliens and what ever. They can make all the demands they want but that counts for nothing, at the end of the day the burden is all on Pro, they are the ones claiming that an all knowing God can't co-exist with free will because there is something about the all knowing part that negates the possibility of free will. As long as there remains the mere possibility, how ever unlikely, how ever implausible, how ever many unanswered questions remain, Pro will not have met their burden.

[Knowledge of A vs Free will choice (or not) of A]

First recall how I argued...""Pro can't get past that the impossibility of God being wrong about Pro making choice A (before Pro makes it from Pros temporal point of view) does not logically entail therefore Pro will have no choice when it comes to Pro choosing A (again from Pros temporal point of view).""

Pro replies..." How can I have a choice If there is no possibility of me picking anything except A because God foreknows that I will pick A."

And that is what this debate really comes down too. I think I am just going to repeat myself again...

"That was the purpose of my thought experiments to try and show more clearly these are two very different things, knowledge of choice A (even before it happens from the choosers point of view) vs the free will choice made in the present (from the choosers point of view)."

"They are two different things and thus impossibility of one (God having false knowledge about your choice) does not entail the other (therefore you have no choice)."

[Gods knowledge of Choice A dependent on determinism ?]

Pro asks..."Ironically, this is argument for deterministic universe. How can God observe future if it has not already happened/been determined ?" & "Observed events need to happen/be determined before they are possible to be observed.""

Because an observation of A does not mean A was predetermined. Maybe A is not predetermined and observed.

Let's be clear what we mean when we say something is predetermined...."the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Recall how I said...""But even if this isn't true, why must Gods knowledge of choice A be dependent on determinism ? because that is the only way that humans could know and thus that must mean the only way that God or anything else could know too ? well that's an unjustified leap there.""

Pro in reply says..." Here we are trying to use rational arguments to see if Gods omniscience is compatible with free will under laws of nature/our physical laws. If you are gonna appeal to special pleading with God being able to do even the logically impossible then anything is possible, even the absurd. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to refute the validity of every canon of rational argument. "

Where exactly did I argue that God has to do the logical impossible for it's existence to be compatible with free will ?

Where exactly did I argue for special pleading for God ?

How humans possess knowledge may not be the one and only way that knowledge can be possessed, hardly a logical impossibility, hardly a violation of natural law.

And even if a violation of natural law so what ? natural law only applies to natural things. Note this isn't special pleading for God because I am not saying that only God may not be constricted to natural law I am saying any proposed thing outside of nature may not be constricted to natural law.

I maintain these assertions by Pro are without basis.

Coin analogy

Pros analogy breaks down because the the coins outcome is not (at least in part) determined by a free will decision by the coin as opposed to an (alleged) human free will act.

Closing remarks

Assuming that an all knowing God exists, is it even possible that an act by Pro or anyone else be a free will act ? well according to Pro no, that is an impossibility, due to Gods knowledge of said act before it happens.

What I have tried to do is make a clear difference between an alleged free will act and the knowledge of that act, how certain knowledge of that act (even before it happens from the choosers POV) does not mean it is impossible for that act to be an act of free will.

But if God knows I will choose A before I choose A that means I won't have the option to choose B !!! wrong. You will have the option to choose B, but you will choose A.

I thank Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
None offense taken. Im simply responding to your comment.

We didnt assume that timeline is fixed. I as a Pro was arguing that if future is knowable then timeline must be fixed. This was not for the sake of the argument, this was one of the arguments.
Posted by Blade0886 2 years ago
Blade0886
I wasn't providing any form of resolution mind you. Just a simple analogy to make things more clear to certain people, as i do feel it can cause confusion. So i provided an analogy which i believe is a direct paralell/different interpretation of this debate, in which Pro and Con argue with the assumption that timeline is fixed for the sake of the argument(aka God's omniscience). No offence intended here
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
Blade, if God knows what will happen in the future, time line is already being modified to be fixed. Otherwise it is logically impossible to know something that is not fixed. If there is some future event that is not "fixed" so use your term, then that means that this event may or may not happen, it may happen this or that way. So that event is impossible to know. If it is not impossible to know then it must be fixed. There cannot be any other way.
Posted by Blade0886 2 years ago
Blade0886
An analogy can be made about Pro's basis: his argument that someone knowing in advance what you will choose renders that person unable of choice is similar to the fact that that same person has a fixed "destiny"(apologies for the cheesy term...), and as such, cannot change/decide of his future course of actions. It all goes down to how you consider out time-line: modifiable at will, or fixed as a rock and obliging humans to go by it.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
It would not be as bad if that one vote was valid. What is shame is that whiteflame has not responded upon her vote yet.

This way the whole voting system is flawed. Basically anyone can ask a friend to cast a vote few hours before voting ends and we got a winner... I think I am gonna nominate judges for my next debates... This is ridiculous but it does not even matter in the end. Its all about learning new things not about having more point is the end ...
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
Blazzered
Shame only one vote decided the winner.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
Not nearly as bad as you are. Poor voter, poor reasoner. Attention whore at its purest form. Lame.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
You have said you are not going to address this issue further - this shows that you both are a poor sport and a liar.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
ad hominem*
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
hldemi
Show me where did I make as hominem at you. Learn to accept critique on your vote. It had nothing to do with personally attacking you. I critiqued your RFD because it was bad. Very bad. Im really sorry that whiteflame didn`t addressed it yet.

The problem generally is that such debates have very small number of voters and to pick a winner based upon one vote is ridiculously small sample size of votes. This is why Im so sensitive that you gave no RFD at all.

You cannot simply say that my arguments were bad or that Con refuted my arguments. You need to show how any why.

Now you talk about proofs. There are no proofs, we are not doing math here. All we have are arguments.

If you simply didnt see my arguments reasonable to you need to explain and show why is that so.

" Free will can exist when things can be foretold, con proved that, you didn't dismiss it properly, you lost."

Take this sentence of yours. Its a claim that Con proved to be truth and i didnt dismiss properly as you say...

Please show me his argument and how did it proved that free will can exist if I have foreknowledge of every future event.

Sore loser. Yeah that must be it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
hldemiIllegalcombatantTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The main argument in this debate was whether or not knowing something before it happens has an influence on this action in the future. Pro says that knowing something before it happens means that nothing is within the range of free will - con says that knowing something doesn't necessarily have an influence on an action. In the end, pro used a lot of cyclic reasoning to show why free will is false ("it interferes with free will because it interferes with free will" is all that I got out of his arguments), and con thoroughly decimated his arguments because he proved that pro was making unjustified leaps here (as his burden was to do). I give arguments to con because pro didn't offer any real reasons why he was correct after con refuted all that was given.