Instigator / Pro
28
1504
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#670
According to the bible, Is fatalism valid?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
Melcharaz
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
13
1489
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
This should be interesting! I'll go ahead and link scripture that supports the idea of fatalism.
Ephesians 1:4-13
Romans 8:28-30 9:10-23
Colossians 1:12-23
1 Peter 1:2
2 Thessalonians 2:12-17
why wasn't it talked about in the old testament by prophets?
Proverbs 16:4
1 Corinthians 2:6-15
1 Peter 1:18-20
Why is this doctrine often misunderstood or disliked?
There are many reasons why its not liked, Most people just don't agree with the bible and its precepts, people that do often don't like the idea that they are going to hell whether they will it or not, but that's a misunderstanding, we all have a choice in whether we serve God or not, Just because God already knows and has predestined that we won't make it doesn't make him the bad guy for you choosing to disobey in the first place.
Its often misunderstood because there is a difference between prescribed will and God's ultimate Goal. I however, have a hard time explaining that myself, If any are interested i would suggest watching Dr James white and his videos regarding predestination where he goes into depth about the will of God and its timing.
I invite voters to keep an eye on my spelling, often i misspell things.
I look forward to Contester's rebuttal!
The debate's subject is "Is fatalism valid, according to the Bible".
I will just blanket acknowledge that the Bible has verses that can be interpreted to support both free will and fatalism; I have no contentions with the existence of the scriptural support.
My contentions are whether or not fatalism in the Bible is "valid"; valid meaning true or logical. I would argue that it is impossible to logically have both fatalism and free will simultaneously, because they are dichotomous by definition. If one exists, the other cannot.
fatalism: the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.
free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
omniscient: knowing everything.
Prescribed will is not the same thing as fatalism. My opponent made the mistake of equivocating them in his opening argument.
The Bible heavily advocates for the existence of free will; without free will, original sin is void, Hell is a predestined inescapable consequence of death, etc.
God cannot logically know the future (omniscience/fatalism) if humans are agents of free will, because the future is a compounded set of free-will based decisions that have not been decided yet.
Fatalism and free will are mutually exclusive, and the Bible illogically proposes both coexist. This claim is obviously impossible. Because of it, fatalism in the Bible cannot be considered valid without obliterating Christianity.
Round 2
I will just blanket acknowledge that the Bible has verses that can be interpreted to support both free will and fatalism; I have no contentions with the existence of the scriptural support.
Then we are done, I am not here to debate logical validity of fatalism. I am here to ask if according to the bible it is valid.
What do you even mean when you say "is it valid". Explain please. Examples too.
Round 3
in this context, grounded or sound. an established doctrine in the scriptures. Also if you are going to argue free will and fatalism cannot go together, please use scriptural support to show this.
Anything can be "interpetable" from the Bible.
Why do I need to use scriptural support? I already proved they are incompatible and it's invalid to have them both coexist. You conceded that point, so I win.
Im not concerned with what other christians think. Also, you never find the concept of free will in the bible. There are many proofs throughout the bible of God overriding the free will of man. Nebuchadrezzar in the book of daniel is one.
the thing that makes understanding it hard is the that god outside of time fore knew and fore ordained all the would be, and he is consistently invovled in all of it, despite his timelessness.
Are you saying Adam and Eve did not bite the fruit with their own volition? If so, you are basically deconstructing Christianity with the revocation original sin. All of Christianity is grounded in the concepts of free will, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who disagrees with that.
You cannot then logically argue for fatalism, whether scripturally supported or not. This dichotomy directly leads to delusional thinking, because the individual is forced to compartmentalize their conflicting beliefs; conflicting, meaning the coexistence of free will and fatalism.
Noted, I will be more clear next time and ill make sure to mention if im debating scripturally or not, I didn't consider that my title and thought would actually lead to this scenario!
I had a similar debate on DDO where I had the topic "If heaven is real, it's mostly filled with atheist" and my opponent immediately started off by denying heaven and god when I specifically placed those in the description as necessary presuppositions for the argument. so I can sympathize with you here.
Well, we might have opposite beliefs on just about every conceivable level. But I support your right to express them and I want to see arguments where opponents concede things when it's time to be conceded.
I could hug you! I know you don't necessarily believe what i do, But im grateful that you understood what i was trying to say, i was hoping for a scriptural debate instead of a logic debate. Im afraid im not proficient in logic to such a degree as i am with scripture.
can you prove the bible supports free will?
As @ram pointed out, showing the Bible contains "ABC" is useless. You can literally find anything in Biblical scripture to support a position; that was a point I immediately made. From that point, my argument extended into the logistics of it. You did a poor job of defining your terms and conditions. Just because you couldn't box me into a scripture-only debate, it does not mean my argument was invalid.
Yes, I understand that, but you're missing the point. I said fatalism was NOT valid, BECAUSE the Bible ALSO claims people have free will, and these two concepts cannot logically coexist. Therefore, any proclamation of fatalism is invalid.
BoP in debates such as this is normally shared you have to show your position is valid - and your opppnened has to also - with the winner decided primarily by who does the best in the face of your opponents argument.
As a result, you had a burden to show that according to the Bible, fatalism is valid: as I stated in my vote - I don’t feel that simply posting some scripture and stating “here are where the bible supports it” is sufficient on those grounds.
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for decision: This vote is sufficent
There was no need to provide arguement for or against it as no arguement was given by the contender, how can i argue what isn't contested? As to context, the scriptures are specifically about fatalism/predestination. Again, i stress the bible as a scholarly work and to be cited and treated as such. As no contest was given against the bible or the context, i feel i should have won the source and arguement vote. You can reduce my conduct vote if you feel i acted in error in reproving/not reproving the contender's assertion of the source not being logical.
Scripture is both authorized and a scholarly work. the bible didn't just exist. Ive cited references that are logical in nature to support fatalism. Interpretation is not the issue. Free will didn't even come into the picture, i was asking if fatalism is valid according to the bible.
You referenced some scripture, so what? Nothing about your argument required the use of scripture only for the debate. I agreed that both cases can be interpreted from scripture. The debate subject was "is it valid", and valid wasn't defined. Just because the scripture allows for fatalism and free will does not make it logically correct; that was my entire premise, and that is why it's not "valid".
The free will question i asked to killshot but forgot to mention him. sorry.
Who were you talking to about the free will part?
If it was me. I am not accepting God to be true until you prove it to me. The free will part is a non-issue. A meaningless topic to discuss. If you believe in the Biblical God there is no reason to dispute things in the Bible. If you aren't then yes there are reasons but it is a waste of time since non-Christians should stick to proving God's existence since giving that ground up is definitely a d*mb thing to do. If you really want to waste your time go right ahead and give up ground to a Christian. That part was not directed at you but to anyone who has stumbled upon this message. Have a nice day.
Im afraid you haven't won that one, you haven't disproved the notion of fatalism through scripture or logic. as for my opening statement i stated that freewill and fatalism/predeterminalism can go together.
Just because the word Bible is in the title, that does not immediately lock me into scriptural debate. I already agreed the Bible has references to basically everything. You should have put more time into your debate and explained what you meant by "valid". You also should have specified your expectations and debate terms.
It's not valid to say someone has free will and subject to fatalism.
its not the same, as im stressing the bible as source in the title.
im using the bible as a source of reference and the basis of the validity, even if you used valid as interpreted as logical, the bible works together with logic to show that it is logical in its appeal to principles.
No, that's the entire contention of my argument. The Bible proposes they both exist and I am saying it's logically impossible.
"Is fatalism valid, according to the Bible" is the same thing as "According to the Bible, is fatalism valid"
Valid can refer to many things, that's why I gave it a working definition, since you failed to lol
you read the title backwards and i think that misunderstanding affected your view of the debate.
also i have no idea where you got the definition of valid as "Logical" most dictionaries translate it as grounded or binding or sound.
Also, do you have any biblical verses that says free will cannot coexist with fatalism?
"Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding"
Same as "spiritual" understanding. Shame that has little to no evidence existing. Oh well.
"you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual."
Guess your logic must be really different to mine because if I don't know something exists like a "spirit" I would deem it illogical due to not being proven to exist.
Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding, you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual.
Wow.
Can't ground scripture in reality guess it would not be a battle of who made the best argument instead of who had the better feelings or whatever you call "spiritual revelation".
I am going to assume you can't defend it logically which is why you are removing that as a way to make an argument.
You weren't explicit on what you were arguing so you opened the door for a logical debate.
Unless! you incorporate the doctrine of scripture's principals as logical.
"I am totally "free willing" to change my mind, if @mel can provide a good logical argument."
Sucks that he didn't even use logic. OMEGALUL.
I won't be able to give a logical arguement as the concept of fatalism comes through spiritual revelation. If you want logic, then im undone. but if you want spirit and scriptural? we have a deal.
Hahahaha!!!
I am totally "free willing" to change my mind, if @mel can provide a good logical argument.
Why do you this to yourself?
I am sure you have a had a run in with melcharaz enough times that he is not capable of thinking his Religion is wrong.
Are you a masochists?
Do you like pain?
Answer me.
I know a debate is about who can bring the most convincing argument but I do also like debates to be that both members are willing to change their mind.
yep! :)
Is that the DDO Killshot?