Instigator / Pro

LucyStarfire

1500

rating

debates

41.67%

won

Topic

#6336

If God doesnt exist, then truly good people and truly evil people dont exist

Status

Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

Parameters

Publication date: 06.23.2025 08:20PM
Last updated date: 06.27.2025 03:52PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 1
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

KobayashiMaru

1500

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

LucyStarfire

06.23.2025 10:29PM

Pro

For truly good and truly evil people to exist, there must be free will.

1. There is a reason for choice.

2. There is no reason for choice.

1 means that free will doesnt exist, choice is controlled by external condition which itself isnt a choice.

2 means choice is random and cannot be controlled by person.

Free will cannot exist.

KobayashiMaru

06.23.2025 11:45PM

Con

Greeting Lucystarfire.

I’m not quite sure how the argument being made relates toGod but will attempt to address both God and Free will.

My assumptions

By God I assume a version of the Abrahamic God. I also assumethat the argument is that without God there is no free will and therefore therecan be no truly good or evil people as they cannot be held morally accountablefor their actions.

By ‘no free will’ that if the Universe is deterministic thenwe can have no free will.

Truly Good/Evil people. This is probably where the hook is.

If God doesn't exist, (or fee will doesn’t exist) then truly good people and truly evil people don't exist.

Free Will

I deny that God exists however I am also a determinist in sofar as it relates to Free Will and Morality. My position is that in a technicalsense there is no fee will and that technically people are not morally culpablefor their actions….however.

Moral continuums such as good/evil exist as social constructsand these constructs are emergent ideas are formed outside of the scale which Freewill and determinism are usually discussed. E.g. an individual bird does nothave the same behavior as a flock of birds. The flock is an emergent macro behaviorand the study of the cellular makeup of a bird is a micro examination…no matterhow hard you try you cannot see a flocking particle in a bird cell.

What this means isthat a person can be good or evil in a social context because free will isdetermined at a different scale to that of social interactions. I cannot recallwho said it but while we may not technically have free will we do havethe free will that matters. They type of free will that exists atthe scale of a person or a society.

God

The existence of an Omni Abrahamic God is logically incompatiblewith Free will or morality and relative to these ideas is an incoherent idea. If there is an Omni God then it must know everything thatwill happen and have created people with that knowledge. Simplistic but theregoes free will.

Umbrellacorp

06.27.2025 03:50PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Nice debate topic with potential and a lot of room for arguments. It is clear that lucystarfire is either trying to waste everyone's time or just thinks he/she is too smart for this platform and makes short meaningless arguments in a 'gottcha' way. This debate makes no exception. I understand why one tries to connect free will to good and bad, but to fail so miserably? You could have made a very good argument but instead try to be short and dumb. I started to read this and got surprised by how you even thought of that (based on your arguments in our previous debate), but then it turns into a dumb rambilng. You lack intellect lucystarfire. Maybe read a couple books or at least think before writing, in the rare occasion that you try to really engage in a debate. Con wins this debate only by trying to at least make a coherent argument. Without mentioning that he makes a good one.

Lemming

06.26.2025 09:46AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Title
Hm
Description
Often good to have one.

Pro Round 1
"For truly good and truly evil people to exist, there must be free will."
Must there be?
'True' Good or Evil?
Even if made into something by external factors, can something/one not still be evil?
A viscous dog is still a viscous dog, even if it was abused into such a state.
Though one may feel pity for the dogs past, and empathy for their current self.
A friendly dog is still a friendly dog, even if it was cared into such a state.
Though one may be glad of the friendliness, and mindful of keeping up requirements for such.

Still, Pro makes argument that 'choice and free will is needed, but argues they do not exist, thus no good or evil.
I think some more time defining good and evil might have been good.
Or argument why free will is needed for such.

Con Round 1
Seems to argue that Free Will is not necessary to define people as Good or Evil,
That by their place in context of a society, they would be good or evil.

A problem for Con might be that they are not 'True Good or 'True Evil,
But Pro didn't 'describe what 'True Good or 'True Evil was.
While Con has defined Good and Evil as related to societies definitions, I think.

I'm pretty sure there are people that would disagree with Con about God and Free Will,
But Con didn't base their arguments on this, but rather their arguments that Free Will was not important in defining people as good or evil.
. . .

I 'suppose one could argue that if an individual had evil actions and evil thoughts,
They could argue they are not evil, it was Nurture and Fate that made them such,
But what 'remains of a person, when you separate them from Nature and Nurture?

Anyway, my vote to Con.
They more fully explained their thinking, and made counterarguments against Pro.
I wonder 'why make such a debate?
Fishing for answers perhaps?