The Instigator
Fundamental-freewill
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

No Christian should be a compatibilist

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 2 votes the winner is...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 66748
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Sye you can't claim to be a comparabilist in Christianity. First God gave us the knowledge of Libertarian free will innately. So if we don't have Libertarian free will than God is a liar. There as never been a case when a child walked in with mud on his shows and his mother said "Johnny no tv for a week this is the 3rd time you did this" where the child replies " but mom I was determined to do what I did by prior causes and what I did was not self caused." and the mother replied " This is true but you still wanted to do what you did even if what you wanted to do is caused so you are still responsible for your action" so the son replied " yes you're right mom I guess I will bring the tv over to the garage"

Secondly the problem of evil says if God is good there can't be evil. The only way to defend the problem is libertarian free will since man's will is independent from God's will.

Thirdly Reasoning can't be done unless from an independent agent. When I write on a note pad it is true that it received reasoning but I can't say that the note pad is reasoning. A computer possess information but we can't say that it is reasoning because the information is programmed in the computer. The same we if someone is caused to a line of reasoning than it is not them that reasons but is receptacle to reasoning like a note pad or a computer. Therefore to have salvation the agent has to believe but if compadibilism is true the agent can't even reason little alone believe.

This video sums it up http://youtu.be...
philochristos

Con

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.

I'm going to assume a shared burden of proof. That means Pro will have to defend the resolution, and I will have to defend the negation of the resolution.

Also, Pro did not define "libertarian freedom" and "compatibilism," so I better do that as well.

Libertarianism is the view that when a person acts freely, they could have done otherwise even if everything about the universe, including their internal mental states, had been exactly the same prior to and up to the moment of choice. There are no conditions inside of or outside of a person prior to and up to the moment of choice that determine what that choice will be. That is not to say that prior conditions can't influence a person's choice; just that those prior conditions are not sufficient to determine the person's choice.

Compatibilism is the view that all of our acts are determined by the sum total of our mental states prior to and up to the moment of choice. "Freedom" is defined differently in compatibilism than it is in libertarianism. Whereas in libertarianism, freedom refers to an act being free from any determining factors whatsoever, in compatibilism, freedom means acting out of your own desires, motivations, inclinations, preferences, etc.

The debate is essentially over which view is more consistent with Christianity. I'll be arguing that compatibilism is more consistent with a Christian worldview than libertarianism is.

According to compatibilism, all of our acts are determined by our strongest desires and motivations when the sum total of our mental states are taken into account. According to Jesus, all of our acts are determined by the condition of our hearts. In Matthew 7:16-18, Jesus explained that you can recognize a false prophets by their fruits, i.e. their actions. A person's actions reveal what is in their hearts. Jesus went on to say that "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit." This only makes sense under compatibilism. If people were free in the libertarian sense, then their goodness or badness would not determine their actions. A good tree could produce bad fruit if it had libertarian freedom.

Jesus elaborated on these same points in Matthew 12:33-35. He made the point that "the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart," which was in answer to his rhetorical question: "How can you being evil speak what is good?" They can't because they can only speak what is in their hearts. Again, our actions are determined by what is in our hearts.

Luke records essentially the same points made by Jesus in Luke 6:43. There, he says that no good tree bears bad fruit, no does a bad tree bear good fruit, and the reason is because "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil"

These passages are inconsistent with libertarian freedom since under libertarianism, the condition of your heart does not determine whether your actions are good or bad.

Jesus also said in John 6:44 that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This passage is also inconsistent with libertarianism. If people were free in the libertarian sense, then they could choose to come to Jesus without the Father drawing them.

Finally, Jeremiah 13:23 says, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” The implication is clear. Whatever a person is accustomed to determines their actions, so Jeremiah teaches compatibilism, too.

Contrary to the resolution, all Christians should be compatibilsts because that's the Biblical view. But I want to also argue that Christians should be compatibilists because it is more agreeable to reason and common sense than libertarianism.

Libertarian freedom violates the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). According to the PSR, for everything that happens, there is a sufficient reason for why it happens. But under libertarianism, there is never a sufficient reason for why a person acted one way rather than not since no matter what the prior circumstances, the person still could have done otherwise.

In this regard, libertarians frequently speak as if they were compatibilists. If you ask a person, "Why did you eat that donut?" they will respond, "Because I wanted to." That answer makes sense under compatibilism because a desire to eat donuts is a sufficient explanation for why the person ate them. Whenever people state a reason for why they acted as they did, they are speaking like compatibilists.

Under libertarianism, no prior reason, motive, desire, etc. is sufficient to explain why a person acted as they did since they could have done otherwise even given those reasons, motives, desires, etc. What libertarians ought to say is, "I acted partly because I had a motive and partly for no reason at all." But libertarians never say that because they are inconsistent, and they are inconsistent because, contrary to Pro's claim, there is no innate knowledge of libertarian freedom. We are all compatibilists in our day to day lives because we all think and speak like compatibilists.

It is agreeable to our common notions that any act for which we are responsible must be an act that is done on purpose rather than on accident. To act on purpose is to act out of some prior inclination. To act on accident is to act apart from or contrary to any prior inclination. Libertarian acts are essentially accidents since they can be made apart from all prior inclinations. Compatibilist acts are the very essence of acts done on purpose since they are determined by a person's own prior inclinations, desires, motives, etc.

It is also agreeable to our common notions that a person who does exactly what he wants is acting freely whereas a person who acts spontaneously apart from their desires is not acting freely. A person whose legs and arms spontaneously move apart from the person's own desires is said to have an involuntary reflex. The very act of volition requires that a person's own mental faculties be engaged, and any deviation from the person's own mental inclinations is an involuntary act. So choice is only possible under compatibilism, not libertarianism.

So Pro is quite wrong in saying that knowledge of libertarianism is innate.

Pro also claims that libertarian freedom is the only solution to the problem of evil. But that is not so. The problem of evil can be solved by the mere possibility that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing or causing evil to happen. And we see Biblical examples where this is the case. Although it was an evil thing for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery, God nevertheless meant for it to happen because he had a morally good purpose in it (Genesis 50:20). So there is some evil that God intends to happen because it serves a good purpose. I could cite other examples if there were room.

Finally, Pro claims that libertarian freedom is necessary for us to reason and believe. That claim is mistaken for two reasons. First, because our beliefs are not under the direct control of the will. You can't simply by an act of volition decide to believe one thing rather than another. Just try it. Choose to believe right now that there's a pink elephant flying around outside above you. Even if I offered you a million dollars, you couldn't simply choose to believe it. Our beliefs are caused.

And the fact that our beliefs are caused is precisely what makes them reasonable. Our beliefs can only be reasonable to the degree that they are determined by arguments and evidence. The more hand evidence has in bringing about our beliefs, the more rational those beliefs are, and the less hand evidence has in bringing about our beliefs, then less rational we are. It follows that we are most rational when evidence determines our beliefs, and we are least rational when are beliefs are arrived at apart from evidence.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Fundamental-freewill forfeited this round.
philochristos

Con

My opponent has forfeited. I stand by what I said in the last round.

Debate Round No. 2
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Fundamental-freewill forfeited this round.
philochristos

Con

It looks like my opponent has forfeited again. That means this debate is over. Thank you for coming.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Sorry! Meant to say sources go to Con. :)
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
Thank you!
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
wish granted
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
On second thought, shorten the debate by two rounds since you've already made your opening statement. I think three round debates are ideal. It gets repetitive after that, and people lose interest and don't vote.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
I'll accept if you'll shorten the debate by one round.
Posted by ElCorazonAma 2 years ago
ElCorazonAma
Are these standards to which you suggesting should be? Or is this sincerely what you hold to?
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
Danielle
I'll debate you determinism (pro) vs. free will.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
I'd honestly love to have a convo with you. Would you enlighten me? I'll just leave if not. I honestly don't care to debate the subject with you because it's just not worth the headache. I mean, you used a youtube video to make your argument for you. Use the points from it and source it at least.
Anyway. Let me know. Just a friendly convo is definitely worth my time.
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
God hating atheist pshh so original bro. Just doing what everyone else does and call the minority sheep. Get that garbage off my debate bra. If it's such a waste of time I don't even expect for you to reply back.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
I couldn't think of a bigger waste of my time.
Why don't you check out my profile and see the difference between us. Why the hell would I waste my time on someone as far gone as you?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Fundamental-freewillphilochristosTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided an uncontested argument, so args and conduct to him due to Pro's ff. Both used sources, but Pro used YouTube and Con used the Bible. Therefore I feel sources go to Pro, as this is a debate about Christians and what they should be, and the Bible is the best source to use in a situation like this.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Fundamental-freewillphilochristosTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture