The Instigator
DebateSpirit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

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 3 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,273 times Debate No: 9527
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

DebateSpirit

Pro

Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints.
choice: The act of choosing; selection.

God gives us freedom to choose between Satan and God.
wjmelements

Con

I will allow my opponent to present an affirmative case, but I will recognize that he has burden of proof.

The resolution is negated if one of the following is true:
-freedom of choice does not exist
-God does not exist
-the God that exists is the Christian God

My opponent has burden of proof, and therefore must prove the following to affirm the resolution:
-Free will exists.
-God exists.
-this God that exists is the Christian God.

Please note that I will be taking a "Devil's Advocate" position on all three save the former.

Now, for the negative case:
For all purposes of this debate, the term "God" shall refer to any omnipotent entity, while "Christian God" shall refer to the God of Christianity. "Free will" refers to the "libertarian free will" theory, which states that determination is ultimately entirely free of external factors.

I. Determinism
According to Dr. Ye, whom I have interviewed for Science Fair, determination is derived from three things: DNA, past experience, and external stimuli. One can easily conclude here that libertarian free will cannot exist.
Therefore, the resolution is negated.

II. The Existence of God
An omnipotent cannot exist just as an infinity cannot. An omnipotent God should be able to create a stone it cannot lift, assuming it has all powers. However, if he cannot lift the stone, he is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist.
Therefore, the resolution is negated.

III. The nature of God
This point is only relevant, of course, if a God exists. The Christian is by nature omnibenevolent; however, he has enacted justice in the form of a mass killing in the Book of Genesis, in which he mass-murdered the world's civilian population with a Great Flood. An omnibenevolent omniscient God cannot create knowingly and get upset about what happens. Therefore, the doctrine of omnibenevolence is in direct contradiction with the Christian God.
Therefore, the resolution is negated.

I will now let my opponent present his case.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateSpirit

Pro

Thank you for my opponent argument, it's must be hard to take Devil's Advocacy:

"I. Determinism
According to Dr. Ye, whom I have interviewed for Science Fair, determination is derived from three things: DNA, past experience, and external stimuli. One can easily conclude here that libertarian free will cannot exist.
Therefore, the resolution is negated."
_ I would like to see any real articles or anything from Dr.Ye before I conclude this, but Dr.Ye theory can be wrongful for these reasons.:
* Not all determination can come from past experience, that fact is that lots of people who have never have any past experience can indeed, have a determination to do something. If a person have never had sex, he can still determine to have sex somehow, without past experience.
* Not all determinations come from external stimuli, there are things other have no such interest, no encourage nor discourage it, but that person still have a determination to do it. For an instance, I determined to learn my violin without any external stimuli.
Therefore, I fail to see why freewill can't exist.

"II. The Existence of God
An omnipotent cannot exist just as an infinity cannot. An omnipotent God should be able to create a stone it cannot lift, assuming it has all powers. However, if he cannot lift the stone, he is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist.
Therefore, the resolution is negated."
_ Lots of non-believers had offered this question to question the omnipotence of God, but the answer is right there, themselve, or should I say human. Human is the rock, the only rock that does not flow with the wave like other creatures, human is the only creation of God that dare to turn back and question God. That, my friend, is the rock that God Himself can't lift, spiritually.

But that's just an addictional information, this is non-sequitur, just because there's a question that hard to answer does not propose a disproval about the existence of God.

"III. The nature of God
This point is only relevant, of course, if a God exists. The Christian is by nature omnibenevolent; however, he has enacted justice in the form of a mass killing in the Book of Genesis, in which he mass-murdered the world's civilian population with a Great Flood. An omnibenevolent omniscient God cannot create knowingly and get upset about what happens. Therefore, the doctrine of omnibenevolence is in direct contradiction with the Christian God.
Therefore, the resolution is negated."
_ My opponent said: "Because God killed people with the Great Flood, therefore He can't be omnibenevolent, but this is just a Naturalistic fallacy. My opponent should know beside the flood what did God given? Who did God put over there, the one that's building a colossal boat? Noah, and how many years before the boat finished? 120 years. Thus far, the civilization had killed themselve just because of their stubborness. So beside what so called "Mass Murdered", should we offer that God Himself also gave the people a life saver?

Thank for my opponent arguments, I'm anxiously waiting for your new arguments.
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has not presented an affirmative case and forfeits his opportunity to do so.

I. Determinism
My opponent objects, claiming I must source an article form Dr. Ye, who does not write articles on this topic. Nevertheless, I will source from other neuroscientists with sourcable information.

In a well-sourced paper [1], a well-decorated neuroscientist named Ian Weinburg concludes, "There is now sufficient evidence to endorse the full quantum model of consciousness and the concomitant concept of quantum determinism". This paper should be significant enough to meet my opponent's challenge to my claim.

His general objections are easily conquered. His first ignores the influence of genetics, from which instincts originate. His second has a narrow definition of external stimuli, limiting it to external living stimuli. A caveman could teach himself to play violin with readable instructions or by experimentation.
In general, my opponent's objections single out each component of neurological determinism and say that alone they cannot function. This is called composition fallacy. http://fallacyfiles.org...
Free will does not exist. The resolution is negated.

II. The Existence of God
My opponent's objection is a metaphor, which is also invalid. He does not present an affirmative case claiming that God exists; he only attempts to negate mine.

The truth is that there is no answer to the question that leaves God omnipotent. Either he can create such a stone, in which case he is not omnipotent, or he can't, in which case he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, God cannot exist. The resolution is negated.

III. The Nature of God
My opponent tries to salvage God by calling him a life saver whilst being a mass murderer. This would not make God all-loving; it would only make him partially loving. An all loving God wuld not create a race, knowing that they would defile, and then murder them for it.
Therefore, the Christian God is false. The resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.wellness.org.za...
Debate Round No. 2
DebateSpirit

Pro

Thank you for my opponent new arguments:

I.Determinsm:

Since I don't understand a single word my opponent just stated, I couldn't see the relevance of free choice and the source my opponent just gave me, I would like to ask if he not mind, my opponent can make it simpler and maybe can indicate all the significance of the sources and his arguments.

"II. The Existence of God
My opponent's objection is a metaphor, which is also invalid. He does not present an affirmative case claiming that God exists; he only attempts to negate mine.

The truth is that there is no answer to the question that leaves God omnipotent. Either he can create such a stone, in which case he is not omnipotent, or he can't, in which case he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, God cannot exist. The resolution is negated."
_ I apologize for my bad work, now let me say this again, Can God do anything?
The answer is no, because God Himself put boundaries around Him, as a Christian, my opponent ought to know there are certain things God can't do, such as:
1. Sin (Lie, Cheat, Steal)
2. Learn (He is all knowing and the source of all wisdom)
3. Force you to love Him
4. Break His own laws, rules and boundaries.
Or more importantly, being less perfect, the Bible in Deu 32:4 stated: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

My opponent tried to use this paradoxal question that the Atheist had tried for decades to question the omnipotence of God. But does that mean that God is not God because He put boundaries around Him? No, for an example, if I'm a doctor who work 10 hours a day, but now I just work 8 hours a day, will I be lesser than a doctor? No, same concept with God.

"III. The Nature of God
My opponent tries to salvage God by calling him a life saver whilst being a mass murderer. This would not make God all-loving; it would only make him partially loving. An all loving God wuld not create a race, knowing that they would defile, and then murder them for it.
Therefore, the Christian God is false. The resolution is negated."
_ My opponent again, tried to state that because God used the flood(which is true), to killed the human race, the act of Him gave the news to Noah to create the arch is just showing that God is partially long. I want to make an analogy here, we all know every parents love their kids, especially to little ones. Now we also know every parents tell their kids to not smoking, now for an example if one day my kid smokes, he keep smoking and smoking until he dies, the thing is that my kid killed himself, though I told him to stop smoking, he keep doing that and he dies. Now does that mean that I had loved my kids less? If God does not love human race, he won't tell Noah to create a big arch for 120 years to wait for others to come to the arch, Noah believed in God, he built the arch and he's saved. But others had killed themselve for not listen to Noah.

So the Christian God is not false simply because He did not force the people to come to the arch or stop the flood, but it is false to blame God, the Christian God for everything human had did for themselve.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting. I would like to ask that in his rebuttals, he not block quote my arguments.

I. Determinism

While ignorance does not fly as a rebuttal, I will put it in fifth grade terminology. Neuroscience, the study of the human brain, shows that determination, the process of deciding course of action, rests entirely on information stored in DNA, past experience stored in different areas of the brain [1], and external stimuli, which are occurences outside of one's self. There is no "free will". The brain works like a complicated machine.
Resolution negated.

II. Existence of God

The ability to create a stone that He cannot lift is not applicable to the "boundary" theory because it is an ability, not an action. God either can or cannot do it, and either way, he is not omnipotent.
Resolution negated.

III. Nature of God

My opponent's argument that God is good because he saved one while murdering thousands/millions can make God "good" in a sense, but not omnibenevolent.

The argument that people are responsible for their own actions is irrelevant because free will does not exist.

My opponent's analogy to parent's punishing their kids is an expected yet irrelevant rebuttal. The key difference is in that God is omniscient, and knew that man would sin before they did. Therefore, to create them with full knowledge that they would sin and then punish them for it is unethical, and therefore God is not omnimoral and omnibenevolent.

This argument can be taken further, to the question, "Was sin part of God's plan?"
If God is omniscient, then he knew about sin before it happened. Therefore, sin was part of his "plan". How can he punish it then if it was inevitable? This means that God is not omnibenevolent.

The resolution is negated.

Thank you.

[1] http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
DebateSpirit

Pro

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited a round. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateSpirit

Pro

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

My opponent made no attempt to meet burden of proof. The resolution is further negated because, as I have shown:
=Free will does not exist.
=God cannot exist.
=If God were to exist and be omnibenevolent, it wouldn't be the Christian God.

Thank you. My Devil's Advocacy is complete.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I don't ususally leave RFD's for my own debates. It makes me look selfish. Nevertheless:
CONDUCT : CON (forfeits)
ARGS: CON (this should be clear, but even if CON's case had fallen, PRO would not have met BOP)
SRC: CON (PRO had none)
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Shh, mongeese. Your ability to refute it doesn't mean that the n00b can.

Alex, I took this for fun.
Posted by DebateSpirit 8 years ago
DebateSpirit
why is it horrible?
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"Please note that I will be taking a 'Devil's Advocate' position on all three save the former."
Posted by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
wjm aren't you a Christian? Or are you just taking this for debates sake?
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
wjm, that is the most horrible argument to disprove the Christian God ever.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
DebateSpiritwjmelementsTied
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 mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
DebateSpiritwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
DebateSpiritwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06