sophie

King Rat :


Gee there are lots lots of them now, yeh. I though it all began from one, yeh. Jesus Christ, yeh, yeh. Praise the Lord, yeh. Go out and multiply, yeh.

The last time I heard about omniGOD intervening, was when omniGOD passed messages to some fella named Muhammed, who subsequently was so moved, he freed his slaves. Wuss he one of those mentioned?

I did'nt invent omniGOD, the philosophers did. Ask them, they will answer, yeh, we did, yeh, then try to fudge an argument, yeh, obfuscate it in logic, yeh, wrap it in waterproof grease, yeh, then mock you after. yeh yeh.

sophie

Purple Smartie :

good. yeh.

King Rat

So, are you going to actually respond?

Is your non-interventionist god different from the interventionist god of the bible?

If so, how?

If not, what religion markets this particular brand of god product?

sophie

King Rat :

I did, but I guess I must respond again. Did you manage to check with the professional philosophers as yet?

I guess by comparision there seem to be some difference between, non-interventionist, and interventionist?

But if I were to offer up some information, the omniGOD, is the combination of all possibilities. Philosophers may have a difficult time contradicting this omniGOD, seeing they invented omniGOD.

none I hope, yeh.

DMB

Sophie: WTF are you on?

DMB

I wonder very much which "professional philosphers" you favour. Do take a look at Impostures Intellectuelles as I recommended.

King Rat

I meant respond with something legible.

All my life, thanks for asking.

Yep.

Heh! You do have a sense of humor despite all appearances to the contrary. Or at least a sense of irony...

So, you are telling me that I need to check your god-product against the god-product of god-product peddling philosophers?

Can you not see the problem?

sophie

DMB I am on the road most of the time, trying hard not to cover my eyes, from seeing the mess humans(questionable) have made of this Earth.

sophie

DMB Nope I am too busy trying to construct a rational algorithm which allows US humans to avoid sequential thinking, you know the ABSOLUTE (cause and effect) in concluding mechanisms found in the brain. Not a trifling task, but I am thinking of asking the professional philosophers for compound help.

Mabye one day I will be able to read that stuff. Right now I am working in my very little spare time on a synopsis of Marvin Minsky's Emotional Machine. You can see that here http://www.notrich.org/AI/EMOTIONmachine/CHAPTER5.html if you like.

Doctor X

I would limit the duration. If die a child must for whatever ineffable plan, it need not prove so prolonged unless it is a pretty Incompetent or Evil plan.

This, however, does not happen.

On the contrary, I am quite sure most with some spark of empathy would recognize that when the child can no longer communicate save through moving her eyes she had suffered quite an extensive amount of pain and suffering.

A non sequitur acting as an argumentum veritatem obfuscandam.

Since the child never had "free will" with respect to the development of her predicament, this point proves irrelevant.

More non sequitur follows. . . . Incidentally, 4 does not follow from 1-3 and, therefore, is not a conclusion.

There remain Five Possible reasons for failure of intervention in such a case of severe and prolongued suffering:

1. No gods exist.
2. A god exists and he is evil.
3. A god exists and he is incompetent.
4. A god exists and he is irrelevant.
5. Some combination of 2-4.

--J.D.