The Instigator
LatentDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 11 votes the winner is...
LaL36
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,737 times Debate No: 29545
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (11)

 

LatentDebater

Pro

Con has BOP to prove a possible way God can make free will possible.

Free Will = the conscious ability to act independently of God's control in a manner that could be evil.

All-power = can do absolutely anything.

All-knowing= knows absolutely everything that goes on.

All-good = Will always use powers and knowledge in order to make good things happen and evil things stop.
LaL36

Con

Good luck!

Okay I will make this quick. I would like to make clear that this has nothing to do with whether or not G-d exists.

"Con has BOP to prove a possible way God can make free will possible."

My opponents definitions does this. A G-d of all power can make free will possible because my opponent has said an all powerful G-d means can do absolutely anything. If He can do absolutely ANYTHING, he can free will possible. I win.
Debate Round No. 1
LatentDebater

Pro

True, but you forget the limitations on his behaviour.

If god is always seeking to stop evil and if free will entails the ability to act in an evil manner then God can never let us have free will for it would mean he wasn't all-good.

I win.
LaL36

Con

Okay once again, if G-d can do absolutely anything he can go above logic and therefore if he can do absolutely anything he can give free will.
Debate Round No. 2
LatentDebater

Pro

The burden of proof is on you to prove that God can go above logic since to debate con on the matter requires logic (impossible to debate without logic).

As for my burden of proof I shall reinstate that if God is all-good he would never allow evil to occur. Since God is all-knowing God would always know if evil occurred, and since God is all-powerful God can always stop evil occurring no matter how powerful a force of evil arises.

Free will entails the ability to act in an evil manner and thus it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

I am not saying that God, if not all-good, would be unable to allow free will I am saying that it is because God is all-knowing that no act of evil will go unnoticed and that because god is all powerful and all-good that he will never allow any act of evil to occur once he knows about it.
LaL36

Con

First of all I forgot to address some of your arguments because I rushed it so here is from last round:

"True"

Forfeited that I was right and that I have won.

Onto this round: "The burden of proof is on you to prove that God can go above logic"

I have done this twice already it is logical to conclude that since G-d can do absolutely anything, as my opponent has said, He is able to go above logic and could give free will. I have just proved that an all powerful G-d can go above logic and that he could give free will so I have done my job. This addresses your entire argument. And anyway, I don't think any religion describes G-d as never allowing evil.
Debate Round No. 3
LatentDebater

Pro

Your point regarding religions is irrelevant as we are discussing the God that I defined.

The God that I defined can bypass logic because god made logic but since it is bound to always prevent evil and since free will entails the ability to be evil, nothing within its vicinity of creation can ever be allowed free will. It isn't that god can't do it it's that it is impossible for him to allow it according to the fact he is all-good and all-knowing.

The "True" referred to the fact that god is all-powerful and I explain why this does nothing to negate my premise and resolution.
LaL36

Con

"Your point regarding religions is irrelevant as we are discussing the God that I defined."

You're right but I don't know why you would want to debate this.

I refer back to my argument. The title of the debate is it is impossible for G-d...
Where you G-d can do absolutely anything. This is an undeniable contradiction.
Debate Round No. 4
LatentDebater

Pro

I shall conclude by taking you step by step to the conclusion of pro. If you refute this make sure not to raise any new points in last round as this is extremely bad conduct.

Read this step-by-step to understand my premise fully...

1) God is all-knowing, so any potential act of evil would be known to him before it even happened because he 'knows' it would happen.

2) God is all-good so whenever he would know of potential evil he would use whatever power he had available to stop it at that instant or as soon as he could.

3) God is all-powerful and thus has no limit or restriction on the extent to which he can prevent evil meaning that ultimately evil will never occur and no one, within God's realm, shall ever be permitted to do it.

4) Free will entails the ability to act independent of god's control in a manner that could be evil. Since God is all-knowing, he's know any act of evil you'd plan from the moment he created you, Since God is all-good he's use whatever power he had to prevent you from ever doing evil and since God is all-powerful he's always be able to do so.

In conclusion, it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

If my opponent fails to refute my point sin round 5, he has essentially forfeited this entire debate since he seems to think he can ignore my debate and keep bleating that God is all-powerful (read step three of this round).
LaL36

Con

First of all, most of my opponent's argments were arguments but he should not lose conduct because neither of us stated no new arguments last round. 1. You are correct but that doesn't matter. I'm sorry to "bleat" again but since G-d can do absolutely anything he can give free will.
2. Unestablished point. You said G-d has to stop evil but he does not have to do so right away.
3. I'm going to "bleat" again. G-d is so complex because he is all powerful and sometimes goes beyond logic and understanding.
4. Just refer to my bleat.

"In conclusion, it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will."

What my opponent means is "it is impossible for a G-d for whom anything is possible, to allow free will."
Source: my opponent's round 1 definitions.

Conclusion, the BOP was on me to prove that G-d can give free will and I have through my opponent's definition so really this debate was over before it started. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I thank the voters for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
"I tell you my intent and you disagree?"

Well, yes. If Hitler said his intent was not to kill 6,000,000 million Jews I would still disagree

"Ap*ar)ntl_y n&t."

There is a big difference. You did that on purpose and I do not know why anybody would do that. I would understand if you get annoyed by that but why would you get mad by me using a dash if it is part of my religion? I am not trying to annoy you and I think you get annoyed very easily if a dash gets you in an argument. I would not and do not get annoyed when people write f*ck. because I know they cannot spell the full word because they might get banned.

"I said "f*ck," an expression of frustration, and you interpreted as "f*ck your religion." You don't think that's going out of your way to take offense? If I sneeze, are you going to assume I mean "G*rms *n y**r r*l*g**n?"

Okay I misinterpreted it I apologize. You do realize you are making a claim you cannot even support. I misinterpret what you said why would I want to go out of my to take offense that is idiotic. I explained in the comment about why I use a dash. You quoted that and then wrote F*ck. I thought you meant f*ck that law in Judaism and I thought you had something against my religion. Since this is not the case you can rest your fingers and drop this.

"If I claimed you were lying about believing in god, would you take offense? If so, then you'll understand why I take offense at your suggestion that I'm lying about not believing in god. You not only go out of your way to take offense, you go out of your way to give offense."
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said I assume you are an atheist before. I am not trying to say you are lying about not believing G-d. That is just a baseless claim. I was trying to say you thought if you write the entire f word there will be punishments and that punishment is getting banned. I believe that I should not spell G-d's name because I believe I will get punished. Sorry if I was not clear.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LaL36 wrote:
: @wiploc You said you are not trying to insult religion. I am going to have to kindly diagree

I tell you my intent and you disagree? I can tell we're not going to get along.

: Can you explain to me what is wrong with you using a dash so I do not spell the name of G-d?

Ap*ar)ntl_y n&t.

: I think if anyone thought you meant "F*ck your religion" I think it is reasonable to take offense to that.

Sure.

: You also said I am going out of my way to be offended. I don't know why anyone would do such a thing, but : I can assure I am not doing so.

I said "f*ck," an expression of frustration, and you interpreted as "f*ck your religion." You don't think that's going out of your way to take offense? If I sneeze, are you going to assume I mean "G*rms *n y**r r*l*g**n?"

: It is similar to how you are not spelling out the entire F word. You think there will be punishments if you do
: so, just like me.

If I claimed you were lying about believing in god, would you take offense? If so, then you'll understand why I take offense at your suggestion that I'm lying about not believing in god. You not only go out of your way to take offense, you go out of your way to give offense.

: Well in a debate regarding G-d, it is hard to avoid the word G-d.

Which is why I'd be willing to discuss any other subject with you, if I didn't find you so difficult. As it is, I'll just unsubscribe from this thread and try not to talk to you any more.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
just about that omni-benevolent thing pro, I commented on this before the debate, God by definition is infinite, therefore an all-good God is an infinitely good God. This is otherwise known as omni-benevolence meaning 'all good' which was the exact word you used in your definition. As a whole, your definition was fallacious and set up to grant you a win, which failed anyways. Con didn't even point it out.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
@wiploc You said you are not trying to insult religion. I am going to have to kindly diagree because you said "No, thanks. You'd be saying awkward things like g*d all the time."
After i said you could kindly challenge my opinion. Can you explain to me what is wrong with you using a dash so I do not spell the name of G-d? You also said I am going out of my way to be offended. I don't know why anyone would do such a thing, but I can assure I am not doing so. And by the way, I think if anyone thought you meant "F*ck your religion" I think it is reasonable to take offense to that. You seem to be going Gindi of your way to be annoyed about religion. Can you please explain to me how is it annoying to use a dash instead of spelling G-d's entire name? It is similar to how you are not spelling out the entire F word. You think there will be punishments if you do so, just like me.

"I take offense when people write words like c*nt, and **s. They are trying to put a (potentially) offensive word into my mind without saddling themselves with having given the offense. It's just awkward. They should either rephrase, use a different word, or go ahead and spell it out. Don't try to split the difference with typographical awkwardness."

Well in a debate regarding G-d, it is hard to avoid the word G-d. What do you want me to use? Alpha and Omega? Second of all, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of why Jews don't spell the name G-d. Because it is in the 10 commandments, do not use
G-d's name in vane.

"I wrote f*ck, so that you could experience what I experience, the irritation that the word wasn't spelled out."

Well I ws not irritated because you did not fully spell the word, I was irritated because i thought you insulted my religion. I thought you didn't fully spell out the word because you thought you would get banned.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
In fact, that other guy insisted that we avoid saying "God" in conversation with him. Every time he read the word in print, he had to save it somewhere on his hard drive, never delete it.

Where I don't like to see an American flag used as a rag, he didn't want to delete Jehovah.

To each his own.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
lit.wakefield wrote:
: And honestly I've never heard that from any Jew... maybe I'm just woefully ignorant though.

I've experienced it in one other case. They guy was easy enough to talk to, so long as you talked about other subjects.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LaL36 wrote:
: @wiploc I am not really sure what you mean.

Well then, I failed to communicate.

: If you are trying to insult religion that is very disrespectful ...

No, that's not it.

: ... I assume you are an atheist.

Yes.

: If so, you can kindly challenge my opinion.

No, thanks. You'd be saying awkward things like g*d all the time.

: I find it offensive that you say "f*ck" my religion.

Now you're going out of your way to take offense.

Listen, I'll explain myself, but I assure you that an explained joke is not a funny joke:

I take offense when people write words like c*nt, and **s. They are trying to put a (potentially) offensive word into my mind without saddling themselves with having given the offense. It's just awkward. They should either rephrase, use a different word, or go ahead and spell it out. Don't try to split the difference with typographical awkwardness.

So, when you said you didn't see how saying G*d could be offensive, I thought I would would turn the tables on you, let you understand his reaction by experiencing the same reaction yourself.

I wrote f*ck, so that you could experience what I experience, the irritation that the word wasn't spelled out.

Didn't work. I apologize. I thought it was worth the attempt.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
He said f*ck not f*ck your religion. And honestly I've never heard that from any Jew... maybe I'm just woefully ignorant though.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
@wiploc I am not really sure what you mean. If you are trying to insult religion that is very disrespectful I assume you are an atheist. If so, you can kindly challenge my opinion. I find it offensive that you say "f*ck" my religion.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LaL36 wrote:
: ... I am Jewish and they are not allowed to spell the name of G-d and I don't how that is annoying.

Well f*ck.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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: The argument goes to neither. Pro should have defined all powerful more specifically. God really just became a meaningless contradiction. Conduct to Pro because Con was quite annoying with his "G-d" and for repeating the same thing over and over. EDIT: Changed to counter youmils03's votebomb by switching arguments and sources for an addition of 5 points...
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: one word: omnipotent
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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 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: Both sides just repeated their positions. Pro did not follow his own definition of omnipotent, however, and loses. A god who is above logic cannot be argued logically against.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: First, neither side particularly identified a very important point: The definition of free will in the resolution is not actually philosophical free will as per the type the resolution seems intended to evince. For this reason PRO loses the conduct point. Given this point, I cannot as a voter accept the given definition of free will and PRO's arguments fail to be convincing given the semantic gaming. Second, CON WINS convincing as he used those same flawed semantics to turn PRO's argument on his head because CON's definitions allow gods to violate non-contradiction. I would urge LD to abide by more correct philosophical definitions in the future.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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 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: This: http://debateorg.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/debate-orientation-top-five-biggest.html - anyway, pretty poor debate. What was up with that last round, honestly guys? Con agreed pro's argument was logically true but pro agreed god can do the illogical. Pro foolishly also conceded that if god can do the illogical then con's right. Pro did have the BOP (before I get a million crazy PMs, I don't care what the rules say, "setting" BOP in the rules leads to impossible contradictions and bad resolution writing), and pro did not meet that standard. Spelling to pro because LaL36 was making his bleating far too obvious, drawing attention to the fact con didn't have a strong argument (pro didn't either but at least they didn't make that so obvious for me).
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment...zzz Originally +3 to PRO, will add +3 to CON to counter luggs, therefore net zero.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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: Normally, in a debate, the instigator bears the burden of proof. However, in this debate, the instigator stipulated that the contender take the burden of proof. These terms of debate would be challenging for even the most skilled contender, but Con accepted the terms so Con now bears the burden of proof. Con didn't meet the burden of proof and Pro was able to refute any arguments coming from Con. Also, Pro was able to make statements like "God is omnipotent" without having to provide evidence because of the agreed-upon debate terms. Make sure that we understand who has burden of proof. If you have BOP, then you have to provide virtually all of the sources and research. The other side just picks it apart, as Pro did here. Argument to Pro. Tie everywhere else.
Vote Placed by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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: Pro's arguments made more sense.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LatentDebaterLaL36Tied
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: RFD in comments.