Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

Thanks ASB. ==Rebuttal== My opponent essentially has the same response to everything in my first round: that human's will not be the ones in control, something else will be. I usually wouldn't bring other debates into this one, but had I not read my opponent's debate with askbob I would be utterly confused by what he meant. Humans will not be controlling other humans? Who then? Machines? In my opponent's other debate, he argued that God would be in control and make all our decisions for us. I have two major responses: 1) God does not exist 2) Even if he does, he is most definitely not benevolent. *God does not exist* The only God that can be in total control of us would need to be omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful). Proof 1: According to Richard Dawkins, "Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent." [1] Proof 2: If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a box, the contents of which are impossible to know. However, for God to be omniscient, he must know the contents of the box. My opponent also has the burden of proof. Since one cannot "prove" God's existence, my opponent cannot satisfy the BOP by proving that humans would not be the ones controlling other humans under "total control." *God is not benevolent* Since the only God that meets the above requirement (omniscience and omnipotence) is the Judeo-Christian God, I proceed to show that "He" is not benevolent, and thus will lead us to do immoral and horrible acts. Here are some of God's instructions on good moral principles and norms of behavior: Deut 25:11-12 "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity." Deut 21:18-21 "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place . . . Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death." On homosexuality: Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." On how to treat the rival tribes in Israel: Isaiah 13.13-22 "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished." God on slave ownership: Ex 21:20-21 "When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property." Col 3:22-24 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" On discovering your new bride to not be a virgin: Deut 22:13-21 "If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death" On controlling your emotions: "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" Lastly, this is the same supposed God who does not intervene to stop countless natural disasters. This emotionally unstable God must enjoy watching us suffer. If "He" was in charge, it is unclear that he wouldn't simply force us to kill each other for "His" amusement. *Personal Ethics* Why would God make us follow a personal ethics system that humans designed - why not his own "superior" version of ethics, which is outlined above? How do we know that the person in "total control" will make us follow these specific ethical principles? R1) Anarchy *I said that in a world of free will, anarchy is disorder. My definition of disorder is crime.* This is why I concluded my opponent's definition is biased. He essentially defines anarchy as "crime." Murray N Rothbard and many others believed that anarchy ("a Stateless society") was possible without the world devolving into disorder. The fact that people across the world are increasingly ordering themselves based on the location of markets and not the location of governments proves that governments are increasingly irrelevant. In addition, my opponent doesn't answer my reference to social contract theory. We can voluntarily submit our free will to another without having actually sacrificed that will; thus if someone really wanted to submit to total control (or anything in between total control and anarchy), that person could voluntarily submit some of their decision-making authority to a "higher power" (whether that be a divine being or a government). However, the choice to submit must remain our own. *We would only be controlled to follow these Principles. (Under the principles says nothing about eating different types of steaks.)* Remember I defined "total control" as the absence of free will. My opponent can't say that we'll still have free will UNLESS we want to do something "bad." That's not TOTAL control; that's PARTIAL control. Princeton's Wordnet defines "total" as "complete in extent or degree and in every particular." *Car analogy, repeated* I agree that free will can result in someone being harmed. So can total control. Also, the benefits of free will outweigh the detriments. *humans cannot drive themselves in compliance to the principles* Of course they can. While a few humans deviate from established morality, the vast majority refrain from killing or stealing from each other, meaning they are obeying the nonaggression axiom. The Yale Infant Cognition Center found that morality is innate, and by studying serial killers, psychologists have found that their neurology differs in serious ways from the average person, meaning people who deviate from morality often do so because of neurological problems. Somalia Although Somalia was not under "total control" prior to 1991, it was under a dictatorship, which is the closest evidence we can examine in today's debate of total control. My evidence clearly showed that Somalia is wealthier and SAFER under anarchy than under totalitarian control. *My opponent is stating that understanding right is better than doing the right thing.* No, what I said was that we get no credit for acting morally, unless we both understand and do the right thing. As Derrida points out, if we are forced to make a moral decision and avoid the difficult decision-making process itself, then the outcome has absolutely no meaning. If we choose to act morally, we are to be lauded; if we are forced to act morally, the person controlling us is to be lauded, but we have done nothing of value. We would just be mindless drones. True Marxist Communism I truly doubt that Carl Marx envisioned a world where God controlled our every action and desire to force us to be Communist. How is that not WORSE than Stalin's version of communism? At least under Stalin, there was a chance that people could escape the USSR or that Stalin would die and his reign would end. With God, there is no escape or end in sight. We can never again have an original thought or desire, or if we do, we at least will not be able to act on them. *If one desired steak, he would eat steak as long as it fell into compliance with the other rules.* If God relinquished control in situations that "don't matter" (according to my opponent), then again, that is partial control, not total control. We would still have free will, except in specific instances. Existentialism My opponent doesn't answer the fact that life is meaningless if we are all mindless drones. [1] The God Delusion, p. 77-8