Argue against your own position!

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^

Sorry if I was being a bit brief. Essentially if God were to create something that was not subject to his own personal perfection, then it would not be a personal perfection anymore. It would be the moral equivalent of making a stone so heavy he could not lift it. Thus it being a logical contradiction and most philosophy trained theists would argue that God cannot do the logically impossible.

^^^^^

Sorry it's pretty late where I am. My contention is that, God being perfectly moral cannot create people who are free from his morality. If were to do that his morality would not be perfect since a separate morality or lack of would exist apart from his own, God would then be guilty directly creating sin, in accordance with his own standard.

And yes I would agree that God cannot duplicate his own perfection. Since god is all powerful, creating something as powerful, would be to make himself no longer all powerful. This presents a logical contradiction, like a married bachelor.

Only if logic = truth or fact.

Part of the problem lies with the word "perfection" which is frequently used to make it nonsense. If a perfect God created a perfect Adam who, with his free will, could only make perfect decisions how come the mess in the Garden of Eden?

A perfect man is an imperfect woman, a perfect horse is an imperfect butterfly, etc. The word is meaningless.

Okay, let's give this a go.

Just a few caveats; I had a really hard time working around my knowledge in this subject to craft an argument that I didn't believe to be fatally flawed, so I had to decide to argue for gun control rather than gun prohibition and do so in a way that did not rely on traditional rationales like crime or accidents.

Guns are a labor saving device for employing force, and as use of force is something that should be discouraged whenever possible, the distribution of firearms should be limited to as few entities as feasible. This would mean largely disarming both the police and the general populace as part of a comprehensive plan to increase overall societal stability, which would also include drug policy reform and improvements to the social safety net, both proven crime reducing measures. Tax revenue currently directed to drug interdiction and firearms law enforcement could be put to better use fighting poverty and attacking the root causes of crime. Police weapons would be kept in secured armories for use only when absolutely necessary, while civilians would be limited to certain long guns generally unsuited to criminal use. De-militarizing the police would reduce the adversarial stance of law enforcement and improve community relations, allowing the police to do more with less and prevent violent crime rather than punish the perpetrators after the damage has been done. A further benefit to this plan would be increased international respect and a greater ability to participate in UN arms control treaties, showing a renewed US commitment to international relations.

OK, pretty weak I know, but I think I should get credit for not only arguing for gun control, but throwing that whole UN thing in too.

My problem is that I am a centrist. What's the opposite position from sitting on the fence?

However, I will volunteer to take up a couple of arguments:

1) I will argue against a single-payer model for medically necessary health services (oh, please, let Inuyasha take up the other side!)

2) I will argue against the recognition of same-sex marriage

or

3) I will argue in favour of religious tradition as a basis for public law

I am open to any who support these positions to take up the other side.