The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dragon_of_Christ
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 90871
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (40)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.


Full Resolution
The god of the KJV bible is purely moral.

Pro
Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to AFFIRM the resolution that the god of the KJV bible is purely moral.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to NEGATE the resolution that the god of the KJV bible is purely moral.


Definitions

god - the alleged creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


KJV (King James Version)
- an English translation of the Bible made in 1611 at the order of King James I and still widely used.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

bible
- the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

purely - entirely; exclusively.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Dragon_of_Christ

Pro

Thus debate shall be a legendary battle.

Known in DDO history. (mine at least)

Let it commence!

////////////

Preemptive Argument:

God letting bad things happen.

He gave man free will.

He would violate free will if he didn't allow bad things to happen.

And if no bad things happen then people would be forced to believe in him because of it.

But we would become robots in this.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro, for accepting the debate, thereby agreeing to the definitions.
Pro may not have realized this, but because there was no acceptance round, Pro could have exploited his 10,000 characters more so than he did...oh well, I'll construct my case, and he can do whatever with it.


*THE RESOLUTION IS NOT TRUE*

I reject the resolution that the god of the KJV bible is purely moral, because that god does not exist, and even if he did exist, is demonstrably *not* purely moral throughout his fictional work, the KJV bible.


*GOD, IN THIS DEBATE, DOES NOT EXIST*

The KJV God is defined as the alleged creator of the universe.

The universe is all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Our universe has matter and space.
Matter distorts space and creates gravity.
http://www.einstein-online.info...


https://en.wikipedia.org...

Space and time are part of a continuum, so we call it spacetime.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

When there was no universe, though, there was nothing, i.e. no matter or space, instead there were quantum fluctuations, where space, time, matter, energy, and gravity all fluctuated in and out of existence, so were never stative, because of sub nuclear virtual particles existing and simultaneously being annihilated by their antiparticle, which we call quantum/vacuum fluctuations.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

These quantum fluctuations are a property of no energy and have been confirmed on a macro physics scale.
http://physics.aps.org...

This is the no energy state, when there was no universe, and, because of all that fluctuation, the state is inherently unstable, so energy from this unstable nothing state is guaranteed, and that instability was expressed as the big bang.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Creation is a temporal process that requires stative time and the passage thereof.
If there is no time, then a creator can not be distinguished from its creation; creator-->created is a process that necessitates time.

Well, when there was no universe, there was no stative space, so there was no stative time.
So, without stative time, temporal concepts like creation are nonsensical.
Therefore, there was no creator of a universe that wasn't created, and if the alleged creator of the universe doesn't exist, then he can't be purely moral; he can't be at all.


*EVEN IF HE EXISTS, THE KJV GOD IS NOT PURELY MORAL*

1. According to the bible, god created everything:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him."
http://biblehub.com...

2. Also, god knows the future, because the future is what he wants to happen:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
http://biblehub.com...

3. God actually knows everything you think and do:

"And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."
http://biblehub.com...

4. God can even put his will into others:

"And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."
http://biblehub.com...

5. Being that god created EVERYTHING, he therefore created evil:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.."
http://biblehub.com...

6. God allows for, makes rules for, and encourages owning other humans as property.

"And if a man strikes his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his hand; he shall be surely punished..but, if he continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property."
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

So, according to the KJV bible, god created evil, god created humans with the ability to commit evil, god can will others to do things that he wishes to do, all that happens in the future is "declared from the beginning" by god, and god says it's ok to beat someone within an inch of their life *because* they are your property and that this action should go unpunished.

If god created evil and created humans with the ability to commit evil, and god was well aware of the future since the beginning of time, then the fact that we currently commit evil is indicative of his plan:
1. create evil
2. let humans commit evil
3. allow for a evil-filled future
4. endorse savage beatings of humans who are considered property by god himself

If god didn't intend for humans to commit evil, then why did he create evil in the first place?
If god intended us to do only good, and not commit evil, then he could have given us free will without the capacity to commit evil; after all, with god all things are possible, right?
If god didn't intend for evil to be committed, then why did he create/allow a future rife with humans committing evil?

Instead, he gave us the ability to commit evil, which he created, and he created/allowed the future of committing evil to happen; if god were on trial for intent to allow evil, he would be found guilty.

Opponents to this logic then say, well that's a contradiction; to remove our capacity to commit evil would be to remove our free will and god can't allow for contradictions.

Well, no.
If we currently have free will, as Christians claim we do, then there should be no limit on our capacity to act on our free will.
However, if i wish to read someone's mind completely, without any communication, I cannot, because god disallowed our capacity to read minds.


*QUESTIONS FOR PRO*

1. Pro, did god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds?
2. If yes, then why couldn't god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to commit evil?

You currently can not exercise your free will to read others' minds; now just imagine that you can't exercise your free will to commit evil.

It's clear that god did not intend for us to read minds, as no one can do that.
So, it's clear that god DID intend us to commit evil, because there's tons of evil in god's plan that he declared from the beginning; he created evil.

All of god's human creations sin, so if he did not intend for people to commit evil, he then has an awful record of successful creations.

God intended humans to commit evil, because he created evil, he created all humans with sin, and he allowed the evil-filled future to remain; this speaks to his immoral intentions.

Pro?
Dragon_of_Christ

Pro

God existing isn't relavent to the resolution.

I will break down con's argument simply to tickle my brain.

Con claims there were quantum fluctuations and stuff.

Could this not be a creator?

I can interpret god's form as immaterial such as a universal law but not dependent on matter.

But if there was no universe and no scale of space then how did everything come from a single point?

It couldn't have because space didn't exist either.

This point of the big bang must have been chosen because the randomness of the pre-universe would be incapale of any sort of action.

That is a preemptive bullet.

Why?

Your argument: "These quantum fluctuations are a property of no energy and have been confirmed on a macro physics scale."

Is useless as it is a source that doesn't back up your point.

What the experiment proved: "While this result may appear to just be a simple proof-of-principle, it does represent the first demonstration of truly quantum behavior of a mechanical element in an optomechanical system; it also demonstrates that such systems can be controlled and measured with sufficient care to reveal fragile quantum behavior."

Very bottom of essay.

And it did require energy because for the experiment to take place they needed to fire a lazer.

////////////

*EVEN IF HE EXISTS, THE KJV GOD IS NOT PURLY MORAL*

Back on topic.

Here are my rebuttals marked by con's numbered arguments.

1. He probably did as expressed above.

2. Not necessarily, he obviously didn't want Eve and Adam to bite one of the fruits from the tree of knowledge. He doesn't want any negative thing to happen but if he were to interfere then he would be violating free will and thus would be immoral in doing so because we would become robots in that moment. If he gave us free will and didn't want us to be able to choose good or evil then why give us it?

3. Indeed.

4. "Can". And using context clues i can tell he is asking for strength, you know, about to be crucified. Mark 14-16 "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.". Lest ye enter into temptation. Jesus is asking for the strength and willpower to go through with it. This is willing, the Father isn't forcing Jesus. Jesus made the choice in this moment.

5. He created free will. Free will brought along sin. And again you are incorrectly using a verse. It also means something completely independent.

6. The bible says what is going on. God doesn't encourage it. Where does it say this? And again free will. (see #2)

If he were to wish to which he will never do. If they were beaten within an inch of their life they wouldn't recover in a day or two. He doesn't say it is ok anywhere. You are misinterpreting again.

Where does it say this was his plan?

He didn't, it was creation that embraced evil.

Ability to choose.

He just didn't give us that ability.

You can make a machine to read minds, you can make a jetpack and fly but just because we weren't given superpowers doesn't mean you can hold it against him. He didn't disallow, he simply didn't give us the ability. What's the issue?

1. See above arguments.
2. Couldn't? Tis simply didn't.

All after argument structure broken.

////////////

This is great MagicAin'tReal, i look forward to a great challenge.

////////////

And spellcheck is bugged today.

Disregard all spelling errors.

Description: It takes me to the page but it is blank.

Nothing shows up.

If it would help, URL: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the response Pro.
Pro has to show that this alleged creator of the universe and source of all moral authority, as referenced in the KJV bible, is entirely moral, but Pro doesn't think that god's existence is relevant.

*REBUTTAL-EXISTENCE*

Pro decides to tickle himself and entertain the idea that god's existence might be relevant in a discussion about whether or not god is purely moral...smart move.


Pro posits:
"Con claims there were quantum fluctuations and stuff...Could this not be a creator?"

My response:
Nope.
Creators necessarily precede their creations and precedence requires stative time and the passage thereof, but, when there was no universe, in a quantum fluctuation, there was no stative time for precedence or the concept of "before."
So, without stative time, which is a property of the universe, there could not have been creation.


Pro inquires:
"But if there was no universe and no scale of space then how did everything come from a single point?"

My response:
From unstable quantum fluctuations, matter was able to be stative by avoiding annihilation, and this allowed for stative space.
Space at this point was extremely small, like the size of a stative sub nuclear particle, such that the very small amount of stative matter that existed was proportionally massive to such small space...imagine matter that could take up the entirety of space; it would certainly be massively powerful, dense, and hot.
There's the big bang.


Pro concludes:
"It couldn't have [come from a single point] because space didn't exist either."

My response:
Once there was stative matter, there was stative space, so, at the point of the big bang, stative space did in fact exist.


Pro contends:
"[http://physics.aps.org...] is useless as it is a source that doesn't back up your point."

My response:
I used it to back up the point that QF exist and have an effect on a macro physics scale...it did that quite nicely, and I invite all readers to check it out...very simple read.


Pro furthers:
"And it did require energy because for the experiment to take place they needed to fire a lazer."

My response:
The laser was used to cool the patterned silicon nanomechanical beam down, and this has to be done in our current universe of matter and space in order to reach a zero energy state.
It takes massive energy to get to nothing or zero energy in our world, but, when there was no universe, zero stative energy and zero stative space was the condition, so no added energy would be necessary.


*CREATION IS TEMPORAL*

Please remember that creators use the process of creation, which itself is a temporal concept that requires STATIVE time and the passage thereof in order to allow the series of events involving a creator existing-->creating-->created product.
Without stative time, how can you discern a creator from its created product?
How can you have a series of events in the process of creation without stative time?

The universe therefore could not have been created without stative time, which was the condition without a universe.


*REBUTTAL-PURELY MORAL*

1. I mentioned that the KJV says god created ALL things, and Pro admits:
"He probably did."

2. I mentioned that the KJV says god knows the future and it's what he wants to happen and Pro responds:
"[god] didn't want Eve and Adam to bite one of the fruits from the tree of knowledge...he doesn't want any negative thing to happen."

My response:
So, Pro, is Isaiah 46:10 incorrect that god said, "Declaring the end from the beginning...and from ancient times the things that are not yet done...my counsel shall stand?"

If god declared the end from the beginning, and his council shall stand, then is Eve and Adam biting the fruits part of his council that shall stand?
Did god declare from the beginning that Eve and Adam would bite the fruits?
Or are there things that happen that are not a part of what god declared from the beginning/his council?

3. I mentioned that according to the KJV, god knows everything you think and do and Pro admits:
"Indeed"

4. I had mentioned that the KJV claims that god can even put his will into others and Pro admits:
He can, but "Jesus is asking for the strength and willpower to go through with it. This is willing, the Father isn't forcing Jesus. Jesus made the choice in this moment."

My response:
Then why did Jesus say "not what I will, but what thou wilt" referring to god as "thou?"
If it's not what Jesus willed and it is what god willed, then how did Jesus make the choice, especially since Pro has admitted that god CAN impose his will on others?

5. I mentioned that the KJV says that god created evil, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" and Pro responds:
"He created free will. Free will brought along sin. And again you are incorrectly using a verse. It also means something completely independent."

My response:
Pro admits here that sin, which is evil, was brought by free will and that god created free will.
Grouping this idea with Pro's conceded points that god created all things AND declared the end from the beginning, god knowingly created free will with the foreknowledge that evil would spawn, such that god is responsible for creating evil.
He knew evil would come from free will, yet he created it anyway, and the bible clearly says that "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

I argue it is immoral to create evil, and, in fact, god could have declared a future with free will and no evil, but chose not to have that future...god wanted evil so badly that he had to create it and have humans act on it...sounds immoral to me.

Could god have created free will without allowing evil?
Or is that something that god just can't do?

6. I had mentioned that god endorses owning other humans as property AND the unpunished abuse of other humans BECAUSE they are possessions, and Pro responds:
"The bible says what is going on. God doesn't encourage it. Where does it say this? And again free will."

My response:
Exodus 21:20 and Exodus 21:21.
God clearly says "if a man strikes his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and...[the servant] continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property"

So, god allows for owning other humans as property and beating, as long as they don't die, should go unpunished BECAUSE those humans are property.

Pro, is owning other humans as property moral?
Pro, is letting the physical abuse of another human considered to be property, as long as they don't die, moral?
Well, god told us that those are the rules for owning other humans as property.

You know what a moral rule would be?
No owning other humans as property or unpunished beatings of humans because they are your property!
Come on Pro, god said that this abuse should go UNPUNISHED...is that moral to you?

Pro hangs on:
"If they were beaten within an inch of their life they wouldn't recover in a day or two."

My response:
God clearly states, "if [the human property] continues a day or two, [the owner of the human property] shall not be punished."
There's no mention of recovery, only continuing to live for two days.
One could be beaten within an inch of their life and remain in a coma for 4 days and this would go unpunished per the rules god has declared.

How is this moral Pro?

Pro then asks:
"Where does it say this was his plan?"

My response:
Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."

From the beginning to the end, his council shall stand, so given his rules for beating humans and owning them, and the fact that he's already declared what will happen (it is his council after all) is indicative of his plan:
1. create evil
2. allow the owning of humans as property
3. allow the abuse of humans to go unpunished


*REBUTTAL-PRO'S ANSWERS*

I had asked Pro if god made us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds, and Pro responds:
"he simply didn't give us the ability."

My response:
Right, why then could god just simply NOT have given us the ability to commit evil AND maintain our free will?
Pro, can you exercise your free will to read others' minds?
No, but you still have free will, it's just limited to freedoms aside from reading others' minds.

So, if god can limit our free will to read others' minds AND we can still maintain free will, then why couldn't god just limit our free will to commit evil AND have us maintain free will?

Is it that he couldn't do that?

Pro responds ineffectively:
"Couldn't? Tis simply didn't."

My response:
So, Pro admits that god *could* have given us free will WITHOUT the capacity to commit evil and simply didn't, which speaks to an immoral creator of evil who planned to have humans commit evil within their free will, so that humans can physically beat other humans whom they are encouraged to own as property without any objection from god.

This god is disgustingly immoral, which negates this particular resolution.
Dragon_of_Christ

Pro

1). Why must it require statitive time?

And all time doesn't really exist.

2). When did quantum fluctuations start?

Some random point in history?

It never did.

God to make his existence explainable to us inspired the bible.

Ancients wouldn't understand psychics.

He had to go with seems legit for us mortals.

If something finite wants to understand something then that thing must be finite.

You can't describe infinity with finite numbers.

3). Circular reasoning, Matter occupies space. Space came first. And if it was all jammed into a golf ball sied ball then how was there not space?

4). "These quantum fluctuations are a property of no energy and have been confirmed on a macro physics scale."

Your point.

It is linked to energy.

It requires energy.

Lazer.

Yeah have effect but need energy.

And energy can turn into matter.

5). Wait, wait, wait.

The laser existed for quantum fluctuations to affect it.

The matter came before the fluctuations.

Useless again.

And they used multiple lasers.

Or beam of some sort "beam".

"By laser cooling a mode of the beam"s motion to close to the quantum ground state, and by using a technique borrowed from ion-trap physics [2], they were able to clearly detect the quantum nature of the beam"s position fluctuations."

"Beam", sorry.

6). Why does it require statitive time?

The god of the KJV bible isn't matter based.

It is immaterial.

////////////

Likewise numbered rebuttals.

1). Yeah, but we aren't arguing that.

Irrelevant.

Problem with that statement?

2). Do you know what he means by council?

Not his will.

3). Yeah, he does. (assuming it exists)

4). CAN but did he really?

It could have just been a placebo.

5). There can be no free will without evil.

Living things have the potential to be stupid.

Free will is a choice between good and evil.

It would be dumb not to give creation free will.

He created you (assuming it exists).

He created me.

We are both evil.

Was it immoral to create something that would pollute itself?

It is immoral to sell a car and that person decided to drink, drive and hit a person?

Can the car company possibly be blamed?

No.

6). He probably means legally property.

And "property" is probably a bad translation.

Wording, wording, wording...

Well is it immoral to punish you child if they act up?

No.

They must be corrected.

7). "Council" and "plan" are not at all like in definition.

Why do you treat them so?

////////////

Next section rebuttals.

Restraining the ability to commit evil is exactly the opposite of free will.

Lets look at a car again.

A terrorist wants to run someone over with his car.

He can and the car company gave him his car but the act of running someone over comes with incredibly heavy consequences.

The guy with the car has free will.

If the car company installed anti run some person over systems then this restricts his will to run someone over.

He doesn't have free will.

The car can't fly.

Say he wants it to but it doesn't.

His will is restricted but by the car's capabilities.

We can't just want something and have it then say we don't have free will.

We don't have the ability.

Already broken.

Back to you Con.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for your response.
I maintain my rejection of this resolution because of the temporal and moral inadequacies of such a claim.
No time, No creator.
Human = Property =/= Moral.

*REBUTTAL-PRO'S 3RD ROUND*

Pro asks:
"Why must [creation of the universe] require stative time?

My response:
I had mentioned that creation is a process of bringing something into existence, and this necessitates time, because processes are series of actions.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

How can you have a timeless series of actions, Pro?
How can you tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?
Don't creators NECESSARILY precede their creations?
Doesn't precedence itself require time?

No universe, no time, no temporal processes like creation, no creator, no god per the definition in this debate.


Pro disagrees:
"And all time doesn't really exist."

My response:
Are you saying that all of the types of time don't exist?
Or
Are you saying that eternity i.e. "all time" doesn't exist?

If the former, then I would say that spacetime is demonstrable and exists, while our names for measurements of time are arbitrary.
If the latter, I'd probably agree with you.


Pro inquires:
"When did quantum fluctuations start?"

My response:
Quantum fluctuations are what nothing or no energy is.
When there's no energy, there are quantum fluctuations.
When did nothing start?


Pro switches topics:
"God to make his existence explainable to us inspired the bible...ancients wouldn't understand psychics...he had to go with seems legit for us mortals."

My response:
I'm not sure I understand quite what Pro is saying, but it seems that Pro meant to say that ancients wouldn't have understood "physics" instead of "psychics" so Pro is claiming that if god were to explain the origins of the universe in such a manner that I've described in this debate, then it wouldn't make sense or seem legit to humans of that time.

So?

God, in all his supposed power, couldn't dumb down quantum fluctuations or the big bang enough to make these cosmological concepts clear to ancient people?
Why is he so clear then on exactly how people should have sex, acceptable levels of female promiscuity, and owning people as property?
Makes you wonder what he wants his creations to know and not know...


Pro asserts:
"Space came first. And if it was all jammed into a golf ball sied ball then how was there not space?"

My response:
Well...
Without stative matter, there is no stative space, because space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; no stative matter, no stative space.
Without the universe, from unstable quantum fluctuations, a virtual particle avoided annihilation and was able to remain, and the position of this stative matter was stative space.

At the point of the big bang, there is matter and space, so at the "golf ball sized universe" there was also space.


Pro argues:
"It requires energy..lazer...yeah have effect but need energy...and energy can turn into matter."

My response:
The study I showed had to get to zero energy, because we live in a world and universe filled with particles and radiation, so it actually takes energy to remove energy.
In fact, we keep finding out that to get closer and closer to true zero energy, it requires massive amounts of energy.

But as I have pointed out, when there was no universe, no energy was the condition...it was rife with fluctuations because there was no energy.

Energy is just an expression of matter and matter is an expression of energy.
The big bang is that expression in total.


Pro reminds:
"The god of the KJV bible isn't matter based...it is immaterial."

My response:
Ok, well then let me put it this way...your immaterial KJV bible god couldn't have used a temporal process such as creation to create the universe, because time is a property of the universe.

Could god have used time to create time?
That's the inadequacy of such a claim.


Pro, you have to answer my questions or they will stand.
1. Do you agree that we have free will, but god didn't give us the freedom to use our will to read others' minds?
2. Can you imagine then, that we have free will, but god didn't give us the freedom to use our will to commit evil?

This shows that god can limit our free will, and we can still agree and feel that we have it, so he COULD have still given us free will WITHOUT the capacity to commit evil, no?


Pro asserts:
"There can be no free will without evil...free will is a choice between good and evil."

My response:
Free will is being able to use your will freely; it's not limited to choosing good and evil.
There can be free will without the freedom to use our will to read other's minds.
Therefore, there can be free will without the freedom to use our will to commit evil.


Pro makes an analogy:
"Was it immoral to create something that would pollute itself?"

My response:
Yes, if the future were everything you declared it to be and you created pollution and the idea of polluting oneself.

Pro continues:
"It is immoral to sell a car and that person decided to drink, drive and hit a person?"

My response:
Yes, if the future were everything you declared it to be and you still allowed for it to happen.

Pro concludes:
"Can the car company possibly be blamed?"

My response:
Yes, if the car company were the creator of all things, including evil, and declared the future from the beginning and knew full well that selling that car would result in an innocent person's death, then I would say it's literally all the car company's fault.


I had mentioned to Pro that the KJV god is totally cool with owning humans as property, and that this seems immoral to me.
So, Pro responds:
"He probably means legally property...And "property" is probably a bad translation."

My response:
How does calling a human "legal" property make calling a human property moral?
Pro, is it moral to own another human as property, legal or otherwise?
Why is the source of all moral authority so immoral?


Pro argues:
"Council" and "plan" are not at all like in definition...Why do you treat them so?"

My response:
Pro, the KJV has god saying "Declaring the end from the beginning...My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."
Ignore council, god's saying that everything that happens is "all his pleasure."
So, all of the suffering and hardships of innocent humans throughout history is under his council and part of all of his pleasure that he declared from the beginning; this makes sense, since god created evil.


Pro tries again:
"Restraining the ability to commit evil is exactly the opposite of free will."

My response:
Is restraining us to freely use our will to read others' minds the opposite of free will?
Why/why not?


Pro makes another car analogy:
"If the car company installed anti run some person over systems then this restricts his will to run someone over...he doesn't have free will."

My response:
Right, by the company restricting the car's capabilities to run someone over, the driver cannot freely use his will to run someone over.

Pro continues:
"The car can't fly...his will is restricted but by the car's capabilities."

My response:
Right, by the company restricting the car's capabilities to fly, the driver cannot freely use his will to fly.

This proves my point.
If restricting our free will to read others' minds DOESN'T negate our free will, then restricting our free will to commit evil DOESN'T negate our free will.

They are the same concept, so god could have given us free will and limited our capabilities to commit evil.
God could have also just not created evil in the first place, but what else would you expect from an immoral god like that of the KJV bible?

Pro?
Dragon_of_Christ

Pro

You didn't mention why humans being property makes God immoral so i can dismiss that attack.

And the bible doesn't say God is pro slavery.

It does say that slaves shouldn't be mercilessly killed though.

-Responses to Con's first section-

What is the process is instantanious?

This takes up no time at all.

And you still didn't prove why it necessitates time.

You merely stated it did.

Because time doesn't exists.
By telling they are different entities/objects.
No because nothing can precede anything, time doesn't actually exist.
Yes.

We came up with the concept of time to explain things more easily.

---

All types.

To be fair i will rebuttal the clock experiment.

The clocks were designed to measure this thing we call "time".

But it is made up of matter that simply moves on a 3d plane.

"Before" it reaches it's destination was simply located there.

It moved but movement and time don't work together at all.

Hence the clock experiment.

Moved to different places and were affected by time differently.

Time and movement are completely independent from each other.

There may be a correlation but they still aren't directly linked in any way proved by the experiment.

They are two completely different variables.

Therefore motion cannot be used to prove the existense of time.

---

When did quantum fluctuations start?

---

The next argument by Con is useless.

Think of quadratic functions.

They are as simple as possible and are still incredibly hard to solve.

Go show Homer a quadratic function and see how that ends up.

It would just be alien to them.

---

What a miracle.

But it's just a theory.

A possible explanation.

---

But energy where exactly?

How in litterally no space did it go down?

It must be assumed at a single point beause space is finite in it's dimentions.

---

What if it didn't take up time?

Instantanious?

---

Just because it wasn't included in our bodies doesn't mean he is restraining us.

And he isn't, we can invent mind reading technology.

---

Imagine but it isn't the case.

---

No there can't.

This argument is invalid via bad example.

Mind reading is a specific ability where as morality is universally applicable and is a universal concept.

---

He didn't create the idea.

He created the entities that thought it up.

---

Having free will means your choices are independent.

Our choice has nothing to do with God.

Declaring what will happen and doing something are different.

---

But God didn't create evil.

He created what created evil.

Creation's fall into sin is it's own fault.

Innocent?

The person crashed, that isn't innocent.

The person decided to drive after drinking.

That means the person is guilty.

---

That is based off of mortal ideals.

In many cases being property is a good thing.

Like a pet, we feed them and take them to the vet when they are sick.

Not in all cases is being property bad.

---

It isn't.

---

His council does not mean his plan.

It means him.

Not his actions.

He shall not fall.

---

Bad example as earlier expressed.

---

Con JUST admitted that the driver's free will is restrained when he wants to run someone over but can't beacuse of an action of the car company.

---

The car's capabilities, the car isn't restraining the action.

It didn't restrain anything.

There is no action from the car company there.

---

Bad example.

We took "free will" too far.

It would be better stated without the mind reading and flying car.

We have free will in what we do have.

The ability to move, which encompasses speech.

We can choose a path of God or sin with what we already posess.

This is what is meant by biblical free will.

////////////

Bravo Con, this was great.

Our fate is in the voter's hands now.
Debate Round No. 4
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 12 months ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, debates are great aren't they?
Posted by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
Con instigates the debate, then his first contention is a Kritik of his own chosen topic...
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I don't know what you mean.
Are you saying that there's a lot of information to deal with or that it's really exposing of god's immorality?
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 1 year ago
Dragon_of_Christ
This is like a religion thread on crack, except it will end.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I'm baffled.
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 1 year ago
Dragon_of_Christ
Eh, i've cleared my name.

I'm done with this argument.

Live long and prosper.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ignorantly include?

What was being ignored when I included the definition of god?
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 1 year ago
Dragon_of_Christ
You ignorantly included the definition, i trusting it should be there wasn't ignorant of it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I haven't ignored anything and you have therefore you are more ignorant by definition
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 1 year ago
Dragon_of_Christ
You made the debate so who is more ignorant?
No votes have been placed for this debate.