The Instigator
BrandonMS
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
BrandonMS
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 60550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

BrandonMS

Pro

This is a rather simple concept: If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity, can absolute free will exist? I say no, and am therefore Pro.
I have seen this definition of a god be used to define specifically the Abrahamic god several times and will thus be focusing largely on that in my opening statement, but it may describe any god the opponent wishes. Biblical, religious, and philosophical verses and references are allowed to be used as points.
Because of the subject of this debate, bringing in definitions of atheism, agnosticism, or belief may be viewed as Red Herrings. The debate does not deal with the truth or existence of any god, but rather the ability for total free will and a god as described above to exist simultaneously. When the term "Free Will" is used, it describes a case in which someone is able to freely decide their actions. Whether or not I or my opponent believe in absolute free will, compatiblism, or determinism should be regarded as irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.

The debate consists of five rounds, each round allowing each person ten-thousand characters to use:
Round 1, in which the opponents offer their opening statements. This round is not for the opponent to rebut unless it is for the sake of their opening statement.
Round 2, for rebuttal and counter-argument.
Rounds 3 and 4 repeat if needed, though either opponent can conclude that they have stated all the points they felt necessary, or may end the debate and refuse to argue further if they no longer feel the opponent is honest or genuine in the discussion.
Round 5, in which the opponents offer their closing statements.
With the rules explained, I will give my opening statement.

The topic of free will is a heavily contested subject within philosophy. It is dictated by natural processes in the brain, or is there an ethereal soul? Does a god have any sort of effect on our free will whatsoever? The points I will present will be argued from several related philosophical standpoints:
1) "If there is an omniscient god who knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen, then there must be an unavoidable, predetermined goal for everyone and everything."
For, if there is not a predetermined path for everything, then how could God possibly know all that will transpire? The concept of knowing everything possible while still allowing new, unplanned events is exceedingly paradoxical.
2) "If there is an omnipotent god who is all-powerful while simultaneously being omniscient, then it is impossible for anyone to have free will."
In this case, I regard it as obvious: If this god has a predetermined plan and knows everything that will happen, then it would know if someone wished to commit a transgression against this plan. If it is omnipotent, then it would have the power to effortlessly stop the attempts of rebellion, whether accidental or not. Therefore, any form of free will would be wholly impossible.
3) "If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god, in that it is all loving and infinitely kind, then free will does not exist."
This argument combines the first two points and adds in a third: morality. Now, if there was a heaven/hell system in which someone can be either infinitely rewarded or infinitely punished for finite actions, the entire idea of free will is corrupted.
If God is truly all kind and infinitely loves us, then surely it wouldn't punish us for an infinite amount of time. Using the second argument, this god has the knowledge and the power to stop someone from committing an action that is viewed as "evil". If you yourself were given that power, and knew that someone was about to do something that would end with their everlasting torture, would you not stop them from committing that act? I believe"or at least I hope"that any compassionate, caring, and sympathetic person would save that future wrongdoer from eternal pain and suffering.
Now imagine an infinitely good, infinitely loving, and infinitely caring being given those powers. Do you not think that it would save that person? Do you think such a being would have to even hesitate as to what to do?
This third argument invokes a famous riddle from Epicurus that I'm sure most people have heard. I will conclude my opening statement with his riddle, The Epicurean Paradox:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Aerogant

Con

If god is omniscient, then god sees you masturbating.

If god is omnibenevolent, then ugly creatures are also of beauty.

If god is omnipotent, then all dick sizes are enough.

People have sex in the most ugliest of ways every day, thus free will! Or... Free Willies!
Debate Round No. 1
BrandonMS

Pro

I don't appreciate trolls. You have been blocked.
Aerogant

Con

You're just mad because it's so easy to make a joke out of it. Maybe if you weren't such a child that puts more work into what they cannot prove over their own existing fellow men, you wouldn't be on the internet getting butt hurt over someone who can shoot holes through your argument without any effort! At least we have something in common - IT TAKES NO EFFORT FOR THE BOTH OF US! IS THAT NOT GREAT?
Debate Round No. 2
BrandonMS

Pro

BrandonMS forfeited this round.
Aerogant

Con

*Casper lives here*
Debate Round No. 3
BrandonMS

Pro

BrandonMS forfeited this round.
Aerogant

Con

I seem to have lost my balls - never mind; being intellectually advanced just makes you feel lighter.
Debate Round No. 4
BrandonMS

Pro

BrandonMS forfeited this round.
Aerogant

Con

Aerogant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Life is a tragedy. I'm just role-playing it for everyone else.
Posted by masterdrave 3 years ago
masterdrave
Wow, you are truly a tragedy Aerogant. Have fun with your excellent 4.44% win ratio, things are looking up for you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
BrandonMSAerogantTied
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 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: Trolling a serious debate requires the most severe form of punishment - A 7 vote penalty.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
BrandonMSAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff but con was rude and trolling, so conduct balances out....and trolling explains the argument point