The Instigator
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

The existence of free will as proposed by the bible (Cont.debate)

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 17117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con


In the case of gods existence, the theist must admit that god had only itself to use. A perfect being that makes imperfect beings, is doing so with the fullest of intention taking away our choice to be imperfect in whatever way we have been designed, and placed.

This subject will be allowed to touch on Morality, Free Will, Souls, Heaven, and ofcourse God.

1st) Acceptance
2nd) Continued from closing arguments of prior debate
......
......
5th) Closing resolutions


KeytarHero

Pro

As per the instructions, I will use this round to indicate my acceptance of the terms. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

�I would like to sincerely thank this great debater for taking the time to continue to in this fascinating subject.�

I apologize for the lack of characters in our last debate I wildly underestimated the magnitude of this subject. My example came across vague, and maybe even hard to relate to.

I guess we will start with,

My fourth contention on our last debate, i was proposing my perspective of your model,

"anything that takes 1 of 2 possible paths have choice (so a dog is free if he chews my shoes over sandals)"

This is trying to aim at the question,
Do dogs have free will

You responded
4) Your dog does have a choice of what to chew up, even though you may chastise them and put them outside

if the border does not compare to the bible taken literally, what is the essential properties needed to be considered a chooser

I proposed that you were basing the destination on
"anything that takes 1 of 2 possible paths, so far this is your interpretation of free will, until otherwise stated

Another possible answer is anything organized into a structure is considered to be alive, because it can exist in the universe that is constantly fluctuating.

energy is existing for extremely small spans of time and then get annihilated, this is actually the one area pointed out by theist to describe randomness in the brain.
They either accidentally or intentionally leave out that this is happening everywhere, to us animals plants rocks, and even time is in constant flux. All things that are considered solid are mostly empty space everything is in constant flux.
Randomness is unable to predict, �but we can still compose a view of this based on general relativity, Einstein has stated that everything is relative, and noticed our universal speed limit, a term that will exist for as long as this universe.�

It has now been proven that time is even relative.
Check out how the twins paradox relates to how they must constantly reset our GPS satellites to account for the difference in the gravitational force, if not constantly accounting for randomness bye bye Tom Tom.

Interesting read at source http://metaresearch.org...
Such comments referring to instability, such as,
because atomic clocks change frequencies by small, semi-random amounts (of order 1 ns/day) at unpredictable times for reasons that are not fully understood. As a consequence, the long-term accuracy of these clocks is poorer than their short-term accuracy.

�This model of the world has got to intrigue you first off, religion was invented when the world was flat, and spitting on wounds were a cure. They decided to make the line of what is conscious, making free will exclusive to humans. Everything has been considered conscious because nobody can place that dividing line.

Here are some of my views on choice and how confusing the paradox can become if thinking that free will can be "created"�

Considering that choice must "be", whether, or not it is "chosen" by god or not, because choice Demands the platform of choice, it in its nature, creates itself before it can be created, say that someone has no choice but to choose, because if they can propose to create choice or not it must already exist.�

Free Will is Choice, But the idea choice is a lot like the idea of god because, such as, How it would take a super intelligence to make intelligence , but Gods mind must be even more elaborate more complex, if a humans are complex enough to be considered unable to occur by random events then surely gods designer must be even more fundamentally unlikely to have occurred, because gods god would then be even more elaborate a structure, Much like when analyzing the concept of choice, One must presuppose choice exists before one can CHOOSE, to make Choice or not

With throwing choice out of the equation and understanding that even god is subject to debate when he is considered free when there is no logical way choice can be chosen�
It doesn't matter if one avenue split into two, and it doesn't matter if the �first choice to choose choice(choice to be)was chosen by god, or us, because choice is it's own prerequisite so such paradox must be just boiled down to whatever is, is because if its isn't it isn't.

You have no choice but to go with the whatever is because is, is all there is or else it would be, otherwise.

So back to the debate

In the example my opponent stated �"god knows that you will change your mind" �means that there is 0 chance that an atheist can be anything other than an atheist, where the baby vs MCATs is actually a possibility, maybe the same or more probable than the odds of the baby even being born in the first place.

Question.
Babies dies shorty after being born, If it is to preserve the babies fragile state to inhibit it from going to hell then all souls can be preserved in this way.

If true that�means if an atheist were just murdered at birth it would save such a soul from an eternity of torment, sounds like killing every baby that could ever exist would be doing more good than what any church could do if just one atheist dies because of this not making use of loophole�a sad not to mention EXTREMELY Dangerous world view, and this is from an unlikely source being pro life an all�

I await your response

If you are unable see your will done without restriction then we are not taking free literally.

My opponent has said that "you are expected to live within your means" in the case someone wills chicken but cannot always get what one wills.
What would you do if you had a million dollars? Well you would act like a millionaire, which may include feeling like god thinks your so special that you deserve to know he is there by some timely saving grace, as most Christians attribute their faith to.

Question.
Is this "living within means" related to the Body, Brain capacity, Physical ability?

Because I can agree with that completely! everyone lives within their means of decision making innate to themselves, this exchange is not just monetary, it could even be considered that the body is an economy of chemicals and one can only live within the means of the chemicals available, since every piece of energy must hold within the means of E=MC2 this means of reference is as expected just another way of expressing the fundamental aspects that exist in numerous applications.
This equilibrium does not signify free will. It is the only way in which the universe is holding itself together.

I think that is enough for now I am curious as to what the finding may be.
KeytarHero

Pro

As this is a continuation of a previous debate [1], I will make a more sophisticated case for free will with the Christian God. After I make my case, I will address the Instigator's arguments and, characters permitting, a few things from our previous debate.

God is all-knowing. He knows everything, even what will happen in the future (1 John 3:20, Daniel 2:45). He knows our deepest desires and feelings. He created us, so He literally knows everything about us.

There are also times in which God has set things into motion, which could not be changed. He chose Jeremiah from the womb to be his prophet (Jeremiah 1:5), and even sending Jesus to the cross was a part of His plan (2 Timothy 1:9). However, these were exceptions and not the rule.

When God created Adam and Eve, he planted a tree in the Garden of Eden called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which He forbade them to eat from. He knew they would eat from it anyway, but He didn't force them do it. They had the free will not to eat from the tree, and didn't have to do it. God knew they would anyway. (Genesis 2-3).

God may know the future, and may be able to know with accuracy what will happen but it doesn't mean things must happen that way. For example, if I know you're going to the store tomorrow your plans may chance and you end up not going. Going to the store wasn't set in stone just because you knew you were going to go. The difference would be that God would know if your plans are going to change, or if you just decide not to go and put it off until tomorrow. You are still free to make those choices, God just knows which choice you are going to make and whether you'll change them or not.

There are also instances in the Scriptures where God had planned to do something, but relented and didn't follow through. For instance, after Jonah witnessed to the Ninevites, God did not follow through on their destruction due to the fact that they repented of their wickedness (Jonah 3). God, of course, knew that the Ninevites would repent when Jonah went and revealed their sinfulness to them, but had they not repented they would have been destroyed. They were free not to repent.

Our sin will also condemn us to an eternity in Hell. God could not hold us accountable for our sin if we were not responsible for committing them. We would not be responsible for committing them if we had no choice whether or not to commit them.

So as you can see, the existence of God does not preclude having a free will. Knowing what will happen is not the same as forcing something to happen.

I will now respond to the Instigator's argument:

Whether or not animals have a free will is a complicated question. Humans and animals are different; humans are inherently moral and rational creatures, with the ability to reason and understand the world around us.

Children must be taught to understand morality; if you put candy in one bowl and broccoli in another bowl in front of a child, they will go right for the candy unless they have been taught to go for the broccoli because it's better for them.

A dog, on the other hand, can never be taught morality. Every animal is different; some have a preference for toys, some have a preference for dog treats, some have a preference for slippers. A dog can be taught to avoid chewing on slippers, but not because chewing on someone else's slippers is wrong. The dog learns not to chew on your slippers because you don't like it, and you control the food, treats, and shock collar.

A dog does have free will, in that if you put two pairs of slippers in front of him, he can choose which one to chew up. However, if you bought the dog a chew toy, he may decide to chew your slippers until you train him not to. Or he may just find the chew toy more appealing and chew on it. Dogs do not have free will because of any moral implications. We do. But they still have free choice. Even if you are training them not to chew on your slippers, they still have the choice whether to obey and be rewarded, or to disobey and get another shock (or to be put outside).

I must confess I'm not sure what most of the rest of your argument has to do with the topic at hand. You seem to indicate that because we can choose in the first place, we have no choice but to choose, and therefore our very choices are not freely made because we are forced to make them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with this philosophy is that there's no inherent punishment for making any choices, just by virtue that we are choosing. If a bank robber holds a gun to a bank teller's head and tells her to put the money in the bag, she still has a free choice. She can disobey and take a bullet to the head, or comply and give the robber his money. No jury would convict that bank teller because she acquiesced under duress. If she hadn't complied, she would have been killed. However, even though some choices have negative consequences, there is no negative consequence just by virtue of being able to choose. In fact, the basic ability to choose helps us to grow and mature.

No one is born a Theist. it is more likely to be born an atheist, because you have to learn about a particular religious discipline, or question your existence in the universe in order to realize there is a God. There is every chance an atheist can become a Theist. God just knows who will come to believe and who won't. He doesn't force belief on anyone. He doesn't force anyone to love Him. That would negate the very essence of love. What makes love so special is that we choose to love someone. Would you want someone to love you because they were forced to?

I fail to see how it is possible for a baby to pass the MCAT test, or any other test. You have to learn about the discipline before you can hope to pass a fundamental test in that discipline.

While my faith in God makes me pro-life, I am also pro-life because of science and reason. This is actually an irrelevant question because whether or not a baby who dies goes to Heaven has nothing to do with free will. It's always sad when a child dies. There is good Biblical evidence to suppose that babies who die go to Heaven, but if they do, so what? That doesn't give us a right to kill unborn children just because they'll probably go to Heaven. We have no right to kill any innocent human. But again, this is irrelevant.

In your last round of the previous debate, you mentioned someone with a chicken allergy. Someone with that allergy can still choose to eat chicken if they wish, but they must be prepared to deal with the consequences. A teenager who has a habit of breaking out after eating chocolate is still free to do so. Some teenagers are willing to risk a pimple to consume chocolate. We all have choices, and some consequences are more dangerous and long-lasting than others. That doesn't mean we are not free to choose.

I look forward to our next round.

[1] http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

GOD-vs-ITSELF forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the previous round. As such, I extend my arguments into the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

I would like to thank my fellow debater for continuing through, this discussion has been a great experience for me, I am a novice when it comes to structure. I greatly appreciate you having this back and forth with me, and I sincerely apologize for taking up so much of your time last round.


A few questions, and assumptions based on your comments
.

"God may know the future, and may be able to know with accuracy what will happen but it doesn't mean things must happen that way"
one may assume you should have stated COMPLETE ACCURACY
Based on your making mention of what follows
"The difference would be that God would know if your plans are going to change, or if you just decide not to go and put it off until tomorrow. You are still free to make those choices, God just knows which choice you are going to make and whether you'll change them or not."

but

(There are also instances in the Scriptures where God had planned to do something, but relented and didn't follow through. For instance, "after Jonah witnessed to the Ninevites, God did not follow through on their destruction due to the fact that they repented of their wickedness (Jonah 3). God, of course, knew that the Ninevites would repent when Jonah went and revealed their sinfulness to them, but had they not repented they would have been destroyed.
")

in this example; god is seemingly always relenting from enforcing punishments IN EVERY INSTANCE that a fork in the road may lead to a destructive or constructive path, in your view god is relenting punishment for all of us, all the time.
In other words
It would be meaningless to say, God is not following through on my destruction due the fact I didn't do anything worthy of destruction, god knew that I wouldn't but if I did I would have been destroyed.

Do you see how strange it sounds that god didn't follow through because he realized what he already knew.

On to the next thing

Seemingly conflicting statements
"Humans are inherently moral, and rational creatures, with the ability to reason and understand the world around us."

"Children must be taught to understand morality"

There seems to be a lot of leniency given to babies, and not enough to us all. It would be hard to uphold a public office with such a quote, but, it should be viewed for what it is. There are many variables in this universe in which you will find yourself without choices. That is almost the fun, what choices your current situation will allow you. I say almost the fun, because sometimes, it can be not very fun at all, but survival. There are humans that live in cannibalistic tribes, and some have been known to describe gravity, as coming up to meet the object. The point is, it becomes painfully obvious that morality is subject to individuality, and individuality is learned through whatever means of society is available. Much like every other species.

Your Bank Robber Scenario
"If a bank robber holds a gun to a bank teller's head and tells her to put the money in the bag, she still has a free choice. She can disobey and take a bullet to the head, or comply and give the robber his money. No jury would convict that bank teller because she acquiesced under duress. If she hadn't complied, she would have been killed. However, even though some choices have negative consequences, there is no negative consequence just by virtue of being able to choose. In fact, the basic ability to choose helps us to grow and mature."

It seems like in every example you allow a fair amount of choice, you most likely allow this to also blame for the real problem, Causation.

If we could now allow my scenario for lack of choice.


A hardworking Christian mother of three comes in to work after doing early prep for the Food Drive for the Homeless Charity which she will holding after another day of good Ole bank telling. Just after greeting sally she is approaching her teller station, when a sneaky middle eastern man shoots her in the back of the head.

Question.
What happened to our female bank tellers Free Choice there? What if it wasn't another person sinning but an earthquake destroyed the bank, killing an innocent.


More on the Chicken Allergy

"In your last round of the previous debate, you mentioned someone with a chicken allergy. Someone with that allergy can still choose to eat chicken if they wish, but they must be prepared to deal with the consequences. A teenager who has a habit of breaking out after eating chocolate is still free to do so. Some teenagers are willing to risk a pimple to consume chocolate. We all have choices, and some consequences are more dangerous and long-lasting than others. That doesn't mean we are not free to choose."

The issue is some teenagers can eat chocolate and not break out, some can eat chicken and not be allergic. God is all powerful and just chooses to make some people break out more often or for different reasons than others. How are we free to choose if we have no idea of the consequences and we just have to go with the limited choice that's there, and hope it doesn't kill us. People have serious medical problems all the time, and they did nothing to deserve it, and there is nothing to be learned, babies born so sick they just die. Without the burden of proof I am sure we can both agree on the fact, neurological problems are not chosen, but either hereditary, or some other cause ubiquitous to most living species on earth, such as lack of oxygen. Poor judgement is a onset symptom with a lack of oxygen, and many ways just that cause, can be caused.

also

say one little boy goes for the cookie jar, and seeing this, the other boy does the same, but in doing so he receives a hefty wop on the hand. I am being light example on this but then again you might say its not right to wop kids on the hand so its irrelevant, or you might say that boy deserved it because he knew or should have known the consequences.


One Last Thing

Just trying to understand this basic story from the info provided.
"When God created Adam and Eve, he planted a tree in the Garden of Eden called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which He forbade them to eat from. He knew they would eat from it anyway, but He didn't force them do it. They had the free will not to eat from the tree, and didn't have to do it. God knew they would anyway. (Genesis 2-3)."

"I fail to see how it is possible for a baby to pass the MCAT test, or any other test. You have to learn about the discipline before you can hope to pass a fundamental test in that discipline."

I don't think Adam and Eve learned about the discipline of resistance, but not a fundamental test, a full on, getting serious test. It seems like if you are going to gamble punishment for the entire species then maybe it would have been a good idea for god to take your test taking advice.




Also whether this should play into the model of discussion, over debate, I greatly appreciate and enjoy it all the same.


I look forward to our next round!


KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to welcome Con back to the debate and am grateful he did not simply give it up.

"one may assume you should have stated COMPLETE ACCURACY'

Yes, that should really go without saying as the word accuracy, itself, means without error.

"in this example; god is seemingly always relenting from enforcing punishments IN EVERY INSTANCE that a fork in the road may lead to a destructive or constructive path, in your view god is relenting punishment for all of us, all the time."

Not every time. After all, Sodom and Gomorrah did not repent of their wickedness and they were destroyed for it. God's mercy and grace is always available, but only if you receive it and change your wicked ways.

As I have stated, God does not force anyone to do anything. If you haven't repented, He's not going to forgive you. If He knows it's going to happen, the effects don't happen until the cause happens. For instance, God knows how long we're going to live. He also knows if we're going to repent or not. Now say you get hit by a car and die early on in life. God would know if you would have repented had you been hit by the car, but since you got hit by the car before you repented you would not be saved. This is why Christians urge people not to wait because you don't know how long you have until you die.

There is nothing conflicting in my statements. Humans have the inherent ability to reason within ourselves, but we still must be taught right from wrong. That's why we have parents.

I fail to see how your examples of cannibalistic societies and those with a different understanding of gravity are relevant to the existence of free will. This isn't about morality, this is about free choice. No matter what your morality, you still have choices you can make. Even if you have differing opinions of what is good or not, you still have the same choice I do. If I believe A is right and you believe B is right, I might choose A and you might choose B because we both consider ourselves to be moral people. However, no one is perfect -- I might occasionally choose B and you might occasionally choose A because we don't particularly feel like abiding by our morals that day.

I'm not sure what you mean by Causation. If something causes me to act a certain way, I could still act the opposite if I so chose. For instance, if someone is annoying me I could yell and them to be quiet, as anyone might be inclined to do in that situation. But I could also choose to ignore it, or even stand up and go someplace else.

There may be certain situations in which we don't have a choice, but that's because someone takes our choice away from us. The man who shot her in the back of the head took away her choice to continue living. He did have the choice of whether to shoot her, to give her demands, or to not try and rob the bank. She was still a free person, just like the rest of us. Same with the earthquake. A natural disaster took her choice away. It wouldn't be accurate to say she never had free will just because her choice was taken away in one situation.

You're misconstruing Christian theology. God doesn't make anyone break out with pimples or gives them food allergies. These things are a result of the fall, when Adam and Eve originally sinned. There may be situations in which we don't have a choice, but that doesn't take away from our free will. Sometimes there is no choice to make, or no good choice, but we are forced into the situation. Our choice in the matter is taken away from us.

With the example about the cookie jar, you are actually helping to make my case. The boy had a choice of whether to go for the cookie or not. It is irrelevant if one boy was punished and the other not. They both made the decision to take a cookie against their parents' wishes. One was punished because he was caught doing it.

"I don't think Adam and Eve learned about the discipline of resistance, but not a fundamental test, a full on, getting serious test. It seems like if you are going to gamble punishment for the entire species then maybe it would have been a good idea for god to take your test taking advice."

You confused me with this paragraph here. Could you please explain what you mean?

I look forward to our final round.
Debate Round No. 4
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

Thank you so much for this debate, it has been a great experience, and a wonderful time!

This is the last round so I will have to sum up my concluding remarks
I would like to clarify my last point, because it may have come across fuzzy

Why I stated "one may assume you should have stated COMPLETE ACCURACY' allow me to clear up why I was thrown off.

Your statements
"Yes, that should really go without saying as the word accuracy, itself, means without error."

"God may know the future, and may be able to know with accuracy what will happen but it doesn't mean things must happen that way"

WHICH IS SAYING

God may know without error what will happen, but it does not mean it will happen that way.

(WHICH IMPLIES)
GOD MAY KNOW EVERYTHING, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN HE KNOWS EVERYTHING.

This is a dodgy argument where you're trying to defend both sides. I'll have to take that as you saying that god doesn't know which seems like that is contradictory to your following statement.

"The difference would be that God would know if your plans are going to change, or if you just decide not to go and put it off until tomorrow. You are still free to make those choices, God just knows which choice you are going to make and whether you'll change them or not."

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


I think I may have missed my mark on my explanation of why I believe this is wrong

YOUR STATEMENT
"There are also instances in the Scriptures where God had planned to do something, but relented and didn't follow through. For instance, "after Jonah witnessed to the Ninevites, God did not follow through on their destruction due to the fact that they repented of their wickedness (Jonah 3). God, of course, knew that the Ninevites would repent when Jonah went and revealed their sinfulness to them, but had they not repented they would have been destroyed.")"

I said
in this example; god is seemingly always relenting from enforcing punishments IN EVERY INSTANCE that a fork in the road may lead to a destructive or constructive path, in your view god is relenting punishment for all of us, all the time."

To accurately described my point I should have stated, God is always (relenting, or continuing) To (punish, or reward) IN EVERY INSTANCE. If I do something for which I am going to repent for, God wouldn't be considered to be "not following through with his plans", because I repented. He would be considered to be following through on his original plan to not give punishment for, what has been repented for, without exception.

This is our last round so I hope that it is understood that if this was supposed to be a scripture that proves that god can change his mind, then this only proves my point as to how god must follow through.


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

Now for some more conflicting statements


"Humans are inherently moral, and rational creatures, with the ability to reason and understand the world around us."
Here you say are inherently morality and rationality

"Children must be taught to understand morality"
Here you try to not consider Children Humans, and say morality is acquired through being taught.

("There is nothing conflicting in my statements. Humans have the inherent ability to reason within ourselves, but we still must be taught right from wrong. That's why we have parents."
Here you say we inherit the ability to reason, but your explanation of morality is if we are lucky enough to have parents then they can teach us.
What if our parents are morally bankrupt, or there are no parents to speak of. Then where do you inherit morality, NOWHERE.

ANY WHO THIS IS CONFLICTING BECAUSE it goes from "HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY MORAL" TO, " WE MUST BE TAUGHT."

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

More of your conflicting statements

This is your response after I asked do dogs have free will

"Dogs do not have free will because of any moral implications. We do. But they still have free choice. Even if you are training them not to chew on your slippers, they still have the choice whether to obey and be rewarded, or to disobey and get another shock (or to be put outside)."


Then your statements change after I bring up cannibalistic tribes


"This isn't about morality, this is about free choice. No matter what your morality, you still have choices you can make. Even if you have differing opinions of what is good or not, you still have the same choice I do."

It seems like you are trying to use the concept of morality as you see fit. I brought up the cannibalistic tribes to convey the fact, Morality is up in the air, and is a luck of birth.
It might as well just be considered a way of identifying one group from another. Mainly it is about supporting a group that will advance your life span. It isn't about being a cannibal it is about surviving in a location where the only morality there is to know is the morality you LEARN FROM YOUR PERENTS!!!!!.

I would love to leave Morality, out of the free will out of the equation. It is you that is trying to save your theory with the weak argument of saying dogs don't have morals, therefore they aren't free. Then I bring up Cannibalistic tribes and you throw out Morality as necessary for humans free will, and you try to defend "Free Choice"


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

My reasoning behind the cookie jar scenario

YOUR STATEMENT
"With the example about the cookie jar, you are actually helping to make my case. The boy had a choice of whether to go for the cookie or not. It is irrelevant if one boy was punished and the other not. They both made the decision to take a cookie against their parents' wishes. One was punished because he was caught doing it."

I find you to be a very nice, and honest person given your take on this argument. My rationality behind this analogy was presenting the injustice that some are dealt with, Allergies, Neurological disorders. My position was that the parents knew that both boys were going for a cookie, and only one gets punished. (APPARENTLY ITS DUE TO THE FALL)

ANOTHER SLIGHTLY RELATED THING

IT SEEMS LIKE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO SAY THAT

YOUR STATEMENT
"Even if you have differing opinions of what is good or not, you still have the same choice I do. If I believe A is right and you believe B is right, I might choose A and you might choose B because we both consider ourselves to be moral people. However, no one is perfect -- I might occasionally choose B and you might occasionally choose A because we don't particularly feel like abiding by our morals that day."

FIRST YOU THREW MORALITY OUT OF THE EQUATION FOR FREE WILL, AND DUBBED IT FREE CHOICE.

YOUR STATEMENT
"There may be situations in which we don't have a choice, but that doesn't take away from our free will. Sometimes there is no choice to make, or no good choice, but we are forced into the situation. Our choice in the matter is taken away from us."


NOW YOUR TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN HAVE FREE WILL EVEN IF THERE IS NO CHOICE, NO A NO B, NOTHING.

IF I LOSE THIS THEN VOTERS ARE ADMITTING THAT FREE WILL = NO CHOICE

THERE ARE ALOT OF WAYS TO GO ON THIS, AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON BUT AS THIS IS MY LAST ROUND.

I WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN SINCERELY THANK MY OPPONENT FOR THE CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT IS ON HIS MIND, AND WHAT MAY BE AN UNDERLYING TRUTH IN MANY CHRISTIANS.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE VOTERS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR US OUT.
KeytarHero

Pro

Again, I would like to thank the Instigator for issuing the challenge of this debate.

Actually, I feel I need to clarify my statements. I said that God knows what will happen in the future, without error. God knows what will happen and knows with accuracy, but it doesn't mean things must happen that way. In other words, just because God knows the future doesn't mean it's the only possible outcome. It will happen that way, but it doesn't mean that it must. It could have happened another way, but if it did then God would know. I hope this makes it more clear.

There are punishments for sins, and there are rewards for doing good. If we sin and die in our sins, we will go to Hell for eternity. Every person is on this path. It is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). However, God does not force anyone to love Him or to repent. If He did, then He would be choosing whom to save and whom to let suffer eternally in Hell. God knows who will believe in Him and who won't, but He doesn't force anyone to choose salvation. The choice is ultimately ours to make.

So no, while every choice comes with a reward or punishment, not every choice comes with the same outcome.

There is still nothing conflicting in my statements. Humans are inherently moral and rational creatures, but not every accepts the same standard of morality. While my parents taught me to respect the Bible and God's morality, an atheist will teach their kids not to believe in a god because to them, it is foolish. We may have certain morals in common (for instance, a Christian an atheist will both believe that murder is wrong), but a Christian will believe that fornication is wrong whereas an atheist will see nothing wrong with it. We all have the ability to reason (to decide for ourselves that path our lives should take), and we all have an inherent moral code (commonly referred to as a "conscience").

You can inherit morality from places other than your parents. For instance, an atheist who comes to faith in Christ will draw their morality from the Scriptures. Also, if no parents are around, there is always the legal guardian, other family members, or friends. Everyone gets their morality from somewhere, and even if they don't have a good example of morality in their lives, everyone still has the inherent ability to know whether something is right or not.

You are seeing conflicts in my statements where there are none. Free choice has nothing to do with morality. Even someone with no moral compass at all still has the freedom to choose their actions. But morality can affect how you choose. For instance, a happily married man who doesn't believe adultery is wrong may go out and sleep with another woman. Or he may still choose to be faithful to his wife because he has no desire to sleep with other women. Whereas a Christian should never decide to sleep with another woman because adultery is a sin, but there are still Christians who do it. Morality affects your decisions to act on your free will, but it has no bearing on free will in and of itself. Morality is not required to make a free choice.

I agree that there is huge injustice in this world. But that doesn't negate free will. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. It's just a part of life. A very unfortunate part of life. This still doesn't negate free will. One can have the will to do something, even if their means prevent it.

I am saying that there may be times in which our freedom to choose is taken away from us, but this doesn't mean the freedom to choose does not exist. We don't have to be completely free in every choice we make in order for free will to exist. Sometimes our means prevent us from doing or having what we want to have, and sometimes we are forced or coerced into making a choice we would not have made otherwise. But this doesn't mean that we are never free to choose anything.

As this is our final round, I have responded to my opponent's objections and didn't add any new arguments to the mix. I believe I have shown that we do indeed have free will, even with the Christian God in the equation. There may be times when we can't choose because our means prevent it, or that we are forced or coerced into making a choice we would not have made otherwise, but the person taking our choice away had the choice of whether to take our choice away or not. If we find ourselves in a situation in which we really have no choice, this does not mean that we are never free to choose.

Again, I thank the Instigator for issuing this challenge and the reader for your consideration in this matter.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
GOD-vs-ITSELFKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for FF. I will read this later for args.
Vote Placed by Ricky_Zahnd 5 years ago
Ricky_Zahnd
GOD-vs-ITSELFKeytarHeroTied
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: It was difficult to judge, but ultimately pro failed to refute cons most important issues with the resolution. Con - try to limit your use of bold and underline to main ideas and theses - overuse can make your argument seem weaker than it is.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
GOD-vs-ITSELFKeytarHeroTied
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: pro responded to con's objections while maintaining his own defense. Overall, this was a tough debate to judge.