The Instigator
tmhustler
Pro (for)
Tied
25 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Con (against)
Tied
25 Points

If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

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 8 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,301 times Debate No: 9147
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

tmhustler

Pro

i am re posting this argument because my previous opponent failed to complete his arguments
for the premise of this debate free will does exist

pro will argue that because of this there can be no all knowing god

con will argue that they can both coexist

If an all knowing god exist than it must know the past, present, and future
so if this god knows what you will do than you can no longer choose to do anything but what it already knows.
If you are at a stop sign u can choose to go left or right. if this god knows you will go left than you no longer have the free will to turn right.
Freeman

Con

My opponent has failed to define God so I will assume he means the creator of the universe.

=======
Case Pro
=======
Can an all knowing "God" and free will exist? Sure they can.

As it happens I don't believe in "God" but this doesn't prevent me from understanding that your logic is incorrect. Lets say that I momentarily acquire the eye of omniscience. I know in advance what my opponent will do, think, say, and write back in the second round. Does this negate his potential to choose what he writes or thinks about? No, at least not logically.

Imagine that you have a child and you put before that child a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of broccoli. Even if we knew that the child would choose the ice cream this does not mean that he never had a choice in the process.

The only way a all knowing "God" and "Free will" could not coexist is if "God" was forcing us to act one way or another beyond our own control. The "future" is whatever is going to happen. This doesn't mean that knowing the future will nullify anyone's ability to make free choices.

This should be enough to negate the resolution

All the best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 1
tmhustler

Pro

by god i was only refering to an all knowing being

== " Lets say that I momentarily acquire the eye of omniscience. I know in advance what my opponent will do, think, say, and write back in the second round. Does this negate his potential to choose what he writes or thinks about? No, at least not logically."
what he fails to see is if my response is predetermined than at no point could I have chosen to write anything different. whether I believe I am making that dissiscon is irrelevant. it is not a matter of me being forced into a dissision but a matter of only having one outcome.

=="Imagine that you have a child and you put before that child a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of broccoli. Even if we knew that the child would choose the ice cream this does not mean that he never had a choice in the process".

yes it does. the child at no point could choose the broccoli. so there is no choice in this situation. there is only the illusion of choice in the child's mind.

== The only way a all knowing "God" and "Free will" could not coexist is if "God" was forcing us to act one way or another beyond our own control. The "future" is whatever is going to happen. This doesn't mean that knowing the future will nullify anyone's ability to make free choices.

becouse god knows the future that means it must come to pass or he would not be all knowing.
this means the future is predetermined that makes us players acting from a script. this shows that free will and an all knowing god can not coexist.

your argument seems to be that threw our perception we have free will but in actuality we do not if this is your argument you have violated the condition of this debate that free will does exist this would make your point moot.
Freeman

Con

I'll keep this relatively short.

Think of a number, 1 through 10. Do you have it in your mind? Lets assign a variable to the number you were going to think about, we shall call it (X). You could have thought of 1 or 4 or 8 but you thought of (X). Whatever number you thought of was your choice. It was always going to be that number, number (X), because after all that's the number you chose. The fact that you were going to choose it and it couldn't have been any other way doesn't necessitate you not being able to have freely chosen that number.

All the best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 2
tmhustler

Pro

to start this round I believe my opponent misunderstands the term free will so I will define it according to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

"Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents {a person} to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
the key part of this is the ability to choose from several options.

now for my rebuttal to simplify this lets say X= 5 according to your argument I was predetermined to pick 5. thus limiting my options to only one and by doing this negating free will as for the definition above.

conclusion my opponent has shown no instances were free will and an all knowing god god can coexist.
the only evidence he has shown is of delusional free will were in the subjects mind there is free will but in actuality dos not. as a result he has violated the precondition of this debate that free will is real.
finely I have shown why they are not compatible why they cant coexist and given several instances of this.

I have completely negated all of my opponent arguments and there for claim victory in this debate.
Freeman

Con

Lets imagine that we live in a world where freewill exists. After we have done this lets imagine that an omniscient God pops into existence ex nihlo. If your position were correct then after an omniscient God popped into existence ex nihlo free will would be destroyed. I don't see how this could logically be possible but we shall leave the rest up to the voters. I'll just wrap by saying that knowing someone's choice is not logically incompatible with free will.

You can claim victory if you like but victory will only be determined by the good people viewing this debate. My opponent would have you believe that he has been predestined to win. This, to me, seems like a silly assertion. ;) Good people of Debate.org it is now your turn to exercise your free will, choose wisely.

All the best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by BiigDogg 7 years ago
BiigDogg
Grammar spelling Pro Lost.

In every other aspect I believe Pro won.
Pro pointed out in round after round Con's inability to refute Pro's claim, but illustrate an example of coexistence between God and a non-free will, which wasn't up for debate.

Also Con really ate dirt when he/she proposed God could not exists then exists. That is a big contradiction that everyone should notice.

God that Pro was implying was the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God that monotheistic religions propose exist.
Posted by tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
to KRFournier free will is the ability to choose from several out comes. if there is only one outcome you MUST choose that out come, and if you must choose one out come. by definition if there is only one outcome free will cant exist. I refuted my hypothesis that they could not coexist in my first round.
"Pro simply kept saying Con was wrong". in a debate part of what you do is explain why your apponent was wrong all i did was explain why i thought my opponents analogies were inaccurate. at what point did i say con was wrong without further elaborating? no even once
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie

Spelling/Grammar - Con - How on earth is Pro getting all seven points on some votes? No capitalization at all.

Convincing Argument - Con - Pro kept asserting that his case but never logically argued WHY omniscience is incompatible with free will. Con, on the other hand, at least substantiated his argument. Pro simply kept saying Con was wrong. Thus, Con's argument was never refuted.

Sources - Tie
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
Would you please let me have time to find an argument? I had posted my new argument and waiting for you, if you get the message, please come, thank you. I'm not losing.
Posted by Yakaspat 8 years ago
Yakaspat
Con made a good argument in my opinion.
Posted by tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
i would but i am going on vacation late tomorrow
Posted by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
If i am to accept this than i need the maximum amount of time to post my argument, so if you change it to 72 hours i will accept. I am out of town visiting relatives and need more than 12 hours.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by pokerstar 8 years ago
pokerstar
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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 tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by ChloeAva 8 years ago
ChloeAva
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Yakaspat 8 years ago
Yakaspat
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
tmhustlerFreemanTied
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