Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Did God intend humans do sin? RFD

famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

TL;DR

I do not vote on the sources points because I think that they affect the arguments and it would be unfair to also award sources to pro. I will have a full RFD up soon but I will briefly sum up my reason for decision. Con did not cite any sources and voters are not required to search up his bible extracts for him. Since I did not search up every reference that he made I do not know whether all of them were from credible sources and I do not know whether or not they were bias. This significantly mitigated his argument since without the sources to back up his claims he could essentially be arguing from random evidence. Con attempted to dismiss the argument regarding Lucifer by stating that he uses his own free will. However, an omniscient God would know what Lucifer was going to do and therefore this argument is flawed. Since this argument was not properly refuted Pro has met his burden. Con has failed to do so by failing to show me why his arguments matter and why I should buy them.

RFD

Sources: This point is evident and I don't understand how Con can contest with this. Con labelled sources in his argument and made numerous quotes. The voter that voted for him actually looked up all of this sources for him and analyzed them in depth. As a voter I am not required to look up numerous sources to check for the credibility of one's argument. Pro provided links to his sources and they were labelled under each argument that they corresponded to. This made it easy to know which sources went where and it showed how he came to conclusions that he came to throughout the debate. Since I do not award the sources points, I am mentioning this because it contributes as to why I vote Pro over Con on arguments.

Arguments: R1

From the beginning the credibility was doubtful due to the reasons above. Even if I did buy Con's arguments in R1 they weren't particularly convincing. The fact that God created man for his glory does not mean that God didn't want humans to sin. These quotes alone are meaningless, without explanation to each of the points I cannot see how this has any relevance to the resolution of this debate. I accept that this debate does require biblical quotes however they need to be explained in your own words as well as providing the quotes. Quotes alone are not enough to be considered as a valid argument.

Pro showed that God was omniscient and therefore he know the future before it has happened. This is true and is clearly supported through sources. This argument is key to the debate and is one of the deciding factors in the overall outcome. He continues on his argument regarding omniscience by demonstrating that the Christian God also knows what you are thinking. He even provides a reliable quote regarding God's statements in the creation story. He states that God says: "I make peace, and create evil". This is particularly mitigating to Con's argument since this is a direct quote from the Bible hub. Pro shows that the Bible shows that God created sin and God created humans with the ability to create evil and sin. This is particularly strong since every claim made by Pro is sourced and so I can check them. He even shows clear statements from the Bible claiming that all humans are sinners.

Overall, in R1 Pro is clearly winning and Con has provided nothing more than quotes. Pro was able to provide quotes, reliable sources and powerful argument explaining why these quotes impact upon the resolution and why he is affirming.

R2

Con doesn't do a particularly good job of responding to Pro's claims in R2. There are very few direct references to Pro's arguments. He states that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created sin. The problem I have with this claim is that it bares no weight without any sources. You cannot make a claim that require a source. Since Pro's claim was sourced I buy Pro's example over Con's rebuttal. After this extremely brief and weak rebuttal Con goes off topic and begins to define sin at a late stage in the debate (considering that it began in R1). Since there was no debate structure I am not penalizing him for this particular point. The reason that I am penalizing him for this is because he makes no attempt to directly refute Pro's claims which he needs to do in this round in order to keep their positions in the debate equal. If Pro goes ahead of Con in the debate then it will go unfairly in favor of Pro. I cannot mark Pro down for this because it was Con's doing that gave him this disadvantage.

As predicted, Pro easily refuted Con's rebuttal by repeating his point (and source) to prove that it did in fact say this. His source was from the Bible hub and therefore it was reliable and could have easily been used by both sides. Therefore it was no bias. There is really any necessary continuation of the rebuttals at this point however Pro does continue. He shows that King James was right by using sources and quotes to prove that God did in fact create sin. Pro picks up on Con's attempt to run a semantic in the debate and cuts it off before it can continue. He attempts to shift the BOP however since there was no reference as to what Pro must demonstrate apart from the content of the resolution there was nothing specific that Pro had to do, other than affirm the resolution - not necessarily through biblical passages solely. Pro proves that Lucifer's existence was evil and God must have known about Lucifer's mistakes because he is omniscient. He extends out the omniscience argument because it was never tackled by Con. He picks up on some of Con's bizarre claims that don't really do much other than show that Con doesn't really know much about what he's talking about. Con states that light and darkness cannot exist simultaneously. This is easily disproved by Pro when he states the difference in light and dark between the US and China.

I will continue this in the next post so do not think that this is the end of my RFD ...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
R3

Con claims that Pro is using an eisegesis interpretation of the text. Which basically means bias. Looking at the Bible hub in detail I cannot see any bias. They both relate to the bible and it's extracts and Pro is merely quoting. Con is in no position to claim that Pro is bias since we have no idea where he is sourcing his information from. Con finally attempts to refute Pro's omniscience however the rebuttal falls short. If God knows what will happen in the future then you have no free will. Con claiming that we do have free will is utterly contradictory. If God knows that I am going to kill somebody tomorrow then do I have a choice in the matter? No. It had to happen because God knew for a 100% certain chance that I would do so. Contradictory statements have no relevance to the debate and in fact they make me doubt Con even more than I am currently doing so. Con finally makes an adequate rebuttal to what Paul actually meant and for now the argument regarding Paul's interpretation of sin is a neutral argument since neither side have been able to provide a convincing offense. Pro's offense was refuted and Con's offense regarding this particular claim required a source for it to have any weight within the debate. Con also makes another good rebuttal and I think that if his claims were sourced he would have had a good chance of winning this debate because this was a particularly good round for him. His rebuttal shows the errors with Pro's source and that there can be multiple interpretations of the word and that it is false to assume that it only breaks down to the definitions provided. Con completely misses the point regarding Lucifer being evil. He states that Lucifer was born perfect however due to the fact that his omniscience argument bares no weight upon the resolution this statement cannot go in favor of Con. I now have the option of either awarding Pro the points for already pre-rebutting this contention with his omniscience argument (indirectly) or do I leave it neutralized. I chose to leave it as a neutralized contention that bared no weight upon the resolution since it wouldn't really effect the outcome either way. Con attempts to show that the resolution tells you to argue based solely off the bible although I do not buy this and since it was never specified in R1 I have no choice other than to view this argument as irrelevant to the debate.

Pro helpfully begins his round by defining eisegesis as bias. He is making claims directly from the Bible and therefore he could have possibly used that against Con. He goes on to prove that there is no bias by showing his quotes directly from the same people that Con is quoting. Pro shows that Con has been making completely irrational and strange decisions regarding the shifting of the BOP. He shows that Con is attempting to shift Pro's burden by stating that he must prove that it was God's purpose to make us all sin. He states that it was part of his intent and this coincides with the resolution - which is correct on Pro's behalf. Pro shows that Isiah points out when his end was coming and how it was predetermined by God. Therefore, Pro's argument is clearly superior to Con's. Pro continues on the Lucifer argument by creating a simple analogy. He provides the example of God (whilst creating the devil) remembering that the devil is evil. If he continues to create the devil then he is clearly creating sin - intentionally (and indirectly). Since the resolution never states whether or not God creates sin directly or indirectly this is not a mitigating point towards pro. One of Con's very few sufficient rebuttals was completely wiped out by Pro's defensive argument. He shows the context that Ra'a was in and since it was in the particular context that he used it in, it was made evident that it did in fact mean the definition that he proposed and this rendered Con's rebuttal inadequate. He points out the frequent reiterations that Con makes that don't do anything to support his case. In the end the argument regarding Lucifer is at such as late stage that Con is unable to make a recovery. The reiteration of previously refuted statements does nothing to strengthen his contention. Con technically makes a concession to this contention but nevertheless, I will cover it. Con makes the claim that we cannot love God without sin. The reason that this claim is unsupported and bares no weight are for the following reason: it isn't explained. Pro's response was exactly what I was thinking in my head. "Why couldn't we love god if we didn't have the capacity to sin?" This argument makes no sense and even if it was explained it is still unclear what impact this was intended to make.

This will be continued in the next post. This is not the end of my RFD ...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:48:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
R4

Con's biggest mistake in this round is beginning with references to R1. R1 was Con's weakest argument and attempting to bring it back up was a major mistake on Con's behalf. Con's whole argument so far has been on whether or no God directly created sin. However, what con has been failing to realize throughout the entire debate is that Pro's burden only requires him to show that the creation of sin (by God) was intentional. Not that he directly created it. Con's entire final round is an attempt to refute the possibility of God directly creating sin. This allows Pro to easily take the win on this debate since he completely ignores any possibility of God being a direct cause. In order to win, con needed to prove that God's decision to create the devil was not intended to relate to the birth of sin and Con failed to do this. By failing to do this, Con ultimately left open half of the possibilities of God intending to create sin open for Pro to easily use and claim victory over this debate. It baffles me as to why Con provided such a weak first (and last) round because throughout the course of the debate I was beginning to lean towards to Con however any inclination towards con was lost due to the 1st and final round of the debate. Sources was also a key factor in my ultimate decision.

Pro is forced to basically repeat what he has been trying to say throughout the whole debate in order to satisfy Con. He shows that Con has been avoiding contradictions, simply due to inconvenience. Con states that everything, in sense is not created by God. Pro agrees however due to the terms of the debate this is not a significant factor that affects the debate in any major way. He even highlights Con's (almost) concession. He tries to show that God would have no intention of creating sin so why would he do this. Pro then just reiterates his point regarding the bible's contradictions. This is the problem with these sort of debates. Each point effectively relates to another point, therefore Pro could essentially type out a rebuttal to 3 or 4 points in Con's argument and just repeat those rebuttals to refute the rest of his argument. Nevertheless, both parties agreed to doing this and therefore no points or deductions are necessary.

Overall, this was a very intriguing debate however there was not very much contest and the debate was essentially over after the first 2 rounds because after them the debate was just repetitive and nothing that Con said outweighed or demonstrated that what Pro was saying was false. Con focused too much on the direct element of the resolution and pro acknowledged this and simply argued on the opposite side and by the time that Con seemed to realize what Pro was doing (R3) it was far too late for a recovery and although it was possible any possibility of a recovery was mitigated by an extremely weak final round that tried to bring up Con's weakest arguments back into the debate. This was an interesting read although I am given no option other than to vote pro!
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
[For anybody that doesn't know what TL;DR is, it means 'To Long, Didn't Read It'. The TL;DR was basically a summary of why I voted Pro. The rest of the debate was analyzing individual contentions in greater detail]
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy