The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

It is possible for an omnipotent God to allow free will to exist within its creation.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 55731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Free will: The ability to act by one's own will, outside of the control of anything else.

Omnipotent: Involuntarily controlling all things at all times in all ways possible.


I accept the limitations set. This, together with the debate topic, will be the only limitations I accept as of the moment. However, I may accept more limitations proposed by my adversary. In this case, I will provide a subtle notification of acceptance through my arguments.

I wish my adversary the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


If God is controlling everything, he is controlling you. it is not possible for god to not control you because he is controlling everything and you are a part of everything.


"If God is controlling everything, he is controlling you. it is not possible for god to not control you because he is controlling everything and you are a part of everything."

Although I admit that this reasoning has its foundations set on logic, I have to say that my adversary failed to acknowledge some possibilities.

First of all, we cannot rule out his ability to give up his omnipotence for the existence of free will. Nevertheless, this does not mean to say that he is still not as powerful as he was when he was omnipotent. The only difference of the matter is his withdrawal of his nature to continually be in control of everything.

Does he posses the power to relinquish himself from the defined omnipotence? Logical reasoning states that he has.
Can he choose to do so? I can see no reason why not.

With this, we can say that free will was allowed to exist by an omnipotent God, and at the moment that free will is created into existence God removed his omnipotence but still remains all powerful.

By simply stating this possibility, it is immediately proven possible for an omnipotent God to allow free will to exist within its creation. That is unless my adversary disproves my proposed possibility.
Debate Round No. 2


baus forfeited this round.


Plumbum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Just don't forfeit and the debate is yours.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
All life has Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Happiness for us humans)."

For those of faith, believe that Divinity created the universe should realize that the Laws of Nature are also part of God"s creation. Therefore, these Laws are simply the handwriting of God. The Laws of Nature are omnipotent, everything in the universe must comply with them. When life goes against the handwriting of God approaches the negative side of life"s spectrum, which includes "death, tyranny, and/or the pursuit of negative-feedback." When life follows the handwriting of God approaches the positive side of life"s spectrum, which includes "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback."
Posted by AstridDragonSlayer 2 years ago
Just one thing I noticed while reading this debate...
Approaching this question by human reasoning is actually a faulty standard. Why? Well, consider the following.

If Christianity, and any part thereof, is true, then it is God's idea, not man's (since this is what it claims).
God is by definition all-knowing and infinite.
Man is finite and not all-knowing (else he would be God).
If God is all-knowing and I am not, then there should be some things about God's ideas that I do not have the ability to understand or to grasp.

This is actually one of the trademarks of Christianity. You cannot figure it out by man's own logic.

For example, look at the concept of the Trinity. God is one, and God is three. Both-and, at the same time. How do you explain this? I cannot. In my mind, 1 does not equal 3. But God is both at the same time. This defies human reasoning. Yet it is true according to God.

So what about God's omnipotence and man's free will? God is all-powerful and all-sovereign, never relinquishing his sovereignty. This is very comforting to me, being an assurance that ALL things happening to me are in God's hands. He holds all the threads and controls all. At the same time, man has free choice; we are not robots. How can you reconcile these? By finite human reasoning you can't. But yet they are both true at the same time.

Good luck on your debate; can't wait to see how it turns out! :)
Posted by Forgiven 2 years ago
mishapqueen- Thank you for that!
Plumbum- I assure you that I am not offended, just confused. While I agree the definitions are somewhat similar, I also think they are also very different. Nonetheless, have fun with the debate!
Posted by mishapqueen 2 years ago
I agree with Mr. Forgiven that the definition of Omnipotent is bothering me. As a Christian, as an apologist, and a linguist. As Mr. Forgiven has already answered the first two concerns, I will address the third.
Omnipotent comes from two Latin words: "omnia" and "potens."
"Omnia" means all and "potens" means power. So, simply from a linguistic point of view, Omnipotent means "all-powerful." I have studied Latin for nine years and actually teach it, so I do know what I am talking about.
The definition of Omnipotent provided is original, but false. I hope that the definer will be more careful in the future.
Posted by Plumbum 2 years ago
Mr. Forgiven, I can sense that you have interpreted my analogy in a manner I did not intend you to. The analogy just states two different parties with different meanings for the same "sound", and the incapability of either to change the meaning of it for the other because in each party lies a group of people who accept to live by this definition.

Of course, we can't define orange as a chair. Two words are far too different.
However, won't you agree that the true definition of omnipotence and the definition of omnipotence in this debate aren't really that far? The only difference between the two is the nature of one to remain all-powerful. The debate agreed to work with that premise.

I'm sorry if I some of the things that I said were taken offensively. I hope you vote wisely! Thank you.
Posted by Forgiven 2 years ago
Plumbum- Okay. I just had to point out that it is a misuse of words. It's like saying that, "orange," means, "chair." Or I could say, "God hates you," and then say, "hate," is defined as "to love." I just find that very confusing because people who speak the English language have agreed on the definitions of words, such as the word, "omnipotent," so why are you using the word, but rejecting/changing the definition? I really just find it confusing. That's all. Why use the word incorrectly when you could just insert you incorrect definition of the word and not use the word incorrectly at all? There would be nothing wrong with the question or use of the word if that were so (because it wouldn't have been used). Your analogy of the word, "Puto," isn't the same because those are two different languages. They didn't accept the same sound with the same meaning because that would make them the same language. Same sound? Sure. Same meaning? No. However, I do believe we are all speaking the same language here. What I am saying is that within the English language, the word, "omnipotent," has been defined. I never said there was a problem, I just said that it is important to distinguish the difference because it can be very confusing for voters or people like me who like to use words correctly. Depending on the definition of, "omnipotent," in your debate, my answer changes. But thanks for clearing things up!
Posted by Plumbum 2 years ago
Mr. Forgiven, although I have noticed that his definitions may provide some logical contradictions, the debate is subjected to the terms and definitions accepted by both parties. In this case, both of us has accepted the limitations with what we want to work on. Everything was defined for debate's sake.

As long as both parties concerned accepts the definitions, then there is no problem.

Isn't that how society created language? They agreed upon that specific "sounds" mean something for the sake of successful communication.

Puto may refer to a male prostitute in Spanish, and may refer to a rice-based dish in the Philippines, but that doesn't mean that a Spaniard can tell that the Filipino's definition of Puto is wrong.

Bottom line, there's no problem.
Posted by Forgiven 2 years ago
The Instigator, you have already made a mistake. Omnipotent is not defined as, "Involuntarily controlling all things at all times in all ways possible." That sounds much more like a dictator. God gives us freedom, and there's no freedom in that. If your definition was correct, I think that I would on your side, though. I mean, how could we do as we please if we are just puppets in God's show? If He is "controlling all things at all times in all ways possible," then how could we ever do anything with our free will? He would be controlling our thoughts, actions, words, etc. What a contradiction! It makes no logical sense for God to force us to do something we want to do. HOWEVER, omnipotent, according to, is defined as, "1. almighty or infinite in power, as God. 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power." Your definition is wrong! An omnipotent God can exist and provide free will within its creation according to the true definition of, "omnipotent." However, since you do not define, "omnipotent," correctly, my question is, "Is this debate using the true definition of omnipotent or your definition?" You must understand why this is important because while God may be omnipotent, that does not mean He has to control all things at all times in all ways possible for that to be so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost the moment he accepted debate under these conditions. Pro made interesting arguments in round 2, but since they contradict the definition of "omnipotent" Con gave in Round 1, they are not valid.