CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
21
Yes No
Debate Score:33
Arguments:24
Total Votes:34
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

ChuckHades(3198) pic



Is the free will defense a successful rebuttal to the logical problem of evil?

Yes

Side Score: 12
VS.

No

Side Score: 21
2 points

If one has been given free will to act in a manner we would deem to be either good or evil, then he could conceivably commit acts which we view as being evil. The Problem of Evil precludes free will.

Side: Yes
2 points

But your argument here has no bearing on whether there is a necessary logical inconsistency between the existence of evil (and suffering) and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God.

Side: No
Apollo(1606) Disputed
1 point

But why would a god give its subjects free will only to punish them if they use it? The entire point of religions like Islam and Christianity is submission. God doesn't want you to have free will. He wants you to act how he tells you to act. Why then would he even give his subjects free will? Either way, the idea of this kind of a god refutes itself.

Side: No

I would say it is. Human's have a measure of free will, which if you believe in Christianity is God given. If you believe, it will look like a viable argument for you. If you don't, it will look like a logic circle. Same with the reverse. As with most religion debates, people will see what they want to see.

Side: Yes
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
2 points

To quote Christopher Hitchens...

" I believe in irony. I say that we do have free will, because we have no choice. But the theist says that we have free will because the boss told us we have to have it".

Belief does not alter the laws of logic. A circle cannot be square, 2+2 cannot be 5, and free will cannot be dictated. These are all independent of belief.

Side: No
1 point

True, but no single human is "pure logic". Human's are creatures privy to emotions, weakness and double standards. Like you said, Belief doesn't alter logic. I agree with you there. How could I not? It's a fact. What I was saying was no single human can use logic without being influenced by their emotions in some way. This will corrupt their reasoning slightly, and will cause people to see what they want to see in most philosophical debates.

Side: Yes
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
1 point

So, it still destroys the "there is evil, God is perfect, therefore God must not exist" argument.

Side: Yes

Evil is nothing more than the lack of good will. God did not create evil, free will is nothing more than the ability to choose how good you want to be. Of course, this is not very accurate because greed is slightly tough to control but it is not greed which is the bad thing it is the things you do as a result of greed which are the bad things. And God is still loving because of the things he will reward you with. And sometimes God does help you in times but only if you are worthy. We Muslims believe that God can answer your prayers if you try to get what you want yourself. So free will only by itself is a bad excuse but with other things, free will seems to be a reasonable argument. And if you die because of someone else, the chances of you going to heaven are a lot higher. I think this explains how loving God can be even on Earth. If his love does not shine on earth then it will in heaven. People say life is unjust but I think one part of life is unjust.

Side: Yes
2 points

I have to say no. Why would a supposedly loving creator make it's creation suffer?

Side: No
2 points

My understanding is that if Free Will is a successful rebuttal then God is malevolent.

Side: No
1 point

no. of course not. free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, moral god would choose to do so.

ppl claim that god refuses to intervene, because that would violate free will.

but if no god exists, no god would intervene anyway, which completely solves the problem.

the same ppl who claim that 'divine intervention would violate free will', also claim that 'God answers prayers'. This directly contradicts the claim that god must preserve free will.

If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.

the fallacy of free will and the problem of evil, both demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the Christian god.

Side: No
Liber(1728) Disputed
3 points

free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene

This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.

ppl

That's "people". Use the real word if you're going to be using this site; last thing we need is for uneducated corruptors and saboteurs of the English language to destroy the respectability of this site. We're not Facebook; we are not for the immature to ramble in abbreviations and blasphemous misspellings!

If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.

Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?

Side: Yes
2 points

This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.

Ok. But does free will necessarily exist? I haven't made a judgement either way, but it seems to me that you have given no arguments for this premise to be valid.

Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?

But is there a good argument for God to violate an individual's free will?

Side: No
nahga(81) Disputed
1 point

'This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.'

so it never occurred to you that i don't believe in any god?

'free will' in the theological sense is an excuse. that's not to say that ppl cant do whatever the hell they want to do. but our ability to make decisions doesn't have anything to do with a 'god allowing us' to do so, or 'not wanting us to be robots.'

'Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?'

because that is logically inconsistent with the assertion that god cannot (or does not) violate free will.

if god could violate Pharaoh's free will to give himself an excuse to kill all Egypt's first born, he could violate the 'free will' of all child molesters to make sure no child was ever again molested. and in doing so, he would be beginning to solve 'the problem of evil'.

'the problem of evil' is only a problem because theists contended that god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. these qualities are directly contradicted by the persistence of 'evil'. one cannot be all loving, all powerful and indifferent to the suffering of untold millions of children.

the fact that i need to explain all this, puts a particularly humorous spin on your totally unnecessary snipe, citing 'uneducated corruptors'. but thanks for asking.

Side: No
1 point

No, the argument could simply be extended to: Could a god(s) create a world without evil and with freewill? If yes, then he is not omnibenevolent, if no, then he is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence in itself is a contradiction; Could a god(s) create a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?

The "Free will" that is presented in the bible is not free at all, it can be summarised as, 'You must use your free will the way I want you to or else I will torture you for eternity'.

Side: No

No one asked to be born, therefore, there is no such thing as free will.

Side: No