Debate Rounds (5)
for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast
faith=free will to let your kids play with the sharpest knife because the moon is made of cheese
a: Free will is an illusion. It doesn't exist at all.
b: Faith is a "cop-out," if you will. In other words, you believe faith to be a replacement for hard proof, evidence.
If this is what you are arguing, please let me know. I'd love to have a good, understandable debate.
you do not understand that knowledge is faith, this is insanity of hallucination
1) obviusly faith is not knowledge, imbecile troll.
I take your argument to mean that faith is the opposite of knowledge. That in mind, I'll start with some definitions so we don't get each other confused.
Faith: a belief that is not 100% proven.
Knowledge: having certain facts, data, and anyalisis of a given topic.
Opposite: completely different in every way.
That in mind, I don't see how this inflects the title of the debate: "free will." But I'll respond to this statement.
Faith doesn't mean you have no proof whatsoever. As a matter of fact, all worldviews cannot be proven by the scientific method. This doesn't mean they hold no merit, truth, or right. Even Darwinism (which I assume is your worldview) cannot be proven by it's very own ultimate authority, science! If there is strong evidence for both sides, it is not by definition 100% proven. One counterexample is all it takes.
2) you do not understand that knowledge is faith, this is insanity of hallucination
Hold on a second. If I understand this correctly, this argument is that knowledge IS faith. When just a moment ago, you stated that faith is the opposite of knowledge! As I'm not sure what you are arguing, I don't know how to refute this point.
Looking forward to your refutation.
future is unknown.. no evidence
knowledge is certain, faith is guessing..
1) fact=personal memory
Once again, let's define.
Fact: A true statement.
Personal Memory: A person's belief, understand about a topic, or worldview based on what they have observed in their life.
From this I infer you believe in relativity. That is, truth is relative to the person you ask. Once again, I don't see how this shows "free will." However, I'll refute it.
1+1=2, right? Wrong. There may be a person who believes that 1+1=3. There may be a person who believes 1+1=4. There may be a person who believes 1+1=5, 6, 7, and so on. Based on what you stated, "fact=personal memory," all of these are true and false at the same time.
2) future is unknown.. no evidence
I don't know what the future holds. Still don't see what this has to do with free will.
3) knowledge is certain, faith is guessing..
Faith isn't void of any knowledge. What is your worldview? I'm sure it relies on belief (or faith), and I'm sure you are able to assert some truth to it. Truth being facts, knowledge, etc. "...there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God, but there is adequate evidence to justify the assumption or the faith that God exists" (Thomas, 1965, p. 263, emp. in orig.). That's right, EVIDENCE. Not conjecture, guessing, or speculation, but evidence.
See you in round 4.
i have an unchallenged position if you noticed..
you are spewing liquid moon cheese
you have no memory of future, no knowledge.. truth can only be in the past
i dont have belief systems, i know my experience of now..
reality dosnt bend to the guessing game of faith
Free will is in existence. I don't disagree with that. But when you say that faith removes free will is where your argument falls apart. I myself am a believer in Christianity. This doesn't mean we don't have free will. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite! We can see this laid out quite clearly in the scripture. Take for example, Proverbs 16:9: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." In modern English: "A man's heart chooses his way: but the Lord directs his steps." Here's another verse on the subject, 2 Timothy 2:26: "And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." The Bible makes it clear: You chose to follow God or Satan. You have the choice: no one else, and you are responsible for that choice. Christianity doesn't take away free will, it gives it to you. Would you rather be a slave to the devil, or a follower of God?
My opponent keeps making the same point: that, in his own words, "faith=future=unknown you have no memory of future, no knowledge.. truth can only be in the past" He states also that truth is only in the past. But faith relies on the past! The Bible, if you haven't noticed, writes of the past and present. The past, being the Gospel, the Laws, etc. The present, being the Proverbs, the Psalms, and the philosophy it preaches. There is one book in the bible that talks of the future, and that is Revelations. In case you are unfamiliar, Revelations follows the journey of John the Apostle, who is shown Jesus coming to earth, and Heaven and Hell becoming reality. Revelation 21:1 states, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." The parts of the Bible that talk of the future are the Prophets. The Bible is not all prophesy.
In conclusion, faith does not take away free will, but instead gives it to you, as demonstrated by the verses Proverbs 16:9 and 2 Timothy 2:26. In addition, faith is not "unknown," but holds much truth, seing as it writes of what has come, what is, and what is to come, not only what is to come. There are more Bible verses, but I need not put all of them in this debate. I'll redirect a link to the verses I used.
Free will: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
New earth: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...
Looking forward to your Round 5 argument.
truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as i can at best imagine and believe in it
god is not real
your conclusion is holes in the cheesemoon
Seeing as this is the last round, I'll begin with a refutation, and then closing arguments.
In case Pro has forgotten, we've already defined this term as
Faith: a belief that is not 100% proven. (Round 2, Con)
Now Pro brings a new, undefined term into the debate: "Guess." Let's define it as follows:
Guess: an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever.
We can see that this is completely different from faith. A guess relies on probability alone, or the absence of a counterargument. We can see that 1) probability is not the only factor when it comes to faith, as demonstrated in my previous arguments, and 2) there are many counterexamples to faith. There is a) Secular Humanism, b) Post Modernism, c) Marxism-Leninism, and so on and so forth. And yet, all of these "counterexamples" require faith as well! NONE of these can be 100% proven by any means. They can only be proven more or less likely than not. See this link to find a sheet on the prevailing worldviews in today's society: http://www.summit.org...
2) truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as I can at best imagine and believe in it
So then World War 1 never happened? By Pro's logic (If I didn't see it it holds no truth), all of history, science, and philosophy that did not occur in his lifetime is not true. Then believing that the Industrial Revolution occurred requires faith, believing that Edison made the first mass-producible lightbulb requires faith, and believing that Einstein discovered relativity (which Pro believes in) requires faith. Pro's arguments are contradictory.
In closing, faith does not strip away free will. It does quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, it gives you the biggest choice to make: Do I choose to follow God or Satan? Also, it's Pro's burden to prove that free will is stripped away when you believe in something, and simply put, Pro has failed to do so. Vote negative.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.