CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
We can think freely/independently to either accept or reject the religious teachings with which most of us have been brainwashed as children.
If we exercise our human ability/right of free will and reject the doctrine of blackmail, i.e. love god and worship him or suffer eternal torture in hell, we are then free to consider other more scientific explanations for the creation of the universe and our role within the overall scheme of things.
Religion consists of the recorded accumulation of concepts and opinions of ordinary mortals, with enormous imaginations, from around two thousand years ago.
Free will/independent thinking dissolves the superstitious myths conjured up in the minds of well meaning, but misguided academics and philosophers of their day.
Disabusing yourself of one delusion does not mean your are freed of all of them, nor does that even remotely suggest you have free will. One can be determined not to gain or maintain a delusional belief in religion. Free will isn't necessary to the equation.
Are you saying Jace that Muslims who practice the Religion of Islam are delusional ? Thought you Progressives had a fond affection for Muslims. Is that not correct?
Although I am not either a Christian or a atheist hypothetically if we were only a product of evolution then I see no reason why we wouldn't posses free will. It is the greater intelligence that humans possess that allowed them to rise above the rest of the animal kingdom and had we not had freewill I think we would only be acting on instinct thus we never would have reached the heights our society has reached for. I was freewill that gave way for human ambition.
Belief in "gods" and rejecting God is the same as atheism. Both hope to escape pain, suffering, and punishment in death; both are self-justifying religious philosophies with no hope outside of death. Both say it's okay for men to defile their bodies with other men as in Sodom.
Pervert...how did I guess you were a pervert? Of course you don't want to know God as He reveals Himself in His word, you know His word is against you and says you are on your way to Hell, dead in your sins, and you don't want to believe it, do you? Nope, you love your sin and you pursue the pleasure it brings you like a moth flying into the fire.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but you can't stop being a sinner, you can't make yourself worthy of anything but dying and it never ends in the lake of fire which is the second death.
You want proof? You will get it.
You think nobody really knows what is wrong, I know you are wrong. The fact that you believe nobody really knows only proves that you do not know....and the truth of the matter is that you don't want to know and you prefer ignorance (feigned) because if you concede to the truth you have to admit that you are unworthy of living as a sinner and deserve to burn in Hell. Then you would want to renounce your perversions, and you love the pleasures of your perversion like a moth loves a fire and you're flying off into it deeper and deeper until their is no way out.
Sexually transmitted diseases prove that sex outside of marriage is wrong, if you have managed to sear your conscience enough so that you have no shame in dirtying yourself. If you get AIDS, it's what you deserve for saying you are not doing wrong as you are publicly promoting sin and encouraging others to follow your lead. I would not let you anywhere near my family.
Someone else addressed your obsession with sodomy so I'll leave that alone this time, but no belief in other gods and not the Christian god is not the same as atheism. It's simple grammar. Deconstruct the word. What is a theist? Someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. A-theist is someone who doesn't believe in this. Even from a Christian perspective, theism does not address the belief in a specific god or the "right" god, but simply "some" god. Words have meaning and don't change based on your own beliefs.
I read five words of this.....the pervert admits to his perversions exactly as I guessed.....how do you think I guessed? I'll give you a clue.....
The pervert claims to have been brought up in a Christian church and decided he didn't like the "Christian god" so he chose different gods for himself. Right away that tells me he has a problem with lust which may be ambition, power, or sexual but usually is sexual. Most people who reject Jesus Christ, maybe all, have a problem with their own desires and they do not want to submit their desires to God's rule. I'm sure you are one of those, and that is why you try to defend a pervert by accusing me.
The pervert admitted he is a pervert, and you are probably a pervert at heart even if you are too worn out to engage with pervert partners.....most of the people on here, like you, who hate God are perverts. They admit it, this phony pervert is pretending to be strong and wise.......
And you know what? The way you are acting defending sodomy, if you and the pervert you are defending both get AIDS you get exactly what you deserve for defending or being a sodomite. Call me a hater, if't the truth and you know it though I doubt you will admit it. The truth is good for you even if it hurts, you need to take it the right way and repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell but you won't, will you? I doubt it, I think you've made it pretty clear that the only way you will believe you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell is to find yourself unable to get out of the fire....and even then you will feel like it's not fair and your rights are being violated.
The percentage of sodomites here is much higher than in the general population
Ha, no I'm sure a large part of the population engages in at least oral sex, if not other types.
It didn't take me long to figure out that the pervert you are defending is a sodomite
Even if he is (unlike you, I try to stay out of other's bedrooms), I don't care. Only in your fairy tale world of the Bible does anyone care about such acts.
The way you are acting defending sodomy, if you and the pervert you are defending both get AIDS you get exactly what you deserve for defending or being a sodomite.
Well, my wife and I were both clean before we got married and since we are faithful to each other, I don't see that happening; even if she chooses a different hole.
Most people who reject Jesus Christ, maybe all, have a problem with their own desires and they do not want to submit their desires to God's rule.
I won't speak for others, but since I don't believe God exists it would be stupid to live under your imaginary friend's rules.
and you are probably a pervert at heart
I'm sure according to your own twisted definition I am.
Call me a hater
Thank you, I will.
The truth is good for you even if it hurts
And how do you measure this truth? There's no evidence for your religion and faith is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.
I think you've made it pretty clear that the only way you will believe you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell is to find yourself unable to get out of the fire
No, I've made it quite clear hell is as real as Mordor.
---
I know I'm wasting my time even responding to you since you're set on repeat and can offer nothing else than your mindless dribble (blah, blah, blah, sodomy, blah, blah, blah, exist outside of hell, blah, blah, blah, believe in my imaginary friend).
The percentage of sodomites here is much higher than in the general population due to the fact that they are social misfits trying to make themselves feel normal. They need to admit their perversion, repent, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell. It didn't take me long to figure out that the pervert you are defending is a sodomite, I figured that out long before he finally admitted it after I repeatedly suggested his choice of religion is predicated on his choice of perversion. The same goes for you. You defend perverts so their dirt is on your hands. Enjoy while you can, you're on your way to Hell.
If we are a product of evolution that immediately suggests determinism, not free will. It certainly doesn't explain why or how we can have free will on its own.
It takes a great deal of anthropocentric bias to think that human intelligence is "greater" or that we have "risen above" the rest of organic life. Even if even of that self-lauding prejudice was sound, why should we think that instinct is insufficient to getting there at all? Why is free will necessary for ambition?
Sure it can. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think otherwise. Let's say God didn't exist but people still did. There could always be some form of community where free will was suppressed and no one could act at their own discretion.
It's an individuals desire to act as they please and is not reliant on a deity or God's existence.
You're begging the question. You effectively just said that because we can choose to act we can choose to act. That doesn't prove anything. However, that we act upon our desires as a matter of fact actually discredits the free will claim because it suggests our desires determine our actions.
You literally are arguing that because we have free will we have free will. That's fallacious reasoning. If you seriously can't understand that, then there's no reason for me to continue beating a dead horse.
Free will exists and nothing suggests God does, so yes it can exist without God. Our next topic, "Can garlic bread exist if the flying spaghetti monster does not?"
Free will does exist. I could go outside right now and punch someone, but I'm not going to, because I have free will. The fact that I can actually imagine a scenario in which I could go outside and punch someone is proof of free will.
A more interesting argument would be "does society allow us free will?"
The reason I'm not going to go round murdering people is because I don't want to go to jail.
Another reason is because I believe murder is wrong... but, again, why do we believe this?
We believe it because society has conditioned us to see murder as wrong. I challenge you to explain to me why murder is objectively wrong.
"Because it's taking someone's life!"
Why is that bad?
"Because life is precious!"
Why?
I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here. The point is, free will does exist - however, it is restricted by our own society.
The social contract doesn't limit your free will, but is an extension of it.
You always have the option to leave it. And humans always possess the right to revolt. You could always choose to kill yourself if everything has limited your freedom.
In fact, calling on the laws of nature governing you might have been a better argument, like "I can't run at the speed of light!".
It could definitely be argued that it actually emphasises your free will.
People are deterred from making certain decisions due to the rules of society, but when they do decide to do something, it's a lot more significant and is even further proof of free will existing.
That you perceive yourself as having made a choice does not prove that you actually exercised free will. It proves only that you perceived yourself as having it, and perception has been shown to be unreliable through psychological research.
"Society" only exists as a concept. It lacks the necessary ontology to have agency, so it can neither allow nor restrict anything. There are only individuals acting in relation to each other, according to what power they happen to have. Even if society actually existed, it would not be restricting free will but freedom to act upon the will; the difference is one between not being able to make choices and not having as many live options to choose from as we might like.
I do not believe that anything is objectively wrong, including murder. There's nothing to suggest an objective morality; it's as much a delusion as free will.
Of course we have free will, though many do not want to admit it. The way this question is asked, many will say they believe they have free will without God just so they can feel like they are arguing against God. In other places, many of those same people will claim they really have no free will as their choices are made according to their genes and environment so that they feel justified in their sins.
It's a waste of time to try to reason with an atheist, they believe life is meaningless and hopeless and they hope dying gets them out of reality so they wont' be held accountable for the things they have done. Atheists believe everything is essentially nonsense, and that's all you can get out of them. Atheism is empty.
Think of it this way: either God exists, or he doesn't.
If God exists, then we have free will because He gave it to us.
If God doesn't exist, then we have free will because there is no God to restrict our free will.
We have evolved over millions of years to become intelligent creatures which can think independently. If God began the evolutionary process then He likely did so with the intention of us developing autonomy.
If God did not begin the evolutionary process, and does not exist, then nothing changes. We still have free will which has resulted from years of evolution.
God is an irrelevant concept when talking about free will; whether he exists or not, we still have free will. Nothing changes.
Of course it could. That's kind of like saying could acrobatics exist if Spiderman didn't exist. One does not depend on the other. And besides that, Spiderman is just made up.
The existence of a deity introduces a possible explanation for the origin of free will. Without, there is no evident explanation for how it could exist. Whereas, without Spiderman we can still have other explanations as to how acrobatics exist.
But the contention is that free will could not possibly exist in the absence of a deity, and saying yes the existence of a deity means it must come from that deity is a giant leap. Especially when that deity supposedly disagrees with and punishes us for that free will we supposedly only have because of that deity.
Whether the theistic argument is sound is immaterial to whether a secular argument exists to explain how free will can exist. You didn't and still haven't presented one, and that was the essence of my observation.
Nonsense, why can't free will simply exist? Your argument is like asking if eyes could exist without God, and my reply to that too is why can't they? And it's valid.
If free will describes an aspect of the human condition, then it doesn't require God any more than any other aspect of humanity. I think that Jace is saying that it does not exist and that it is an illusion requiring the existence of God to justify it in non-illusory terms. I think we need to define "free will" before we can argue it's requirements for existence. I have responded to Jace in another part of this thread.
Why can't unicorns and leprechauns simply exist? For that matter, why can't God just exist? If one makes the claim that something can exist then there is a burden of proof to show that it actually can. You haven't even begun to substantiate a claim that it is possible for free will to exist. You just keep asserting it. That's not a valid form of argument for the very simple reason that it isn't even an argument.
Again nonsense. The fact that I can even make the statement free will can exist without God is in and of itself proof that it could. And asking me to prove it can is no different than asking me to prove I have eyeballs. I do. I can see. And I don't need a god in order to determine that I am right now seeing with my own eyes.
It seems to me that the contention that there is no free will comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it entails. Free will is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. The fact that we live in a causal universe simply means that when someone asks why you made a decision, you will have an answer.
The alternative, wherein free will is the ability to act without cause, would be mean that you would not have reasons for actions. You would act and you could give no explanation. This conception of free will, which is typically put forth, is a description of a person entirely lacking command of themselves. Thus, free will requires a causal universe, and does not require the existence of God.
Yes, free will is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. But in order for that to be possible it must be the case that alternatives actually exist.
Let's say that free will really is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. That makes free will contingent upon their actually being alternatives, not merely the illusion of alternatives. If it is not in fact possible for someone to take a course of action other than the one they take, then there were no alternatives and what we call a 'choice' in our everyday language is not actually a choice. In order to substantiate the claim that free will is possible, then, it is necessary to show that alternatives actually exist.
In a non-causal universe reasons would not be necessary for action. That you suggest that reasons are necessary undermines the position that free will exist because it makes our actions determined by those reasons rather than independent of them. This is one of the reasons I think compatibilist accounts are incoherent.
That free will does not require the existence of God does not prove that free will is possible.
Yes, free will is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. But in order for that to be possible it must be the case that alternatives actually exist
That’s incorrect. For that to be possible it must be the case that alternatives potentially exist. We conceive of potential alternatives, weigh and balance the relevant factors related to potential alternatives, and then choose a course of action based on our values as they relate to one of the various potential alternatives. If every input in the complex neurological process has a perfectly predictable outcome, we still go through this process. When we proceed with a given course of action, after considering the different potential alternatives, we then show one of them to be the singular course. It can be the case that whatever course is taken was always going to be taken, but potential alternatives were first conceived, which provided the process of choosing. And after it is all done, a person in command of their faculties can tell you what causal path effected their action.
That you suggest that reasons are necessary undermines the position that free will exist because it makes our actions determined by those reasons rather than independent of them.
My contention, as I stated, is that action taken independent of reason is not an example of free will, but the opposite. This is the fundamental misunderstanding I was referring to wherein opponents of free will set up a straw-man of randomness and supporters of free will never give it enough thought to counter. I don’t mean to say that this misunderstanding is necessarily intentional, but merely results from lack of consideration of the nature of choice.
If you imagine a world where actions are truly random, you could not honestly describe human action as an example of human free will. Man would be at the behests of the ghosts of the ether, acting constantly without knowledge of why or of what will happen next. If the universe is causal, then we can imagine potential alternative futures and our values serve as the cause to what is ultimately a singular end.
That free will does not require the existence of God does not prove that free will is possible
That free will does not require the existence of God proves that free will does not require the existence of God, which is all that is required by this debate. If free will exists, God is not a necessary element.
As a counter, one might argue that the determined nature of the known unchangeable past creates the illusion that the undetermined and unknown future is determined. It is the unknowable nature of the future that allows us to dabble in suppositions of illusions as pertaining to the apparent. That I make choices is apparent. That the past cannot be changed is apparent. To claim that the apparent is an illusion requires more than an assertion before it's considered.
This is how it works as I have witnessed these past 50 years.
America has been a majority Christian nation and the moral values lifted up in our society, were basically a result from our Christian heritage.
We had no need for so called moral laws because people held common sense moral values in their hearts. They were raised in families and a culture that instilled those common sesne values for the good of our nation and our children.
Free will works great when mankind has moral values ingrained in their soul. A Godless nation will deteriorate to such a point that bigger ever more intrusive Government control will be needed, constantly putting social bandaids on the amoral anything goes culture. Lack of moral values will ultimately bankrupt a nation.
So as insecure bigoted Progressives came into power, and told us we must censor any expression of our historical Christian heritage, because it might offend someone, and it might lift up the importance of simple moral responsibilities on the part of others.
Gone were the nativity scenes on public land. Gone were simple voluntary Prayers in public schools at beginning of day (with no child forced to pray).
These arrogant Progressives even try to take God out of our pledge of alligeince, off our money, etc. They fire coaches who dare say a prayer on the football feild.
IT'S THE BIG BROTHER PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT POLICE WHO WILL FORCE YOU TO SPEAK OR PRAY ONLY WHERE THEY SAY YOU CAN SPEAK OR PRAY.
Conservative speakers are being banned from College campuses!
These are the extremists who have taken over the Democrat party. This is why Trump won the election. People are terrified from these nazi like Progressives.
So when a nation separates any mention of God, there becomes a vacuum in a nations core values.
There no longer is a moral foundation built on bedrock.
You ask whose morals will our nation follow? I agree! There is not a man in this world that agrees completely with another man's morals.
So when a nation censor's the moral values lifted up by our Christian heritge, we are left with this anything goes no fault culture. Look at the millions of broken families and fatherless children as the results.
Our values today are built on sand whereby they shift with the times. Who would have ever believed the Democrat Party could sink so low, as to support no restriction abortions of viable babies for any reason at any stage.
THIS IS INFANTICIDE, YET WITHOUT GOD, THE LEFT HAS LOST ALL SENSE OF HUMANITY AND COMMON MORAL SANITY! What's next, death camps for old people who become burdens on society?
You are the non believers of the past who understood the importance of moral values derived from a nation's faith even if they themselves were not believers.
There are many Atheists today who want to separate any mention of our Christian heritage in public and we are seeing the results big time.
They are too insecure, arrogant and deceptive to ever admit the breakdown in our nation's moral values since the lie of separation of Church and State.
If one accepts the premise that a god exists, then one can derive an explanation for how free will can then exist. Without that premise, however, it is entirely unclear what explanation might be given for how free will exists. The subtraction of the god premise does not disprove free will, but it does remove an explanation where no other is readily evident. Notably, no one commenting that free will can exist if God does not has (so far) presented even a semblance of an alternative explanation for how free will could exist without a God premise. That makes the claim that free will can exist as obviously shallow and tenuous as the claim that god can exist.
Free will cannot exist regardless of whether or not there is a deity simply given the material/physical nature of our universe. Decisions are only ever the product of the sum of every influence having acted on that individual, and ultimately these influences are chemical in nature. Chemical interactions are dictated by mechanics, and on and on until the most elementary laws of our universe.