sophie

Docter X : On the contrary, individual S would be individual S no longer suffering.

Only if the omniGOD replaced every bit of pain with omniPRESENCE. Even then the individual no longer suffering would have bits of the omniGOD stuck to it. Then suppose the whole sub-system needed replacing, the individual would surely be part GOD part human.

This negates the individuality premise altogether. Why do you place so much emphasis on pain alltogether. Why should the unhappy woman stuck with the underrated man, not have her man replaced by the intervention of the omniGOD. This seems rational to me. Why does your premise of evil have to be so closely tied to pain?

sophie

sakrilege : But there are other ways to be kind, even strangers can be kind. Doesn't that matter?

Are we talking about human individuality while facing the herd? Or are we talking about an omniGOD imposing omniWILL on the individual and on the herd?

sakrilege

Isn't it possible to have just 10% less pain? That would make it easier.

sakrilege

This is the most difficult way to do things, but sometimes necessary. Where to go from here?

sophie

If we talking about human individuality while facing the herd, then why does the individual feel the necessity for the omniGOD to intervene under their own self-imposed conditions?

I feel no such necessity. There are others who seem to have such a need to be filled and perhaps they should take the lead and explain why their urgent need to make definitions the way they do.

What other conditions may exist which does not call upon the omniGOD to intervene. Subjective human conditions need not apply since these conditions along with any divine intervention negates individuality of the human.

Doctor X

They were not minor.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam. The story does not address the argument.

No. I recognize that no action occurs and draw the logical conclusions.

Irrelevant, since no action occured in this case of extreme and unjust suffering.

Whatever verbage one wishes to attach to whatever supernatural entity, the fact remains, again, that no action occured.

No action occured because no "omniGod" existed--No gods exists, or because he wanted the unjust suffering to occur--Evil, or because he cannot intervene--Irrelevant, or because he does not know how to intervene--Incompetent. A combination can occur--it could be Evil and Irrelevant, for example.

I have recognized the attempted argumentum ad ignorantium.

The issue exists all too frequently. Any theory must address it.

No, a deity could simply remove the tumor. A deity could simply end the child's existence quickly. A number of possible solutions exist which never happen.

Incidentally, this conception you offer collapses to Incompetent and Irrelevant.

No. However, if one wishes to believe this, it renders the deity Irrelevant--cannot act in a fashion to alleviate the suffering.

As noted to Howard, it is unfortunate how quickly an elegant model falls to reality.

Reality does not require such irrelevant and misleading definitions. Nevertheless, if you wish to hold them, then the "omniGod" collapses, again, to Irrelevant at best and Incompetent at worse.

No. Your premises do not fit reality.

The child finds it an emphatic part of her life.

If a deity exists and it wants the child to suffers severly and unjustly, it represents the most forgiving definition of Evil.

--J.D.

sakrilege

What other gods are there?

sophie

Docter X,

I think you are basing your case on a judgemental call. You have subjectively assigned properties to certain categories, found the test case, and as such your arguments are unfalsefiable.

This is indeeed the case because the omniGOD does not have to tell you or the individual when intervention has taken place.

You call of severe and unjust is closed in its implication and no external condition can lighten the load you are asking the omniGOD to bear.

From your expectation standards, your five conditions apply, with this I cannot argue. You yourself have left no way for proof to transcend your arguments. You can as easily refer to any case in history, simple or complex to prove your point.

In all fairness, to the theists who haunt around these parts, you have formed an argument against the omniGOD. That is your perogative. With your closed logic you can win the argument of the day, but I am sure the omniGOD, if such a being exists, will only smile at you, if the omniGOD so chooses (I think).

So back to your philosophy book of logic, that is where your argument belongs. HGowever the omniGOD arguments which float arounf in professional circles are nothing but intellectual logical prejudice. Your argument works because your premises are un-falsefiable.

love

Sophie

DMB

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

I find this statement twisted and obscene.

Do I detect something Gallic in your approach, Sophie? I wonder then if you have read a very good book, Impostures intellectuelles. Let me recommend it to you.
It is also available in English.

sophie

Let's take another look at your arguments which is based on "no action occured in this case of extreme and unjust suffering".

You do not seem to realise that to assess the situation of extreme and unjust suffering is subjective. Your subjective analysis of the situations you have discovered in reality. Your personal analysis of the situation is not something which cannot be rejected, just because you say so and because you are Docter X.

Even in the case where your subjective analysis is used as the basis of an argument, your conclusion as to the responsivness of the omniGOD is also a subjective one, and is subject to analysis.

Your main argument rests on the fact that no actions were taken in the cases of extreme and unjust sufferings. You have assumed that omniGOD must take action in the face of extreme and unjust suffering. This is your assumption and this is your interpretation of how omniGOD should present omniGOD to civilisation.

You further outline five possibilities which can rank to cover the interpretation of omniGOD's attributes. Again you have assigned this to omniGOD.

Every time I shake the assumptions you present you refute them by saying they do not fit the case study, this is refutation by ignoring, done in plain English.

You cannot claim in the light of facts on this Earth, that humans who are so obviously individuals must necessarily lose that individuality to cover any case you may present concerning the intervention by omniGOD. This shakes at the core all your subjective policies concerning the assumptions you make towards the case for omniGOD intervention.


Until you can clear your head of your unwillingness to accept valid information concerning humans in the case for omniGOD intervention, this argument cannot proceed, and as such leaves your subjective panderings as basically meaningless.