god

Before I begin, I would like to point out a personal opinion here: I admire my opponent for taking the position she has in this debate; and I think she is a very courageous individual to allow her convictions to be openly challenged in a public forum. If my opponent was insulted by my comments, than I am truly sorry; it was not intentional. Ironically, I was only trying to preempt the possibility of being misinterpreted, so it would be known that I am trying not to offend her. In the debates that take place in the ether of the Internet, there are no non-verbal cues in which to properly gauge an opponents' disposition on the matter being discussed. Thus, there is no frame of reference to determine whether ones words and thoughts are offending. In this case, I think I may have internalized the example Pro used to argue that I am an "insane monster", which prompted me to declaratively state my concerns. Is free will absolute? My opponent keeps harping on free will as though it is an absolute phenomenon; but has never actually proved that it exists. It is clear that it exists to her: for her it is god's will, because to my opponent the god of the bible exists. But this is circular logical because the premise is derived from the conclusion. In order words, in order for free will to exist, god has to exist; but this is exactly what we are debating. So, free will can't be used to prove that the god of the bible exists. My comments on free will thus far have been used to demonstrate that if an all-knowing, all-power god exists and he wants us to follow his commandments, than free will is illogical, irrelevant and unfree. Thus showing that he does not exist, because how can an all knowing god be illogical? Last, my opponent has not proper discussed what she believes free will is. For example, is it separate from the body? From my perspective, free will may actually be hard-wired into the structure and function of our brains. This is to say, free will may just be a by-product of the physical nature that constitutes our neural networks. This can be evinced by injuries to the prefrontal cortex that affect decision-making ability (1). So, if free will is absolute and an all-powerful god exists, then why would he allow it to be changeable when it can be detrimental to the individual? Pain as a measure of love My opponent brought up the issue that a benevolent god--and parents—would/should allow pain. I categorically disagree with this statement. As a father, I would do everything in my power to prevent my son from feeling pain, even if it means bring pain to myself. In my view, pain is a physiological adaptation to ensure that animals withdraw from harmful stimuli. My son doesn't have to experience pain to understand the beauty of his existence, nor does he have to experience pain to live a fulfilling purposeful life. But maybe for good measure, the next time I am at the playground with my son I will throw him off the jungle gym to toughen him up a bit, show him what life is reality about and how much I love him . The logical extension of my opponent's pain point would be that if someone is dying of painful metastatic bone cancer (2), this is god's way of demonstrating love for his creation. I think not. For me it establishes proof that the god of the bible does not exist. From my perspective, a benevolent god would do the same thing I would do as a parent. But more to my original point: If a benevolent god exists why would he allow others to act maliciously towards those faithful to his commandments? Romans 8:28-30 (3) tells us that god works for the good of those who love him. And it goes on to suggest that god has actually chosen those who are predestined to conform to his will. The reality is that god doesn't work for the good of those who love him because he allows Christians to be killed in vain. (4), And if what is written in Romans is correct, than those who love god have been chosen to do so and thus don't have free will. Closing comments If one is going to prove that good is an all knowing and all powerful goodhearted being, then one has to demonstrate this with sound logical reasoning. Conceding to the point that nature is flawed is tantamount to stating that god is flawed and thus god is not all knowing and all powerful; and therefore is proven not to exist. Further, my opponent concedes the point that the bible can be contradictory, but that I should continue to interpret it until it is no longer contradictory. But once something is shown to be logically inconsistent, how can these inconsistencies be over come by further analysis? Do believers in the bible just conveniently over look passages that appear to not make sense? Finally, my opponent has put forth a point about faith. But we are not debating faith in god; we are debating proof of god. Faith by its very definition is not based on proof (5). So, one doesn't need proof to have faith in god. References 1.http://brain.oxfordjournals.org... 2.http://orthoinfo.aaos.org... 3.http://www.biblegateway.com... 4.http://www.asianews.it... 5.http://dictionary.reference.com...