sophie

DMB : I find this statement twisted and obscene.

This is probably because it touches at the heart of your unshakeable argument. You may find it twisted and obscene, but it is a fact of life, all those children neglected by their parents. It touches your sense of grandness hence you must reject it.

DMB : No Sophie, you don't get the point. I never call on any god, omni or otherwise.

Then why do you have to insist that the omniGOD intervene, if you do not wish it for yourself or for another. The argument is well constructed, but it is for the fools of the Earth to swallow, of which I am not one. It is an imperative argument used to refute omniGOD, found in the same class as those who argue for the omniGOD.

(ha)

DMB

I said that I found this argument twisted and obscene, and you, Sophie replied
Once again an ad hominem reply. Let me explain why I find your previous statement thoroughly nasty. Doctor X was talking about a condition that causes great physical and mental suffering to those children unfortunate enough to contract it. You then, on no evidence whatsoever,

• assume that this child must have been badly neglected beforehand,
• refer to it as an "imaginary" disease, even though it is slowly killing the child,
• assume that as a result of the illness the parents offer the child love and attention that she never had before,
• implythat the child enjoys the attention so much that she would be "mad" if a cure spoiled her "fun".

Since Doctor X is a doctor and seems to be describing a case he is familiar with and about which you know nothing, it is extremely arrogant of you to make the assumptions you have, particularly the last one. You haven't a shred of evidence that the child he was talking about was neglected and it is extremely twisted to suppose that terminally ill people who are suffering enormous pain are in some way enjoying the situation.

Have you had to care for someone dying of cancer? I have, and I found it a horrible experience. Have you ever had to suffer great physical pain? I have, and my reaction was to want people close to me to leave me alone, because their distress on my behalf made things feel worse for me.

You say it is a fact of life "all those children neglected by their parents". Of course some children are neglected. No-one denies that. Some children are physically abused. But what the hell has that to do with their suffering from an excruciating terminal cancer?

winstonjen

Well then, strap me in a fucking daiper and call me 'goo goo'. It would be infinitely preferrable to lose some of our free will and be free of pain than to have 'individuality' with the horrendous suffering in the world.

Howard

I know. That's why I'm staying out of this discussion.

"'If you don't lemme loose, I'll knock you agin,' sez Brer Rabbit to de Tarbaby."
Tales from Uncle Remus

Doctor X

Sophie:

That remains your error. The analysis results from unfortunately all too common real cases.

Ipse dixit and incorrect. The case is real, the suffering of the child is real, the decline of the child is real, and the death of the child is real. Should alleviation of the suffering occur, should an alteration in this inexorable decline arise, this would "falsify" the conditions.

This has not happened. Since rather too many children have passed from these cases, the judgment of "failure" to react on the part of any deity proves inescapable.

Quod erat demonstrandum times five.

Incidentally, am I the only one who recognizes the term "omniGOD" is an attempt to alter the situation merely by redefining it? If only life proved that simple. Therefore, I shall dispense with its use henceforth.

Irrelevant. The child experienced no alleviation of suffering. Period.

On the contrary, simple alleviation of the suffering would solve the problem. Alteration of the case would solve the problem.

You begin to grow in wisdom. Now expand upon it. In contradiction to your claim, one may "transcend" the argument by demonstrating alleviation of the suffering, alteration of the course, et cetera. However, this would prove tantamount to the ball never reaching the Italian ground. Should such happen, it would, rather, "open" the "clos'd" argument of gravity.

A deity that smiles upon a child suffering for such an extend and degree would force me to recognize it as Evil and, as such, deserving of neither respect nor regard.

Quod erat demonstandum times six.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated above, it rather resides in reality.

A non-responsibe argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam follows. The attempt to appeal to SCIENCE [!--Ed.] with variations of "un-falsefiable" has been rebutted above.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately for the child, incorrect. The severity of the suffering is not very subjective, particularly for an eight-year old. The duration lends itself to objective measurement of the passage of time. The deterioration in the condition of the child proves equally amenable to objective observation.

On the contrary, the conclusions result from the objective failure of alteration of the course.

On the contrary, yet again, I have merely recognized the conclusions possible from failure of action to occur.

Should you actually address the case, I will be able to address your argument. Thus far, you have merely impacted your cranium against the ample trunk of a sequoia. For some reason, the leaves did not shake.

On the contrary, yet again, the argument is based on real cases which, last I looked, occurred on this Earth.

Next follows another argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam where she attempts to assume that divine alteration of the case somehow alters the individuality of the individual. This is neither the case, nor actually relevant.

I must recognize this as the malignant whining of one who cannot address the problem of the child. While screaming raving incomprehensibilities as she flees the field, she flees the field nonetheless.

DMB:

Other than I am actually a hack drummer whose lack of talent affords him with the extraordinary opportunity to read, a cogent analysis of the situation. Incidentally, whether or not the parents neglect the child is irrelevant--it does not remove responsibility of any deity from the situation anymore than the color of the ball removes Gravity from its responsibility.

Yet you further recognize a singularly most odious and insensitive suggestion: that the parent who tend to spend many days, weeks, at month at the bedside trying to comfort, pray, anything, represents "neglect."

In contradistinction to such reprehensible insensitivity, winstonjen recognizes something the children pray for and do not receive.

Howard demonstrates he is the wisest of all.

--J.D.

winstonjen

Yep. Parody and satire are always good ways to get your point across on serious subjects.

Doctor X

And he achieves it with succinctness.

--J.D.

winstonjen

And convinces all but fundies with no sense of humour.

sakrilege

No, I asked the yet unanswerd question of What other gods are there? as an attempt to get clarification of the term; not that it was the right question but I did recognize an obfuscation.

Howard

Thanks, but in truth I'm just too lazy and unskilled to do what you do.

Then enlighten us please, what method does work with that group?