King Rat

All is forgiven, your nonsensical replies are seen in a new light.

p.s. It may help you to know that your English isn't coming across very well.

sophie

King Rat : mabye the shoe is on the wrong foot. Perhaps if you would list all the points you have had trouble comprehending, I may be able to assist you with your understanding.

Thanks for trying to forgive me, but I hesitate to accept such forgivness. Forgive yourself if absolutely necessary.

If my English is not coming across very well, there is a definite possibility this may be more of your concern rather than mine.

winstonjen

Sophie, if a human being caused you to have terminal cancer, did nothing to cure you or relieve your pain, would you consider them to be evil?

sophie

winstonjen :
To consider your form of questioning, there are a number of elements embedded in your question.

• caused by agent
• terminal illness
• no antidote provided
• concluding evil

Your premise is the agent who causes terminal illness and provides no antidote is evil. My premise on evil is the agent who causes harm is evil, regardless of antidote provided, but this is irrelevant to your point, and should be struck from the book of good arguments.

For me to subjectively rationalise your premising, I must delve into causation. Terminal illness when caused, and I suppose you will add much pain and suffering is endured, is either attributable to the direct hand of omniGOD, or is attributable indirectly to omniGOD. The case where omniGOD directly causes terminal illness has so far been unknowable and as such MUST be struck from our list of arguments as irrational.

This leaves us with the premising that omniGOD indirectly caused the terminal illness. If you wish to propose omniGOD as the initial cause of reality, then by the chain of causes and effects omniGOD has perpretrated due to the combination of possibilities of life, terminal illness (with lots of suffering) and young children with milky white skin and baby blue eyes have beared the consequence of this initial cause.

Is this an actual flaw in the physical nature of reality which has intrinsically caused this terminal illness? This is a question which must be investigated.

To pin the cause of some form of terminal illness using a vaccuum as the interloper mind you, is a bit intellectually premature.

sophie

The next question which MUST be considered when considering omniGOD as the initial cause of reality and as such life, is how far removed are we from the initial cause, and hence how far removed are we from omniGOD, within our reality.

This is a question yet to be discovered by physics. Physics today, would premise that we are at least three times removed from omniGOD in terms of physical reality. Remember omniGOD, because of the expanse of omniGOD"s power, is also distancable from creation. As noted earlier in the thread, individuality is on the rise the more omniGOD's direct presence is removed from reality.

Following this question, the next beast which needs to be addressed is whether human version of free will does not attribute direct causes to reality due to human choices. This needs to be thought out carefully.

Dr Rick

Okay, but then why exactly did you post this argument?

You might want to strike this dichotomy from the book of good arguments, too; it has no bearing on a putative omnigod's culpability. Irrespective of how far removed an omnigod that created a cosmos is from any event in that cosmos, he is responsible for what he has wrought. A god could be absolved of responsiblity if he didn't know the outcome or couldn't do anything about it, but then he wouldn't be "omni."

It can't be a flaw, because if it is, then an omnigod made a mistake, and omnigods don't make mistakes.

Really?! MUST we? NO reason GIVEN, just a NAKED assertion to be accepted WITHout question?

You do realize that it's irrelevant to an omnigod's culpability, don't you?

Particularly since physics is a science and so cannot address the supernatural and so cannot discover any questions about gods.

Science doesn't premise; people do. Scientists use science as a tool to explore premises about the natural world.

Physics doesn't premise anything about gods, nor can it help us anything about gods.

If the "expanse" of a god's power diminishes with distance, then that god can't be omni

sophie

Dr. Rick, nice to join, but be forewarned, I am a formadible opponent, but straight to business.


um, concerning the next question bit, the only thing asserted was the point of questioning and, what should be the next question as such you are blowing too much steam here.

Concerning physics, and the proposed creation bit, if we premise as I did that the initial cause of our universe was omniGOD's work, then physics can be used to tell us precisely how conditions have changed since the original cause. Questions like is quantum mechanics substantially different from classical mechanics. This indicates a change in the form. There seems to have been some change in form from the singularity to our current simultaneity.


When you go on to say things like
you may be missing the fundamental questions concerning precisely why we exist in this form in this life. You have managed to take the high road, but I believe this high road is not totally defensible.

The purpose of life and the reason for experiences should weigh in before calling the proposed omniGOD exotic names.

You then demonstrate the extent of your understanding by saying things like : where this is precicely the reason omniGOD is omniGOD. OmniGOD can be the weakest of beings and also the strongest of beings. This is what all powerful actually means. It means anything at all.,

Other than that your arguments are pretty straight, if only unconvincing.

sophie

Pain is actually a warning sign that internal reality is distorted. Ultimate pain would signal that internal reality is absolutely distorted.

If a simple beautiful little angel faces ultimate pain, she would not have to face that pain anymore, this seems a rational clause in human reality.

(i am drumming my fingers on this desk)

Does anyone know of the next lines of argument? Why pain? Why more and more pain?

sakrilege

No I don't know the next lines. Do you ever feel pain?

Doctor X

Division-By-Zero:

Indeed. You recognize the "Blame the Victim" cop-out. For this reason, I did not choose a more obvious example, such as a victim of rape or a victim of the Holocaust, or even a Celine Dion listener. Someone can argue that the "fault" lies "not in the stars" but with the perpetrator in the first two cases and, let us be frank, in the third the person could have bought tickets to see another band.

These cases rather underscore the "injustice" of the suffering. What did the child do to "deserve" the suffering? As one person quip'd elsewhere, "Ha! One too many Poptarts!"

Since the suffering becomes unjust, all else follows.

KingRat:

Perhaps if I did not use a shot gun . . . maybe a .22 rifle . . . make it a bit more sporting. . . .

With regards to your sincere attempt to educate the willfully misinformed, methinks you need a willing vessel to pour in your knowledge. Given her response, it seems she did not take your advice at all.

For:

Represents another ipse dixit. More unfortunate, it proves wrong. Whether or not one can determine the exact motivations of a deity is irrelevant to determining the possible motivations.

This is the "premise" that happens to be true--logic is so much easier when working with a true premise.

I will recognize that as the Admission of Defeat that it is.

If only life was so easy . . . I would have dismissed Ethan Hawke's relationship with Uma Thrumon years ago . . . alas . . . however, I must stand and recognize--though it is hard to type in a standing position--when a poster spreads Lies and Misinformation with beastliness aforethought:

The individual has not only FAILED to provide counter-arguments, she ARGUED FOR Two of the conclusions--Non-existence and Irrelevance.

On the contrary, she has merely spewed some of the more mundane fallacies. Perchance, due to KingRat's magnimity, she shall grace us with something extraordinary like an argumentum ad baculum.

Immature whimperings follow which only [color=green[/color]underscore[/color] that the individual has FAIL'D.

Though I would hope she would flop about more vigorously in the barrel . . . KingRat is finding this too boring.

For some reason, Dr. Rick does not appear to be at all concerned with the claim of "formadible (sic) opponent." Given his dissection of said "formadible (sic) opponent," I can see why.

Next. . . .

--J.D.