Doctor X

I am always most gratified when someone makes my point for me:

Of course its development rather halts. Furthermore, it proves it is unjust which brings us right back to the Five Possibilities. Now, add in the fact the rather easy passings of a Stalin, Mengele, Hitler, and Emily Dickenson.

This:

Wanders off the topic to a small camp on the side of the mountain, smears itself with mud, and dances naked.

Methinks then just using terms like "time" for time would suffice. By trying to redefine a concept then arguing based on the redefinition you commit only fallacy.

--J.D.

sakrilege

sophie, do have a picture of the omniGOD you can share with us? I am very interested.

sophie

Doctor X : I am glad you came around to revealing your neighbourhood decor, specifically the many IF's you had to use.

Let me shift the accent of your quote. Granted well enough if all the IF's can be shown to be true. Because of the unwillingness (it sems due to inaction on the part of the omniGOD) to show up for intervention, we cannot know if the omniGOD wanted it, or the omniGOD could not avoid it.

I am willing to grant Docter X, in terms of logic, that omniGOD because of inaction under certain subjective conditions is Irrelevant to existential life on Earth. To be more specific, when individuals make choices without omniGOD's intervention, these individuals are taking action for themselves, they are highlighting their individuality, but they must also bear in mind to take full responsibility for all their individual actions.

love

Sophie

p.s. It was a pleasure.

Doctor X

While an attempt to try to attack the argument obliquely, it fails to appreciate why the use of "if."

Any of the Five Choices are possible based on reality--the facts of the case. Individual posters may argue for a particular choice, of course. The conclusions account for the possible motivations--or lack of them. This is something logical argumentation does.

Of course, the use of "if" occured with the initial presentation of the argument pages back, funny it should become a point of notice now.

Regarding taking responsibility for individual actions, this is irrelevant to the case.

--J.D.

winstonjen

Only those heartless enough to think that there are more important things than human happiness can make such an argument, and claim that people going the whole length of the barbed wire to their deaths, and that suffering is somehow 'good' for either society or the individual concerned.

sophie

winstonjen : good. Where is your example of making a difference. yeh.

winstonjen : Sorry you cannot get the point. yeh.

sophie

Docter X : sophie :
what was one of those big word phrases you used to dismiss my arguments, use it here.


It may be irrelevant to the case but it is relevant to the conclusion this poster has chosen to argue. relevant to the conclusion. does that sink in...


I only wish to add that you believe your case is watertight. but your assumptions need examining. Take a second look at them. Try to read the arguments I have proposed against your own claims. The only reasonable argument which stands on its own conclusive ground, is the omniGOD is irrelevant, or does not exist.

It is very simple. you have to take a subjective stand on the use of the term evil and incompetent. This is your choice of words, there is no substantial basis to claim either of the two possibilities. Basically omniGOD either exists OR omniGOD does not exist. If omniGOD exists then omniGOD is irrelevant to these matters because of the inaction.

If you wish to further qualify the characteristics of omniGOD, you must have rational proof, else you must by the laws of logic alter your conclusions written as the 5 choices, as possible evil, possibly incompetent, possibly lazy, possibly asleep. yeh. yeh.

wake up.

sophie

sakrilege : If you can see into my brain I can show you, otherwise not.

Mageth

Well, that's where I figured it existed.

winstonjen

It's a little difficult when you don't even have a point to get. It's always the ones who are NOT suffering that espouse the 'benefits' of moral growth from suffering. Not to mention that any growth is wasted when the cancer-stricken child inevitably dies.