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

The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

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  
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: 6/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,183 times Debate No: 17053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

I challenge any who propose that the Christian deity, and Free Will are anything but mutually exclusive.

The bible is full of contradictions, this is just one example that comprises a married, bachelor contradiction.

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.

In short If god has superior foreknowledge, someone dying an atheist,
would be serving an eternal punishment by gods design, or intentional lack there of.

Just a little something to dress your straw men.
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank the Instigator for issuing this challenge. I don't have very many characters to works with, so I'll get right to it.

God is all-knowing. He knows everything, even what will happen in the future (1 John 3:20, Daniel 2:45). There are also times in which God has set things into motion, which could not be changed (Jeremiah 1:5). However, this was the exception and not the rule.

Just because God knows what will happen does not mean it must happen that way. If I know you're going to the store next Saturday, you can still change those plans. The difference being that God knows whether you will change your plans or not. God does not force anyone to do anything, He just knows what things will happen.
Debate Round No. 1
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

If he knows what things will happen then we are just playing out according to his superior understanding, if we are just his plan in action, We have no choice.

We start our life not knowing our arms are actually us, and that they're attached. That is learned in time. If god knows us better than we do, then it is really just him that we mistaking for us. The contradiction is that we are operating with a brain that has only one means of understanding, "Relating". By this linear model of relating over time, its mutually exclusive to assume that the state of the brain in Time(A) can ever know the state of the brain in Time(B).

If we are anything it along for the ride, patterns in patterns.

If you believe in Free Will then don't picture an orange
KeytarHero

Pro

We may be playing out according to what He sees, but He does not force us to do anything. We are still free to make choices. If I'm deciding between having fish or chicken for dinner, God knows that I'll go for the chicken, but He did not force me to choose the chicken. I had the free choice to do so.

God also does not want anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), yet there are still those who reject Him and go to Hell. God does not force a choice on anyone. An atheist who rejects God's salvation has no one to blame but themselves, because we've been warned.

Even a person with no arms has a future, and they are free to make decisions that will affect that future freely.
Debate Round No. 2
GOD-vs-ITSELF

Con

Contention
1) What about if you have a chicken allergy (This is unavoidable, its word play to say this isnt forcing)
2) What if fish is the only thing you can afford (is god going to make sure you get it anyway, because many people want things they
will never have, just because god placed them there, third world countries ,Bums)
3) Did the chicken and fish have a say in this, or where they the subject to causality.
4) anything that takes 1 of 2 possible paths have choice (so a dog is free if he chews my shoes over sandals)

Baby takes MCAT's Exam Im not forcing him to fail it, but I send him to an etrnity for Hell for it, When I know he will only pass with luck (not choice). if he didnt pass then i should have known better. Maybe an abortion...
KeytarHero

Pro

1) If you have a chicken allergy, you are still free to eat chicken if you want to risk the consequences.
2) You must live within your means. You may have the will to consume chicken, but if you can't afford it you have to have what you can afford.
3) Chicken and fish can still try to get away if someone is trying to kill them and eat them.
4) Your dog does have a choice of what to chew up, even though you may chastise them and put them outside if they do.

A baby has not developed enough to be able to pass any sort of exam. You can't honestly expect a baby to pass. However, once we are old enough, we know the difference between right and wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Yeah, I could make a much more sophisticated case if I had enough characters to do it in.
Posted by GOD-vs-ITSELF 5 years ago
GOD-vs-ITSELF
I do apologize, i am regretting the lack of characters as well. But its my first few debates here, 8000 seemed like a lot, but it probably just enough to restate the case and put forth a proper counter.

Voters it may be my lack of characters that may be the cause for my opponent the inability to give a proper reply to my 4 Contentions. Due to such restrictions it may be a good idea to focus on what is said, not what is left out.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Seven-hundred fifty is not a lot of characters to work with.
Posted by GOD-vs-ITSELF 5 years ago
GOD-vs-ITSELF
If you are going to use foreknowledge be clear on how that differs.

Say anything you feel, why do you think you can have free will and god, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Jk thanks for accepting
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
I accpept your debate, but I'm unclear on a couple of points:

What, exactly, are we arguing? Am I arguing that with God's foreknowledge, we still do have free will?

Also, since there are only three rounds, should I start with my argument right out of the gate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has burden of proof being the instigator, which he did not fulfill. He provided nothing but assertions regarding Christian theology, assertions which are severely lacking. In addition, he consistently used lowercase "g" for the word "God" which is a proper noun in reference to the Christian God... he did the same thing with "Bible." Finally, he made no reference to Scripture which is the primary epistemological foundation for Christianity. Any discussion of the Christian God must go there
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
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: Maybe because of character allowance, but con's argument was almost non-existent. This would prolly be a good debate if you'd have a rematch and allow 8000 characters.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: It is very difficult to argue in such short constraints and props to both for attempting it. "Just because God knows what will happen does not mean it must happen that way. " - Con took this part as while this is true it is not obvious to anyone who has not studied the arguments and it centers on what it means to know. However later on Con's argument becomes hard to follow, and considering he has the BoP this has to go to Pro 2:1