Christian God cannot be just, if just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions

This debate will assume Christian God exists and that he created this world, but this debate will not consider Bible as source of any true information. Instead, Christian God is simply defined as God creator of the world who claims to be just, but his claim of being just is now challenged.

In this debate, the meaning of the word just is that people always and everywhere get treated consistently according to their willing actions, so same chosen action always results in same treatment, and no different treatment exists for people other than by their own willing actions.

Round 1

1 of 3

SatanLucy

Pro #1

1. People get treated always according to their actions

2. People dont always get treated according to their actions

I defend 2, while my opponent defends 1. In other words, he must argue that treatment each person receives is a consequence of person's own willing actions.

Person receives treatment before any action is made by person, such as creation, getting their own body which is chosen by God and not them and cannot be a consequence of any willing actions as no willing actions were made yet.

Another obvious problem is many diseases and disorders given to children randomly. Child who gets cancer at age 2 obviously did nothing to deserve that.

However, my opponent holds position that everything which happens to the person is a consequence of own actions. In other words, injustice cannot exist. My opponent argues that every rape victim, every holocaust victim, every murder victim, every abuse victim, every person who suffers from disease or illness or a disorder essentially “deserved it by own willing actions”.

But in many cases, this is logically impossible. For example, in cases where person gets killed or dies without ever making any willing actions. Then of course, the place of creation is different for every person, and that too is different treatment as no willing actions were made before creation. Person also gets different parents, which cannot logically be result of willing action as here too, none existed.

But crucial problem for my opponent's position is the impossibility of being unjust in case his position is assumed true. Because all people get treated in a just way, then logically it is not possible for any person to actually not be just towards others. This creates a contradiction because in such world person must be just yet person also gets punished for being just. The one person's actions towards another always must be consistent consequence of another's willing action, yet also must be cause for one person's own punishment. So person cannot be not just, so it is logically not possible to justify why any people get treated badly.

Also, different levels of knowledge in people cannot be consequence of their willing actions, as no willing actions existed before gaining knowledge.

* **Possible worlds scenario**: Instead of a single world, consider multiple worlds—past or future incarnations, parallel universes, past or future lives (as in reincarnation or karma theories)—where treatment is purportedly aligned with one’s free actions.

---

### 2. Opposite claim (¬A): People *are* treated according to their actions in other worlds

* **By-definition contradiction**: These systems (karma, reincarnation) depend on an assumed transfer of identity or karmic substance across lives. Yet they simultaneously deny individuals memory and awareness of past actions. So if identity is not continuous, justice cannot be tied to past only actions. If identity is continuous, memory must persist—contradiction internal to the definition.

* **Assumption of proportionality**: Critics (e.g., on moral luck and karmic proportionality) show that many punishments are grotesquely disproportionate to claimed deeds (e.g. Auschwitz survivors implication in past sin

---

### 2. **No knowledge of future action can justify current punishment**

Even if some omniscient being knows what someone *will* freely do, that doesn’t justify punishment **before** the action occurs.

Why?

* Because **moral agency depends on freedom**: until the moment of action, the person **could choose otherwise**.
* To punish them **before** they act assumes **determinism**, which contradicts the idea of **willing action**.
* So:

* If actions are determined, there's no moral freedom, and justice becomes impossible.
* If actions are free, the person **hasn’t yet** committed the deed, so punishment now is **not earned**.

---

### 1. Foreknowledge ≠ Causation

Let’s begin with identity logic and time ordering:

* Knowing X will happen is not the same as X having **already happened**.
* Even if God *knows infallibly* that person P will do wrong in 20 years, that wrong **does not yet exist in reality**.
* Therefore, P has not *yet* taken a willing action.
* Therefore, punishing them *now* is not a response to a willing action.

---

### 2. Foreknowledge and Free Will: Mutually Exclusive

Now let’s consider this logical structure:

Let’s assume:

* God knows (infallibly) that person P will murder someone in 2045.
* Person P has free will.

We now ask:
**Can P choose *not* to murder someone in 2045?**

If yes → God’s knowledge was wrong.
If no → Then P had no free will in that case.

> So either:
>
> * God's foreknowledge is fallible, or
> * Free will is an illusion.

**Therefore**: You cannot logically hold both of these as absolutely true:

1. God *infallibly* knows all future free actions,
2. People *freely* choose their actions.

This is the classic **foreknowledge paradox**—and it’s **unsolvable** without sacrificing either divine omniscience or human free will.

---

## Logical Form

* **A** = Person is treated based on their willing actions (justice)
* **B** = Person is treated based on a willing action they will do in the future
* **C** = God infallibly knows that future action
* **D** = Person still has free will

Assume all of B, C, D are true.

Then:

* If C and D, then the future action is **not causally fixed** yet.
* Therefore, under D, B violates A—because the action hasn’t happened yet.
* If you want B to be compatible with A, you must deny D (no free will).
* If you want to preserve D (free will), then B cannot lead to A (justice).

**Therefore, A and B are incompatible.*

---

## Argument A: Past-world-based treatment violates justice

### 1. Identity is discontinuous across worlds

* If person A now is not consciously, biologically, or psychologically continuous with person A in another world, then they are **not the same person** in the only sense that matters for moral responsibility.
* If there’s no memory, no knowledge, and no recognition of the past self, there’s **no continuity of moral agency**.

> **Moral principle**: One cannot be justly held accountable for another agent’s actions.

So: if the person now **cannot identify with the agent who acted**, then **justice cannot apply**.

---

### 3. Causal disconnection

* If a willing action in another world causes treatment now, but there is no causal bridge (memory, awareness, choice), then:

* The present person did not make a cause occur that brought about the effect.
* The system has **detached effect from moral cause**.

So this fails the **definition**: treatment is not based on *this person’s* known, chosen action.

---

## Logical Breakdown

Let:

* A = Treatment is just
* B = Treatment is for a willing action done in a past world
* C = The person now is the same person who acted
* D = The person now remembers or knows about the act

Then:

* A requires B ∧ C ∧ D.
* But in reincarnation/karma/etc., C and D usually fail.
* Therefore, A is false.

**Conclusion**: Treatment is not just.

---

If the person now **cannot remember** their past act,

* They do not see themselves as the actor who sinned.
* So they are not, **in experience or self-recognition**, the same person.

Therefore, the person now is:

* **Not morally accountable** for that act,
* And cannot be **justly punished** for it.

> Punishment requires the *same moral agent* to be present at both ends of the action-consequence chain. Memory is essential to that continuity.

---

## Logical Breakdown

Let:

* **A** = A person is justly punished
* **B** = The person willingly did something wrong in the past
* **C** = The person now is the same moral agent
* **D** = The person is aware of their guilt

Then:

* Justice requires: **A ⇨ B ∧ C ∧ D**
* If **D** is removed (they forget), then **A** fails
* If **C** fails (no memory, no identification), then **A** fails

Thus, **self-concealing punishment** makes **justice impossible**.

---

## **IV. Argument from Spatiotemporal Location**

### Premise P3:

Every object in space-time exists at a **specific point** in that structure. If two persons are said to exist, they must occupy **different points** (else they are literally the same object).

* You cannot have two people in **the same point** of space-time. That would collapse them into being **one** person, not two.

> **Therefore:** Even if two worlds are nearly identical, if they contain distinct persons, **those persons must be located differently**, even if the difference is one Planck length or one femtosecond.

---

## **II. Immediate Logical Conflict (Law of Identity)**

Let:

* A ≠ B (Person A and Person B are numerically distinct),
* W₁ ≠ W₂ (Worlds are distinct, even if structurally identical).

Now, suppose:

* Person B lies in W₂ → Person A in W₁ is punished.
* Or Person B prays in W₂ → Person A in W₁ is rewarded.

### This is a direct contradiction of the justice definition:

* Person A’s treatment is not due to **Person A’s willing action**, but to **Person B’s**.
* This is **definitionally unjust**.

So:

> **Law of identity**: A ≠ B
> **Justice**: Treatment must follow A's willing actions
> → Treatment of A because of B's actions is **categorically unjust**.

---

## **IV. Reductio ad Absurdum**

Suppose this idea were just:

> "Person A can be rewarded or punished for Person B's actions in a parallel world."

Then we could construct the following absurd consequences:

### 1. **Punishment by Proxy:**

> Person A chooses not to murder anyone. But in another world, Person B (who is similar) commits murder. God punishes Person A.

This is unjust by definition. A did not will the action.

### 2. **Moral Lottery:**

> Person A does evil. But in another world, Person B (a "parallel" version) does good. A is rewarded for B’s actions.

Again, A is treated based on **another person’s will**, not their own.

→ **Justice collapses** under this logic.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Con #2

Con Round 1 [07/24/2025]

In consideration of the Resolution: Christian God cannot be just, if just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions:

I Argument: That which is "just" allows for the free will of man, i.e., "Christian God" [hereafter: "CG"] does not coerce man's will against "their willing actions," nor even their initiating thoughts driving such actions.

I.a Being Resolution keywords, I suggest "according to their willing actions" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to use an unbiased alternative; the law. In Black's Law Dictionary, "free will" is defined as "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control." This includes control by "CG." Man has the power of free will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of his/her unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons, including "CG."

I.b Therefore, by free will, we are each treated by "CG" only according to our own thoughts and resulting actions, and not by any coercion of anyone else, man or God or devil.

II Rebuttal: Pro R1, "my opponent holds position that everything which happens to the person is a consequence of own actions."

II.a I appreciate Pro's attempt to assist by definition of my my BoP, but I will kindly tell Pro, "Get off my lawn." I will demonstrate my BoP, thank you. Pro assumes I, as a Christian, believe "CG" created me as my physical genome expresses today, and not my parents, along with generations of physical traits contributed by my direct past generations of ancestors to my unique genome. This passage of genomic traits from generations of parents to children, and not by direct creation by "CG," is scientific fact, and not merely my BoP. Pro's argument, however, implies argument from the Bible, by way of creation of Adam and Eve, neither of whom had mortal parents to give birth to them. Theirs is a unique creation, and not how the rest of us were and are now introduced to mortality. Therefore, Pro's argument of "CG's" individual treatment of us by creation is not true, and the Resolution, therefore, is false. Not to mention that reference to biblical text was forbidden by Pro, and I call foul for violation of Pro's own rule in Description.

II.a.1 This matter of the unique creation of Adam and Eve, opposed to our natural birth into mortality, which began with their children's [Cain, Abel, etc] natural birth, poses a significant question whether this story is told in other ancient texts than the Holy Bible, from which such discussion is specifically forbidden by Pro. The answer is, yes; the story is repeated with varying detail by such examples as in the Apocrypha [Book of Jubliees], Jewish texts [Talmud], Gnostic texts [Apocalypse of Moses], and Islam [the Qur'an]. There are others.

II.b Coupled with this Pro R1 argument is that children who are born with physical debilitating defects were also created by "CG," and, thereby, are treated differently than others by "CG." Just as the rebuttal in §II.a, above, levels the Resolution, so this side-bar argument also demonstrates Pro's argument failure.

II.c Pro then argues a confusing string that shifts justice to the responsibility of the people, who, being treated unjustly by "CG" must, by "logic," also treat others unjustly. By so doing, Pro denies his own Resolution by discussion of an alternative, self-inflicted judgment upon man by man, thus also denying treatment of man by inconsistency, "according to [our] willing actions."

II.c.1 This Pro argument thus takes "CG" completely out of the "treatment" equation of the Resolve by ignoring "CG" altogether, when "CG" is altogether the the treatment entity of the Resolve Pro generated. This is argument creep, which violates both the Resolve and debate protocol.

II.c.2 This argument is an attempt at ontological argument for the existence of "CG," [existence of God by necessity] which simply attempts to prove the existence of "CG" without biblical reference, which Pro has ruled a forbidden argument. This is thin ice for justification of Pro's entire BoP as defined in Description, and, therefore, is invalid argument. I call foul.

III Rebuttal: Pro R1, "###2, ###1, ###2," et al, if/then logic; the balance of pro's R1

III.a The balance of Pro's R1 argument is a mish-mash attempt at blending forbidden biblical reference [without using the term] with the concept of reincarnation, a non-Christian philosophy, and karma, a biblical [disallowed] philosophy known by another term, namely, "free will." This argument attempts logic that is, at best, ill, simply because it is smashing good effort toward illogic.

III.b "If/then" is a popular, so-called logic exercise many use, apparently without conceiving that "if" cannot justify "then" because "if" is, typically, not currently true, such as:

"If wishes were fishes, [then] we will eat tonight." But wishes currently are not fishes, so the consequence [then] is not a justified statement: We eat, should we eat at all, something else tonight, just by the wish of it. But wishing is only very rarely true, and is not a standard I would trust to support an argument. The truth: Tonight, we eat what is now in the larder, or what can be ordered for delivery to our door, both of which are just actions; or what we can go out and steal, not a just action. Let justice be meted out accordingly.

III.c Pro's argument is confused further by a time element:

III.c.1 "### 1. Foreknowledge ≠ Causation

Let’s begin with identity logic and time ordering: [this, and the following through the end of this paragraph, III.c.1, is all quoted from Pro's R1]

"* Knowing X will happen is not the same as X having **already happened**.
* Even if God *knows infallibly* that person P will do wrong in 20 years, that wrong **does not yet exist in reality**.
* Therefore, P has not *yet* taken a willing action.
* Therefore, punishing them *now* is not a response to a willing action." [end quote]

III.c.2 Note, first, that "CG" has lost his religion; he is now, merely, "God." That has consequence within the defined boundary of the Resolve, engaging in, at least, Resolve creep. I call foul.

III.c.3 Second, it assumes that what will happen in 20 years is cast in concrete, allowing no free will to alter the person's course between now and then. This smacks of determinism, not a concept consistent with "CG."

III.d Consider the following: "24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh, and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."

III.d.1 Note, this is not a biblical reference, in keeping with the Resolve, but, having reference to the "Messiah," it is clearly Christian principle, and, therefore, valid reference in support of Con's BoP to refute the Resolve: "CG" does not punish, particularly not prior to choice of evil behavior on man's part, but rather blesses man for and should their free will follow his commandments to achieve "joy" and "eternal life." It's a conditional consequence, not pre-determined.

III.d.2 In effect, CG says, "Do good, you shall be blessed to live in my kingdom. Do evil, do not expect to be blessed in any kingdom." The choice, and the consequence, is on and by us, only.

III.e Pro has here engaged in misrepresentation of "CG" by erroneous logic. Just because "logic" is expressed in logical terminology [ex: "## Logical Form * **A** = Person is treated based on their willing actions (justice)..." et al] it does not follow that function follows form; i.e., that truth has been told. This house believes truth is made of sterner stuff.

III.f Therefore, once again, the Resolve is false, and justice is held.

I yield R2 to Pro.

Note: R1 Sources listed in comments, post #9

Round 2

2 of 3

SatanLucy

Pro #3

I Argument: That which is "just" allows for the free will of man, i.e., "Christian God" [hereafter: "CG"] does not coerce man's will against "their willing actions," nor even their initiating thoughts driving such actions.

This is irrelevant to topic. Even if one person harms another out of free will, another would still be treated not just.

In Black's Law Dictionary, "free will" is defined as "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control." This includes control by "CG." Man has the power of free will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of his/her unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons, including “CG.”

The topic was about willing actions, not willing choice alone. And since coercion exists in this world, the topic is thus proved in my favor.

II.a I appreciate Pro's attempt to assist by definition of my my BoP, but I will kindly tell Pro, "Get off my lawn." I will demonstrate my BoP, thank you.

This is misunderstanding of basic debating. By law of excluded middle, either claim is true either opposite of claim is true. So if I present proof against opposite topic, my opponent must defend against that proof or else topic is proved in my favor, as my opponent defends that some opposite of topic is true. If opposite topic cannot be true, my topic must be true by law of excluded middle.

Pro assumes I, as a Christian, believe "CG" created me as my physical genome expresses today, and not my parents, along with generations of physical traits contributed by my direct past generations of ancestors to my unique genome.

It was mentioned in description that Christian God is defined as creator of this world. So yes, he created this world and everything in it.

This passage of genomic traits from generations of parents to children, and not by direct creation by "CG," is scientific fact, and not merely my BoP.

This is another attempt to change the topic. Topic nowhere mentions that it is God directly who treats people not according to their actions, but that world he creates treats people in not just way. Topic by description requires that people are always and everywhere treated according to their willing actions for God to be just, not by God directly only, but by whole world which God created and enabled. God maybe creates a murderer, or disease, and then those treat others unjustly, but that doesnt mean God himself did nothing not just. In fact, merely choosing to create or allow such things in his world makes the world not treat all people according to their willing actions.

Topic:

"just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions" - So whole world itself must treat all people according to their willing actions, and since such world includes people, diseases, disasters…ect. these all must work according to such principle.

Pro's argument, however, implies argument from the Bible, by way of creation of Adam and Eve, neither of whom had mortal parents to give birth to them.

No argument from Bible was ever mentioned.

Coupled with this Pro R1 argument is that children who are born with physical debilitating defects were also created by "CG," and, thereby, are treated differently than others by "CG." Just as the rebuttal in §II.a, above, levels the Resolution, so this side-bar argument also demonstrates Pro's argument failure.

Treated differently by world which God created. God also created free will if such exists, and created world in which free will can be used to treat others not just. It was already defined in description that God created this world.

World definition:

the earth and all the people, places, and things on it

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/world

My opponent can only argue against this by saying God didnt create people, Earth, diseases, or natural disasters, or different places on Earth. But in that case, God didnt create this world, which conflicts with definition in description.

Pro then argues a confusing string that shifts justice to the responsibility of the people, who, being treated unjustly by "CG" must, by "logic," also treat others unjustly.

This is another failure to understand the topic. The opposite topic doesnt allow for any not just, not even one committed by one person towards another. Even if one person got punished for treating other person in a not just way, that would be a concession that other person was not treated in a just way, and thus a defeat for my opponent.

In other words, for my opponent to be correct on his side of topic, not just treatment must not exist in this world, and any example of not just treatment disproves his side of topic.

This Pro argument thus takes "CG" completely out of the "treatment" equation of the Resolve

Topic does not even mention treatment by God. It mentions treatment by world which God created.

This argument is an attempt at ontological argument for the existence of "CG,

Existence of God does not even need to be proved, by debate description, and no such argument was even made.

"If/then" is a popular, so-called logic exercise many use, apparently without conceiving that "if" cannot justify "then" because "if" is, typically, not currently true, such as:

If - then is a basic logical form, along with A includes B, A means B…ect. If you deny basic logical argument forms, then you are not doing debating. If then simply goes:

p1. If A, then B.

p2. A true.

C. So B true.

This is a true logical argument, and as long as premise 1 and 2 are true, conclusion follows.

My opponent made no effort to negate p1 in argument, or p2 in argument he attacked.

, that "CG" has lost his religion; he is now, merely, "God." That has consequence within the defined boundary of the Resolve, engaging in, at least, Resolve creep

This is attempt at trolling. Its obvious that God in that argument talks about Christian God which the debate is about. Unless you can argue that Christian God isnt God, or that argument doesnt apply to Christian God, you have lost.

it assumes that what will happen in 20 years is cast in concrete, allowing no free will to alter the person's course between now and then. This smacks of determinism, not a concept consistent with "CG."

It shows that free will cannot work with omniscience, and thus any same treatment according to future actions is impossible.

Note, this is not a biblical reference

My opponent gave a quote which conflicts with examples from this world, so rejected. Christian God was already defined in description, thus no definition change is possible.

"CG" does not punish, particularly not prior to choice of evil behavior on man's part

The debate isnt about punishment alone, but treatment. And world does punish people or treat them differently before they make any choice.

but rather blesses man for and should their free will follow his commandments to achieve "joy" and "eternal life.

Even if we assume this to be true, this talks about next world, not this. Debate is about this world too.

Conclusion:

My opponent defends that topic opposite of mine is true, by law of excluded middle. However, countless examples show that topic opposite of mine is false. My opponent made no any effort to deny these examples. Instead, he tried to change the topic to what it is not. Since my opponent used up his characters here, any other arguments he might have presented in comments dont count. Sources links are fine in comments, but putting arguments in comments to break character limit is not allowed in formal limited debates.

Further arguments:

Impossibility of free will:

Free will cannot exist logically, as per law of excluded middle:

A. Choice has a cause

B. Choice doesnt have a cause

A or B must be true, no other options exist for 1 single choice.

If A is true, choice is controlled by cause which itself isnt a choice. If cause itself was a choice, it would require its own cause again, which doesnt solve the problem but extends it. But if cause of choice isnt itself a choice, then free will doesnt exist as choice is controlled and restricted.

If B is true, then choice is random, cannot be controlled by anything. In this case, free will cannot exist as free will requires that person makes a choice, but in this case, nothing makes a choice, it just appears out of nothing and at random, which means that no person actually can control own choice. Choices are just random dice rolls in this case, and then cannot ever be used to justify different treatment, because no willing action exists, but just random action which could have gone either way if dice roll was different. This would be like casting a dice and then punishing people according to that dice roll.

So in this case, A or B must be true, and both A and B disprove free will.

Since free will is logically impossible to exist as no logical explanation for it is even possible, any arguments based on free will likewise must be rejected. Free will is also mutually exclusive with omniscience, as shown in round 1. No attempt to defeat that argument was made either.

So if “willing” cannot mean free will, and “willing” cannot mean controlled choice either, it follows that Christian God cannot possibly treat people only according to their willing actions, as “willing actions” dont exist.

The burden of proof is on my opponent to defeat 2 arguments against free will made so far, as his entire case rests on free will. If he cannot defeat them, they stand as unchallenged, and free will disproved.

Then my opponent must also explain how free will means people are treated according to their willing actions. If one person is treated badly by other according to other's free will, then one person is not treated according to own willing actions but according to will of other in that world. And since such world is created by God, where God decided that people can be badly affected by actions other than their own, topic is proved true in my favor.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Con #4

In consideration of the Resolve: Christian God cannot be just, if just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions:

IV Rebuttal: Pro's R2: "The topic was about willing actions, not willing choice alone."

IV.a Agreed, the topic is indeed about willing action, which pre-supposes willing choice, and the two cannot be separated, nor divided, even by coercion. Here is why. Were I a slave, and my overseer throws a shovel at me to dig a hole, I make the choice to refuse, and do not act. He may beat, cripple, or kill me; his choice/action. But, that's not binary. He may also choose a fourth action: to wrap my hands on the shovel, put his hands over mine and start to dig. But, the digging is by his choice and force of action; it is his strength, not mine, digging. I am still abiding by my free will of choice of non-action. Therefore, Pro's argument fails. The Resolve, however, singles out only the choice/action of "Christian God" [hereafter, "CG" per my R1, §I] by "treating all people always and... consistently." "CG" can, himself, choose to not act on some request by us in "treatment." We do not coerce him, either. However, the Resolve does not concern itself with choice/action by people upon one another. This is another Pro Resolve creep. The Pro R2 rebuttal, and the Resolve fail.

V Rebuttal: Pro's R2: "By law of excluded middle, either claim is true either [sic: "or"??] opposite of claim is true..." and other various imponderable creeps.

V.a Pro says, "The law of excluded middle can be expressed by the propositional formula p_¬p. It means that a statement is either true or false. Think of it as claiming that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other. That’s why it’s called the law of excluded middle, because it excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity."[9] But, this "law" discounts conditional true or false. Therefore, "every statement" is not binary. Pro's rebuttal is truncated logic assuming the "false dilemma fallacy,"[10] the assumption that choices are merely binary: true or false. No. See §IV, above.

V.a.1 Here's a better law: "When it comes to decision-making, preferences often don’t present themselves as simple binary choices. It's about knowing what we want, why we want it, and how much we want it."[11] This implies a minimum triad of choices, let alone the subject of decision and its potential more-than-binary condition. That's a minimum of 5 choices to make, none of which may even involve the binary true/false, creating a wider set of choices. This Pro R2 rebuttal of excluded middle, and the Resolve, fails.

V.a.2 Pro's R2: "Christian God ... created this world and everything in it." I call foul: More Resolve creep. The Resolve does not mention "...and everything in it." I insist on adherence to every word of the Resolve, but no additions nor retractions after the Challenge is engaged by the opposition [me]. I agreed to this debate as challenged, only. To accuse then, that my R1, §II.a -- II.c, accepted the Pro R2 addition cited above is, itself, an unacceptable, failed rebuttal. My acceptance of the debate Challenge seals the Resolve and definitions offered by Pro in Challenge. Any more or less after acceptance of the Challenge is Resolve creep.

V.a.3 Pro's R2: "...another attempt to change the topic" re: Adam & Eve. No, my R1, §II.a, "...genomic traits [are] from generations of parents to children, and not by direct creation by 'CG,'" was supported by credible citation [R1, [3]], and not mere opinion that is charged by Pro as an attempt to change the subject. Again, I am holding to the Resolve as given. It is Pro who now expands his own Resolve for argument's sake. Foul, and failure of the Resolve.

V.a.3.1 Pro further claimed that I have changed the definition of "the world" as given in Description. No, that is Resolve creep by Pro as noted above, §V.a.2, after the sealing of the Resolve & definitions given by Pro at my acceptance of the Challenge. Pro cannot now claim "the world, and everything in it." The additional words after the comma did not have mention in Description. It cannot now be assumed. As I noted in R1, §II.a. - II.a.1, the creation of Adam and Eve was unique to themselves because they were not born of a mother and father in Eden, whereas the rest of us were and are. "...Adam in the sight of God: He created him of dust and then said to him, 'Be,' and he was."[12] Our Earthly creation is from human, mortal ancestors; not directly by "CG." The Human Genome Project, concluded in 2003, did not include discovery of a divine gene,[13] but only those from generations of human parentage. That is also true of all other current animal and plant life on Earth. Of course, we commonly admit creation of us by "CG," but that is only by metaphor, and not empirically proven fact. Resolve failure.

V.a.4 Pro's R2: "This is another failure to understand the topic. The opposite topic doesn't allow for any not just, not even one committed by one person towards another." I must agree with the first sentence, and other readers/voters, as well, but I do not understand the second sentence's structure as a proper English syntax. This is a "failure to understand" string: What opposite topic? What is "any not just?" What "one person toward another" when the Resolve only addresses "CG" as the one treating others, and not other people to one another? Resolve failure.

V.a.5 Pro's R2: deductive reasoning. Pro suggested the logic of syllogism, a variation of if/then logic, which can be logical, but also can be fallacious:

p1: Birds fly

p2: Camels walk

c1: Butterflies swim.

In this 'syllogism,' there are two propositions yielding a conclusion which appears to be a true conclusion since both propositions are true. However, butterflies do not swim. Therefore, although the propositions are true, the conclusion does not follow. Pro failure to prove Resolve by lack of consistency.

V.a.6 Pro's R2: "CG" equals "God." But the Resolve only mentions "Christian God" which is a specific deity not recognized by all religions. "Christian" is the given adjective related to "God" in the Resolve. Only "Christian God" [shortened as "C.G." in my R1] may be the referenced deity in argument. Merely "God" is a generic term. Hence my rebuttal of Pro's R1 "'CG' has lost his religion."

V.a.7 Pro's R2: "My opponent gave a quote [from "The Book of Mormon" - my R1, §III.d, citation [8]] which conflicts with examples from this world, so rejected." Incorrect. The reference is from a volume published on Earth [therefore of "this world,"] and not another world, and not from the Bible, in keeping with the restriction of biblical reference in Description. Note that I have also cited the Qu'ran [my V.a.3.1], and will cite another non-Bible scripture source later. Pro failure to allow all citation but from the Bible.

V.a.8 Pro's R2: "The debate isn't about punishment alone, but treatment. And world does punish people or treat them differently before they make any choice." Punishment is not "treatment?" Since when? Yes, the world does punish people, but that is an argument outside the Resolve, which addresses only treatment by "CG." What Pro addressed in R2 argument is the fallacy of men, who are not "CG." Pro failure by Resolve creep.

V.a.9: Pro's R2: "Even if we assume this [joy and eternal life] to be true, this talks about next world, not this." Since when is joy not achievable in the world now? Since men and "CG" are eternal beings, since when are we not living eternally now? Death is a temporary condition, according to the following, when only the physical body dies, but not the spirit.[R2,[8]] The physical body and the spirit [the 'ka' in the following citation] reunite by Resurrection as a perfect being. "You are my ka within my body which forms and strengthens my limbs. May you come forth to the place of happiness to which I advance. May there not be spoken lies against me near the god [Osiris]." [14] Pro failure to prove Resolve.

I pass R3 to Pro.

R2 Sources:

[9] https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/glances ahead/IV.excluded.middle.html

[10] https://www.certaintynews.com/article/preference-vs-binary-understanding-the-role-of-desires-in-decision-making#:~:text=Every decision we make, big,simple yes or no situation.

[11] https://www.certaintynews.com/article/preference-vs-binary-understanding-the-role-of-desires-in-decision-making#:~:text=Every decision we make, big,simple yes or no situation.

[12] Qur'an, The 'Imrans 3, 19

[13] https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

[14] E.A. Wallis Budge, "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" Plate III, 11-14

Round 3

3 of 3

SatanLucy

Pro #5

As much as I enjoyed this debate, sadly my arguments werent responded to.

Free will, which is unrestricted choice, requires exactly that: unrestricted choice. But choice is always restricted by many things, including knowledge and ability to do willing action. In this sense, unrestricted choice can only exist if person has omniscience as well. Since choice, by definition, is choosing between multiple possibilities, if person was not aware of some possibilities, or was unaware of their full description, choice would be restricted and uninformed. But the only way to be aware of all possibilities and their descriptions is to have omniscience. So unrestricted choice(free will) requires omniscience in order to work. However, no person on Earth has omniscience, obviously. But what gets even worse for opposite topic is that even if person had omniscience, person still wouldnt have a choice, because person would knew all his future choices and his choices would be restricted to that and he wouldnt be able to choose differently. Free will vs omniscience paradox was not addressed by my opponent, and the fact that it makes his case impossible follows:

Without omniscience: choice restricted by being unaware of some possibilities and/or their attributes

With omniscience: all future choices restricted because person cannot choose differently than what omniscience already says person will choose.

So both cases, choice is restricted by something and cannot be free(unrestricted).

Further, my opponent never offered his own definition of the world, while I used the one from dictionary. Such definition says that world indeed includes Earth, all humans, places and things on it.

My opponent provided no definition of his own for these 2 rounds, but we can logically conclude that world must at least include places, which then creates a different treatment by location, as determined in round 1. But even different treatment by location would disprove my opponent's side of topic, as God created different locations which ended up with different humans being in those different locations, hence God treating humans differently by location. This was never responded to in any way, hence we can treat it as dropped.

Further, my opponent never even touched the argument of God treating humans differently before any willing action is made. Think of a fetus or infant. It made no willing action yet, doesnt even have free will. Yet it is already treated differently in many ways: 1. being created at different time than other people, 2. in different location than other people, 3. having different attributes than other people, 4. being affected by different diseases than other people.

Even if we could somehow grant 3 and 4 to free will of other people, 1 and 2 isnt even up to free will of any human, as humans likewise cannot change time nor location by their free will. In fact, for thousands of years, humans couldnt even leave Earth, and most still cant today. Likewise, being limited to Earth is itself a restricted to Earth choice, but most people dont even have resources or time to freely move anywhere on Earth. And of course humans cannot speed up or bring back time to choose at which time to give birth to. As none of these are free will choices. But 3 and 4 is also not any free will, reasonably speaking. Who created genes and diseases? They werent created by free will of any human, otherwise humans could create diseases and genes out of their mere free will, which they cant. Humans can at best alter genes, not create, and original genes obviously werent created by humans.

My opponent claimed genes and diseases were pure result of human willing actions, but think of the absurdity of such a position. Who dictated that some actions result in gene alter and diseases? Humans cannot dictate that. I cannot create specific custom genes by my own free will, nor custom diseases at will. Likewise, first humans logically couldnt choose their own genes and attributes, as those couldnt exist after them, but only before them. And think of further absurdity: If genes and diseases were only controlled by free will or willing action, I could fully control people's genes and diseases by my will alone, or willing action alone. But no one can do that, thus it takes more than free will or willing action to create diseases and genes. This is especially because causation link between willing action and specific disease or gene, isnt itself chosen, but created by God. Since such link is created by God and affects people differently, we can conclude that God isnt just.

Further, argument against free will in round 2 was never responded to. Since my opponent's entire case depends on free will being possible in the first place, we can defeat it by simply defeating the possibility of free will, as mentioned:

Something is either in pattern or random (true by tautology, random is opposite of pattern).

Choice can either be random or in pattern. Pattern restricts one thing to another. Random means thing isnt linked to anything.

Pattern means a restricted choice, while random means uncontrolled choice.

Only these 2 options exist, but neither are free will.

Pattern means choice is restricted by something which isnt itself a choice.

Random means choice isnt even being made, but is just a dice roll which cannot even be a choice, as no act of choosing even happens by anyone, and no different treatment can be logically justified by different dice rolls.

So since true dichotomy exists between pattern and random, neither being free will, we see that free will is logically impossible in more than one way.

But even if free will existed, my opponent still wouldnt have a case, because things created by God outside of free will which affect people are likewise unjust treatment, such as causation links, different locations, different time, different attributes, different genes, different diseases more present in different places, male and female differences...ect.

The only way my opponent can have a case is if God created NOTHING, but that is already defeated by description where it is assumed God created this world, world being defined as Earth and all humans, places and things on it.

My opponent never provided his own definition of world, so his challenge there is defeated.

My opponent tried to make a case for future worlds, but debate is about this world too. Future world cases were already defeated in round 1, which my opponent never responded to, because different treatment exists in this world which cannot be justified by future world, as it is still different treatment by tautology in this world.

I want to extend all dropped arguments my opponent never responded to.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Con #6

VI Rebuttal: Pro's R3: "...my arguments werent responded to"

VI.a I beg to differ. By the numbers:

VI.a.1 Free will: My R2, §IV.a: "the topic is indeed about willing action, which pre-supposes willing choice [aka: man's free will], and the two cannot be separated, nor divided, even by coercion..." The balance of the § describes my full rebuttal.

VI.a.1.A Pro then adds "...if person was not aware of some possibilities, or was unaware of their full description, choice would be restricted and uninformed." Pro assumes a totally ignorant person, completely uneducated, and assumes such a person is therefore void of free will. Nonsense:

“The perceptions of free will likely arise from an interaction between frontal and parietal areas. Free will might be considered to exist if a person’s brain is functioning normally without coercion... Everyone has the sense that their movements are ordinarily freely chosen and their thoughts are freely made.”[15] Note that Pro offered his opinion of lack of free will by ignorance, but offered no credible source to support the claim. This is a chronic Pro failure.

VI.a.2 Pro's hiccup is that the problem of omniscience posed [omniscience: "The belief that God has perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future"[16]] discounts the existence of free will [the ability of rational agents to make choices that are not causally determined by prior events[16]]. Further, this poses a paradox, "If God knows what a person will freely choose, it seems that choice is already determined, and the person doesn't truly have the freedom to choose otherwise. This leads to the conclusion that either God is not omniscient, or humans lack free will."[16] However, the answers to the Paradox Pro refused to investigate are multiple. I will offer three as examples [but the citation [16] offers 5 examples]:

VI.a.2.A "Molinism: This theological position suggests that God has 'middle knowledge,' meaning God knows what a person would choose in any given circumstance. This allows for God's omniscience without necessarily implying predetermination."[16]

VI.a.2.B "God's Timelessness: Some argue that God exists outside of time, so the concept of "future" is not relevant. From God's perspective, all events are eternally present, and knowledge of them doesn't necessitate causation or predetermination."[16]

VI.a.2.C "Redefining Omniscience: Some propose that God's omniscience doesn't include exhaustive foreknowledge of free choices. Instead, God knows the possibilities and the actual choices made, but the choices themselves are still free."[16]

VI.a.2.D By the previous three items, Pro's Resolve, argument & rebuttal are hereby defeated.

VI.a.3 Pro's R3: "...my opponent never offered his own definition of the world." Where is it required that I should oppose Pro's Description of "world" with one of my own? Pro's R2 claims his "world" definition in the Description is a "dictionary definition," but I see no source reference of any dictionary, credible or not, for definition of "the world" offered in the Description. Do you? In R2, yes, but that is after I have accepted the Challenge, as is. During the Challenge phase, I am at liberty to choose [i.e., free will] to deny accepting the Challenge. I did accept, and that was with Pro's description of "the world" as given in this debate's Description. "This debate will assume Christian God exists and that he created this world." Period. See my R1, §V.a.32.1. But Pro's R2 expanded on the Description: "Christian God ... created this world and everything in it." The creep of Pro's Description is obvious: that which I bolded for emphasis. Did C.G. create the domicile Pro inhabits? No, people did. If he wanted to include everything in the world as part of his Description, then the Description should have included it, then. To do so after acceptance of the Challenge is creep, and I will call that a failure by Pro. Case closed for this debate.

VI.a.4 Pro's R3: "...my opponent never even touched the argument of God treating humans differently before any willing action is made." First, see my rebuttal, R2, §IV.a, and §VI.a.2, and the 4 subs. Did Pro bother to read my R2, because he is either assuming I was debating someone else on another subject, or is he just assuming I had no R2 at all? Memo to Con: Read it again! Hint: My arguments and rebuttals are intended to oppose, not agree with Pro's arguments and rebuttals.

VI.a.4.1 Pro's BoP is to prove that, by omniscience, C.G. cannot offer free will, and certainly not to an infant, as Pro's R3 argues, but let's be serious. In general discussion, the term "people" can refer to any group of humans, irrespective of age, including men, women, and children. However, some contexts might implicitly or explicitly narrow the scope of "people" to adults, such as for formal and legal contexts. I suggest a discussion on the free will of people is that it is an adult discussion.

VI.a.4.2 Considering that the human brain has not completed its full development at birth[17], let alone the fact that it does not reach full maturity until about the age of 25[18], let children have their innocence. Pro's argument of an infant's fully conscious free will was not proven by credible sourcing, and is, therefore, in the realm of personal opinion, and is defeated by my offered, credible sources [17 & 18].

VI.a.5 Pro's R3 re-visits free will. I refer you to my R3, §VI.a.1, and all subs. Repetition includes Pro's Description drift of "world." Re-visit my R3, §VI.a.3, above. Pro failure.

VI.a.6 Pro's R3 final rebuttal is still another "My opponent didn't ------" [fill-in the blank]. "My opponent tried to make a case for future worlds..." Pro said. I'll refer, again, to my R2, §V.a.9, and to R3, §VI.a.2.B "God's Timelessness: Some argue that God exists outside of time, so the concept of 'future' is not relevant."[16] Pro's Resolve & Description is not relevant, either.

VII Conclusion

VII.a Pro began his primary argument in his Resolve & Description by declaring C.G. violated the Resolve & Description, as is given, word-for-word, and which I accepted, word-for-word[19].

VII.a.1 Pro argued that C.G. cannot, by lack of man's free will, treat all men the same. This failed argument, demonstrated by my first argument on the subject in R1, §I, I.a, and I.b, as well as by my rebuttal, above in §VI.a.1 thru VI.a.3. Pro's denial of free will simply does not hold, and he has not offered credible sourcing beyond his own opinion that the free will of man does not exist. He argued that C.G. "...cannot be just..." Pro has been and is still wrong. Therefore, C.G.'s treatment of man is "...always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions."[19]

VII.b Pro engaged in Resolve & Description creep from R2, on. Resolve creep is either addition to or retraction from Pro's stated Resolve & Description as challenged. I accepted the Challenge based on the Resolve & Description as is, and, once accepted by the opposition [me], the Resolve & Description cannot be altered by a single word. My R2 and R3 have rebutted all examples of Pro's Resolve creep. Readers and voters should assess the debate on that basis, and conclude that Pro violated his Resolve & Description. I have responded by rebuttal to every argument Pro presented, with credible source citation of all arguments & rebuttals. C.G.'s treatment of man is not by the whim of his thoughts and actions without regard for ours. My Burden of Proof that Christian God is "just" by virtue of "...treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions" is met. I appreciate your consideration and ask for your vote.

R3 sources:

[15] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4938720/#:~:text=The perceptions of free will,is functioning normally without coercion.&text=Everyone has the sense that,their thoughts are freely made.

[16] Google search string: "does free will require ominscience"

[17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234146/

[18] https://journeytocollege.mo.gov/when-does-the-brain-reach-maturity-its-later-than-you-think/

[19] Pro Resolve of debate: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/1b/christian-god-cannot-be-just-if-just-means-that-all-worlds-he-creates-work-by-treating-all-people-always-and-exactly-consistently-according-to-their-willing-actions

SatanLucy

#22

So no votes on this? Alright.

Kohai Administrator

#21

--> @SatanLucy, @FLRW, @fauxlaw

>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quoting from the debate is not enough. Voters must thoroughly analyze the arguments given and explain how they impacted the debate.

Kohai Administrator

#20

---FLRW's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Pro has better arguments that God is not just. In round 3 he states: My opponent claimed genes and diseases were pure result of human willing actions, but think of the absurdity of such a position. Who dictated that some actions result in gene alter and diseases? Humans cannot dictate that. I cannot create specific custom genes by my own free will, nor custom diseases at will. Likewise, first humans logically couldn't choose their own genes and attributes, as those couldn't exist after them, but only before them. And think of further absurdity: If genes and diseases were only controlled by free will or willing action, I could fully control people's genes and diseases by my will alone, or willing action alone. But no one can do that, thus it takes more than free will or willing action to create diseases and genes. This is especially because causation link between willing action and specific disease or gene, isn't itself chosen, but created by God. Since such link is created by God and affects people differently, we can conclude that God isn't just.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#19

--> @FLRW

I wish you would be more consistent in quoting, using the provided keyboard symbols for that purpose, because your vote is vague regarding your quotation of
Pro, and what is your own voting commentary, but I will point out that the following, quoted from your vote, is inadequate: " I could fully control people's genes and diseases by my will alone, or willing action alone. But no one can do that, thus it takes more than free will or willing action to create diseases and genes." Yes, Pro's R2 did claim that I mention "genes and diseases," but, reading over my round arguments, I don't sea that cited combination of words in my rounds. But, worse, the claim that man cannot "control people's genes and diseases by... will alone" is dead wrong. We now have the facility of genetic engineering and do it frequently with good success.
I'll take your vote as is, but you chose a poor example of a Pro argument to cite, and I rebutted in R2 and R3 that his choice to blame "God", as you did yourself, rather than the debate subject, "Christian God," which is a different designation, is out of the debate parameters by the Resolutuon.

SatanLucy

#18

--> @FLRW

Thank you for voting!

Fruit_Inspector

#17

--> @fauxlaw

You're welcome. I'm trying to be more active with voting here than I was on DART. It will be interesting to see what conclusion FLRW comes to.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#16

--> @Fruit_Inspector

Thank you very much for voting.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#15

--> @FLRW, @SatanLucy

I agree, this was a really fun debate. Readers, pls vote.

FLRW, thanks for your commit to vote.

FLRW

#14

I am looking forward to voting on this debate. I will assess the clarity and logical construction of arguments, ensuring the motion is well-defined and relevant to the topic.

SatanLucy

#13

Good debate 😊

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#12

I just realized that none of my source citation numbers in the text survived in my posting in Arguments, R1, so I've repeated them here [the entire outing] in comments # 9, 10, in reverse order for continuous readying. Sorry, I'll correct in R2.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#11

Con R1, pg 1
Con Round 1 [07/24/2025]

In consideration of the Resolution: Christian God cannot be just, if just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions:

I Argument: That which is "just" allows for the free will of man, i.e., "Christian God" [hereafter: "CG"] does not coerce man's will against "their willing actions,"[1] nor even their initiating thoughts driving such actions.

I.a Being Resolution keywords, I suggest "according to their willing actions" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to use an unbiased alternative; the law. In Black's Law Dictionary, "free will" is defined as "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control."[2] This includes control by "CG." Man has the power of free will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of his/her unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons, including "CG."

I.b Therefore, by free will, we are each treated by "CG" only according to our own thoughts and resulting actions, and not by any coercion of anyone else, man or God or devil.

II Rebuttal: Pro R1, "my opponent holds position that everything which happens to the person is a consequence of own actions."

II.a I appreciate Pro's attempt to assist by definition of my my BoP, but I will kindly tell Pro, "Get off my lawn." I will demonstrate my BoP, thank you. Pro assumes I, as a Christian, believe "CG" created me as my physical genome expresses today, and not my parents, along with generations of physical traits contributed by my direct past generations of ancestors to my unique genome. This passage of genomic traits from generations of parents to children, and not by direct creation by "CG," is scientific fact,[3] and not merely my BoP. Pro's argument, however, implies argument from the Bible, by way of creation of Adam and Eve, neither of whom had mortal parents to give birth to them. Theirs is a unique creation, and not how the rest of us were and are now introduced to mortality. Therefore, Pro's argument of "CG's" individual treatment of us by creation is not true, and the Resolution, therefore, is false. Not to mention that reference to biblical text was forbidden by Pro, and I call foul for violation of Pro's own rule in Description.

II.a.1 This matter of the unique creation of Adam and Eve, opposed to our natural birth into mortality, which began with their children's [Cain, Abel, etc] natural birth, poses a significant question whether this story is told in other ancient texts than the Holy Bible, from which such discussion is specifically forbidden by Pro. The answer is, yes; the story is repeated with varying detail by such examples as in the Apocrypha [Book of Jubliees][4], Jewish texts [Talmud][5], Gnostic texts [Apocalypse of Moses][6], and Islam [the Qur'an][7]. There are others.

II.b Coupled with this Pro R1 argument is that children who are born with physical debilitating defects were also created by "CG," and, thereby, are treated differently than others by "CG." Just as the rebuttal in §II.a, above, levels the Resolution, so this side-bar argument also demonstrates Pro's argument failure.

II.c Pro then argues a confusing string that shifts justice to the responsibility of the people, who, being treated unjustly by "CG" must, by "logic," also treat others unjustly. By so doing, Pro denies his own Resolution by discussion of an alternative, self-inflicted judgment upon man by man, thus also denying treatment of man by inconsistency, "according to [our] willing actions."

II.c.1 This Pro argument thus takes "CG" completely out of the "treatment" equation of the Resolve by ignoring "CG" altogether, when "CG" is altogether the the treatment entity of the Resolve Pro generated. This is argument creep, which violates both the Resolve and debate protocol.

II.c.2 This argument is an attempt at ontological argument for the existence of "CG," [existence of God by necessity] which simply attempts to prove the existence of "CG" without biblical reference, which Pro has ruled a forbidden argument. This is thin ice for justification of Pro's entire BoP as defined in Description, and, therefore, is invalid argument. I call foul.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#10

Con R1, pg 2

III Rebuttal: Pro R1, "###2, ###1, ###2," et al, if/then logic; the balance of pro's R1

III.a The balance of Pro's R1 argument is a mish-mash attempt at blending forbidden biblical reference [without using the term] with the concept of reincarnation, a non-Christian philosophy, and karma, a biblical [disallowed] philosophy known by another term, namely, "free will." This argument attempts logic that is, at best, ill, simply because it is smashing good effort toward illogic.

III.b "If/then" is a popular, so-called logic exercise many use, apparently without conceiving that "if" cannot justify "then" because "if" is, typically, not currently true, such as:

"If wishes were fishes, [then] we will eat tonight." But wishes currently are not fishes, so the consequence [then] is not a justified statement: We eat, should we eat at all, something else tonight, just by the wish of it. But wishing is only very rarely true, and is not a standard I would trust to support an argument. The truth: Tonight, we eat what is now in the larder, or what can be ordered for delivery to our door, both of which are just actions; or what we can go out and steal, not a just action. Let justice be meted out accordingly.

III.c Pro's argument is confused further by a time element:

III.c.1 "### 1. Foreknowledge ≠ Causation
Let’s begin with identity logic and time ordering: [this, and the following through the end of this paragraph, III.c.1, is all quoted from Pro's R1]
"* Knowing X will happen is not the same as X having **already happened**. * Even if God *knows infallibly* that person P will do wrong in 20 years, that wrong **does not yet exist in reality**. * Therefore, P has not *yet* taken a willing action. * Therefore, punishing them *now* is not a response to a willing action." [end quote]
III.c.2 Note, first, that "CG" has lost his religion; he is now, merely, "God." That has consequence within the defined boundary of the Resolve, engaging in, at least, Resolve creep. I call foul.
III.c.3 Second, it assumes that what will happen in 20 years is cast in concrete, allowing no free will to alter the person's course between now and then. This smacks of determinism, not a concept consistent with "CG."
III.d Consider the following: "24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."[8]

III.d.1 Note, this is not a biblical reference, in keeping with the Resolve, but, having reference to the "Messiah," it is clearly Christian principle, and, therefore, valid reference in support of Con's BoP to refute the Resolve: "CG" does not punish, particularly not prior to choice of evil behavior on man's part, but rather blesses man for and should their free will follow his commandments to achieve "joy" and "eternal life." It's a conditional consequence, not pre-determined.

III.d.2 In effect, CG says, "Do good, you shall be blessed to live in my kingdom. Do evil, do not expect to be blessed in any kingdom." The choice, and the consequence, is on and by us, only.

III.e Pro has here engaged in misrepresentation of "CG" by erroneous logic. Just because "logic" is expressed in logical terminology [ex: "## Logical Form * **A** = Person is treated based on their willing actions (justice)..." et al] it does not follow that function follows form; i.e., that truth has been told. This house believes truth is made of sterner stuff.

III.f Therefore, once again, the Resolve is false, and justice is held.

I yield R2 to Pro.

Note: R1 Sources listed in comments, post #9

Sources:

[1] https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/1b/christian-god-cannot-be-just-if-just-means-that-all-worlds-he-creates-work-by-treating-all-people-always-and-exactly-consistently-according-to-their-willing-actions Pro's Resolution; final words
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-genetics/
[4] https://www.sefaria.org/Book_of_Jubilees?tab=contents
[5] https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud
[6] https://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/vita/english/vita.gre.html
[7] https://quran.com/2:35/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
[8] The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 24-27

fauxlaw Global Moderator

R1 Sources:

[1] https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/1b/christian-god-cannot-be-just-if-just-means-that-all-worlds-he-creates-work-by-treating-all-people-always-and-exactly-consistently-according-to-their-willing-actions Pro's Resolution; final words
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-genetics/
[4] https://www.sefaria.org/Book_of_Jubilees?tab=contents
[5] https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud
[6] https://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/vita/english/vita.gre.html
[7] https://quran.com/2:35/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
[8] The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 24-27

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Scrub my posts #1 and #5; I've figured out an alternative that allows my posting of arguments in the argument section! Yeah, problem solved!

SatanLucy

Maybe Savant can fix it using AI, but I dont know how familiar is he with Apple's OS or if it can be done without having to write a lot of new code.

SatanLucy

--> @fauxlaw

Just buy some cheap basic windows laptop. I have seen people have issues with Apple's OS because sites, especially small sites, are generally tested for windows only. I never liked any of apple's devices because each limits you in some ways. They are closed systems. Iphone wont let you install apps, Apple computers have much less program support.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

--> @SatanLucy

I have already tried using a different browser on my device without success. I am willing to accept that the problem, since it appears unique to me, is with my device, a new-generation Apple iMac, which appears to have conflict with both DART and, now, Debatecraft. I am not going to change my device, having invested a fair amount into its purchase just for one site's apparent mid-match with my O.S. It may end up a fact that I must abandon debate on this site. With SatanLucy's acceptance of posting debate argument in Comments, I shall proceed. Relative to voting, I shall make commentary in Comments prior to voting, that votes on this debate which award Pro the win by my forfeit will be called out to Mods to remove the vote for more proper assessment. That voters may still find Pro's argument prevails, so be it. All should know that after nearly 3 years on DART, I achieved a ranking of 14th overall on the Debate leaderboard of over 1,200 participants, and should expect to have that relative position reflected on the DC leaderboard after a reasonable number of debates have been logged.

SatanLucy

--> @fauxlaw

Its a device problem. Until he buys different device, it will stay. Now, we can figure out why his specific device is the only one to have such problem, but for that, we generally need screen shots, browser type and device type. It could be browser issue, it could be device issue. So my first suggestion for him is to try a different browser, just to see if problem is there.

--> @fauxlaw

Savant test account here. Plz post a screenshot or a video on bug reporting.

SatanLucy

--> @fauxlaw

Its fine, post whereever you want

fauxlaw Global Moderator

--> @Kohai, @SatanLucy

I have made experimental attempt to publish my R1 argument, but, unfortunately, as with the closing months at DART, I am not allowed to make any entry of argument in the R1 argument field, so that defect continues. I will need to make adjustments to the text to publish, instead, in these Comments notes, but I must first ask SatanLucy if he is willing to continue debate on that basis, but I would rather not have to resort to that longterm. Any suggestions to proceed?

Fruit_Inspector

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

This debate would have benefitted from a resolution that was more clear and better definitions. Here are some issue that arose that heavily impacted the framework for judging this debate:

--PRO is challenging the idea that "Christian God" is just, while refusing to let the Bible be a source of information for who or what "Christian God" is. This allows virtually endless definitions as long as this being is a creator in some capacity and is labeled as Christian. CON takes advantage of this by using various characteristics attributed to God by different "Christian" groups (Molinists, LDS, etc.) to refute PRO's arguments. PRO is put into a position where they must argue (without use of the Bible) such characteristics cannot be attributed to "Christian God," or admit defeat. It seems PRO unknowingly chose the latter.

--As CON correctly argued, "world" was not defined until PRO tried to add a specific usage of the word that was not clarified before the debate. Since PRO failed to define both "world" and "Christian God," it cannot be assumed that the act of creation can be directly attributed to God for everything and everyone for all time. This issue could have been easily been avoided in the resolve and description before the debate. Since CON argued that there could be an initial creative act in which later events happen naturally and not as a direct result of creation, PRO has no good way to counter this claim as being non-Christian.

--Even the definition of "just" was somewhat vague and PRO tried to improperly add meaning to it during the debate. From PRO's Round 1 argument:
"Then of course, the place of creation is different for every person, and that too is different treatment as no willing actions were made before creation."
This essentially means it would be unjust for more than one person to exist because they would not occupy the same place in space and time nor in the exact same capacity. I don't think anyone in their right mind would view occupying a different physical location as being treated in an unjust way solely for that reason. Trying to sneak that meaning in requires more justification than PRO gave.

PRO's logic:
Apart from the resolution issues, CON rightly called out PRO's logic being a mishmash of logical syllogisms and propositions. Not everything was necessarily erroneous, and some of it was even relevant. But CON pointed out the shortcomings of PRO's logical breakdown in making a cohesive argument.

Conclusion:
Even if the resolution and description had been more clear about what PRO eventually tried to argue, it still would have been an uphill battle. The main issue was that PRO made assumptions about "Christian God" that were critical to their argument, but could not be proven in the debate framework. CON presented alternative characteristics attributed to God by various "Christian" groups as a valid rebuttal. PRO's argument failed, CON wins.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment