sophie

Doctor X, yes I understand the Doctor Clue scenario where pain seems unnecessarily real. Your argument semms to request the GOD be part of me but leave me an induvidual being. These two things cannot both be substantially true at the same time. (Why do you think religionists try to use GOD as their guide. This is because they want a clear advantage)

If we are individuals on Earth, the necessity of GOD being irrelevant is not as obvious as you may distinctly claim. Finding ourselves in a world like this, to all sensible people I know, entails a certain freedom from the GOD-mesh, and the ability to live and grow as human individuals. None of this necessarily implies the restricted 5 categories you have proposed. Outside of your own intelligence you may find other answers, other solutions, and being hesitant to qualify this with, if GOD were constantly by your side like a huge enclycopedia, you would not be able to develop your own instinctual perceptives. (You seem to have done pretty well for yourself, with that big mouth of yours, any GOD whose purpose would have been to help foster individuality would surely be pleased).

It now is apparent that the GOD enclycopedia is distributed about the universe, buried in various places, and the scientists and artists and cosmologists all have an equal chance at getting at the knowledge therein buried.

Try not to restrict your choices to the scope of your intelligence, some take offense at it. At least leave a spot wide open for me.

Now back to the pain issue.

Doctor X

When a poster descends to argumentum ad hominem, the poster has lost the debate.

Pain does not seem real.

Non sequitur bordering upon argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam.

A deity that cannot intervene becomes irrelevant.

Definite argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam. It is an unfortunate tactic to try to avoid the implication of an argument by creating another argument irrelevant to the discussion in order to misdirect the participants.

Nevertheless, I have not claimed "obvious" at all. Indeed, there are Five Possibilities.

Argumentum ad captandum vulgus

Unfortunately, the child lacks "the ability to live and grow as human individuals."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. The individual fails to address the actual argument.

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad ignorantum

A veritable pot pouri of fallacious thinking! Nevertheless, in order to rebut the argument, one must address the argument--commit an argumentum ad rem as it were.

The child suffers severly and extensively over a rather significant period of time. This fact requires explanation.

This:

is not an explanation. The child, while quite perceiving her excruciating predicament, does not develop--"instintual perceptive," whatever that means, or anything else save decubitus ulcers and other complications of her condition.

When asked, these children do, surprisingly, indicate that they would trade it for a far quicker demise.

Argumentum ad hominem

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

The individual apparently cannot even address the argument and now scurries into the gutter, dispensing with any trapings that would allow an observer to mistake her as a lady.

Unfortunate.

A non sequitur involving a buried encyclopedia, scientists, and a few hippies follows which not only does not address the argument it undercuts the individual since such an omnipresent deity should be able to intervene. That he chooses not to brings us to Choice 1.

Argumentum ad hominem

Again, when one cannot debate, descent to such behavior is, apparently, par for the course.

I gather I must type more slowly. . . .

--J.D.

sophie

Docter X : A deity that cannot intervene becomes irrelevant.

This is unfortunate. You have decided this. There is a difference between cannot, will not, would not. The irrelevance of the position can be based on some form of understanding higher than the level of understanding you have achieved. You can claim the deity is irrelevant, but you have no conclusive proof the deity is irrelevant. You assume irrelevance. It is you who confuse others with your bullying pulpit.

You have totally missed the point. Individuals taking care of their own business are not the same as individuals who are under GOD's constant care. As I have proved to you, perhaps you missed the proof, If GOD is part of you, you have no indivuality. Are you blind to this argument?

Counter arguments are quite suitable especially when your point of view is so completely focused on your interpretation of reality.

As for your 5 possibilities. You MUST realise this is restricted to your intelligence. You can only produce five possibilities, this does not mean there are only five possibilities. (take note of this).

By the way, which language have you mixed up to pass for English?

Now back to the pain issue.

Doctor X

I decided nothing; I drew the logical conclusions from the observations.

Irrelevant and/or Incompetent

Evil

Evil

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

Level of understanding does not enter into the argument. The child suffers for an extensive period of time. This is unjust.

The failure of intervention in an unjust situation of such severity and duration leads to the Five Possibilities. [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.]

I have not claimed any such thing. I have given Five Possibilities. Irrelevant is but one of the five.

On the contrary, given the flurry of malicious fallacious verbage, I have rather hit the mark.

The child finds this rather difficult. . . .

Ipse dixit and, indeed, wrong.

I appear to have sufficient perception to recognize it as irrelevant to the perniciously portentiously perspicaciously pedagogical pediatric pontine pestilence problem.

Then the individual will kindly provide one.

I have in that I recognize it as a facile argumentum ad ignorantium. The logical results of the child's connundrum creates considerable consternation, clearly. In response, the individual can only pretend that an alternative exists--cannot provide one, of course.

The one that does not spell "individual" as "induvidual."

Apparently, she who lives by the sword, indeed died by the sword.

Must recommend, in the future, when she faces an opponent armed with a Claighmore, she should not try to defend herself with an old toothbrush. . . .

--J.D.

sophie

The only issue one can have which in my mind has any worth is the issue of pain. Physical pain and mental pain.

You like to smile don't you, Well when I wipe that smile off your face with an unkind word, you feel pain, real emotional pain, don't you? Sometimes it can last for days, you cannot smile anymore. What does this mean? Should your omniGOD not have allowed unkind words to exist? What about your bleeding heart?

So the girl has cancer, if they take her off all the life supports, it is likely she would die a natural death. A death due to malfunction of genetic material. There are many causes of genetic malfunction, inbreeding, immorality, and perhaps genetic selection. What about all those other semi-species which died and suffered because of the evolutionary chain, are we supposed to pity them too?

No, I suppose not. Let us return to a little girl who has no chance of a normal human life, but is destined to a life of pain and suffering. Who helps her suffer most? The idealistic, egotistic docter who MUST save lives at any cost. Are these not the ones causing the most pain in certain cases under certain conditions?

Let us return to the issue of pain.

sophie

Docter X : I decided nothing; I drew the logical conclusions from the observations.

Have it ever crossed your mind you may be missing information, or you may just be goddarned blind to some other facts.

Of course your logical conclusion is correct in your closed world. What else!

Doctor X

The issue remains the extent and severity of the suffering in the child which is not the result of an "unkind word" or any other action of another person.

Inbreeding, immorality, and genetic selections are not the causes of this particular tumor.

In reality, the parents must consent for all therapies. This does not, of course, remove the responsibility for failure to intervene from any deity.

Yet the individual persists in her failure to provide it.

Until then, quod erat demonstrandum times four.

--J.D.

sophie

Docter X : Let us return to the issue of pain.

The issue remains the extent and severity and I was hoping this duo would return to the ballpark. When you typify extent and severity as the necessary conditions which does not remove the responsibility for failure to intervene from any deity, you may have neglected to include in your onmiGOD the onmiPAIN clause.

However on a very serious note, you should posess the faculties to realise extent and severity is as subjective as being dismissed as irrelevant. I could have easily substituted, unwilling in place of irrelevant.

We seem to have narrowed the case history of pain down to let us say a programming error which was propogated from the big-bang (the start of our world) to a human individual who has lived on the earth and has suffered excessively. Most likely in these cases death was swift seeing most of them do not live to tell the tale. The rest is a subjective call.

Take for example, your same little smiley girl, who was badly neglected before she contracted your awful imaginary disease. Now having the disease, her parents pay her more attention and offer her profuse accounts of their love she never never had before. Everyone clamors for GOD's intervention and suppose GOD did intervene. There exists a high possibility that the same little girl with her endless physical pain and her emotional contentment may in fact become mad at the intervention for spoiling her FUN.

So to claim extent and severity as the yardstick for calling upon GOD's intervention is as muddled as the mad cat next door who gets his finger caught in the door jam and requests GOD's
intervention to remove the pain prick from his finger

SO there, do we need more pain for this issue?

sakrilege

This does presuppose she is having FUN. What if she is not?

sophie

sakrilege : This does presuppose she is having FUN. What if she is not?

This then leaves us with the final condition, the little girl is in mental pain as well as physical pain. I think this condition is called comatose.

A condition most rarely excape and return for more pain.