What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused?
— Agent Smith
Both are random – using physical analogues, IME, the latter is ephemeral (e.g. fluctuations) and the former perdurant (e.g. vacuum).

Also: ↪180 Proof — 180 Proof

I'm sorry I don't follow. It's alright, I'm not running for president (I don't have to know everything! :wink: )

As for Pascal's wager being a false dichotomy, how?

Pascals wager is a trolls device, asking people to accept a bargain while assuming bargains don't lead to Hell — Gregory

I see wagers/gambles as an adult's game (risky, dangerous) and I'm sure God wants us to treat him as a mature person would.

Vide supra (my reply to Gregory)

As for how we might have a relationship with a being (God) who's not of this universe, causally of course. God can intervene/interfere (your choice) in/with our lives. If He is what people say He is that is and so necessarily we must placate Him/win his favor. Too He decides our fate post-death.

Sorry, I don't see your point, if there is one to begin with.

Religion is strong testimony that people look at life/existence as a gamble: The expected value if the entry fee is a finite life and if the gain is eternal happiness is off the charts. They say one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Scale up the number of birds in the bush and suddenly, the bird in the hand is not quite as satisfying as the million in the bush.

For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
— Agent Smith
This is true only if "x creates" presupposes that "x" is already "in existence" and ontically separate from "y".

If x creates x, x must exist before x exists.
Causa sui – "x creates x" – merely denotes "x" is not the effect of any external causes (i.e. random) and that it's only "x"'s continuity, or perdurance, which "x creates". — 180 Proof

Yes, time to bounce something off you and those interested.

What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused?

I am more wonderful than this post. — Cuthbert

Infinitely more wonderful! Infinitely more wonderful! :up:

Dreams are dreams, reality is reality. Tautological/a truism, nevertheless apposite for the occasion.

I do not think so. I think it is more likely that we have not turned on all the lights. The place could turn bad, sure, but it is not always the case. — DA671

:ok:

Antinatalism is not to be taken lightly or glossed over. At the very least it indicates that all is not well with our world. If one is part of a group and a few members want to leave, it should prompt a serious and thorough evaluation of the circumstances of the group, oui?

I'm not advocating for mass antinatalism as such because I can't ignore the fact that there's joy in life and the world. However there's also suffering, to some an inordinate amount of it which is the proverbial fly in the ointment of happy folks. It's a double whammy of sorts: the suffering are suffering, the happiness is tainted (guilty pleasure)

Thanks for engaging with me. If I can think of anything worth your time, I'll post you a reply. Until then adios!

Sometimes we wish to close the door in front of us not only because the room in front of us looks bad, but also because leaving the majestic hall one is in would hardly be desirable ;) — DA671

Indeed! However, there's little doubt that in the case of life on earth, it's the former (taking into account the givens).

focus on removing extreme harms before chasing minor pleasures. — DA671

:ok:

Stopping thoughtless procreation would definitely go a long way in helping this endeavour. — DA671

:ok:

Suicide is about as much evidence as the love people feel for life is evidence for the claim that the absence of happiness is bad even if nobody needs it (since many people want to keep living for as long as possible) but the absence of pain isn't (since many people don't seem to care about the fact that potential harm would also be averted, which might be the reason why many people want to preserve life even in instances of severe harm). — DA671

The self-preservation instinct is strong, yes, but doesn't help the case for natalism. After all, to not want to die is (a kind of) suffering. This particular strain of suffering could be avoided simply by not being born: no life, no fear of death; no fear of death; no suffering.

Too, the drive to continue to live is not because people are happy, but because people don't want to experience dying (many accounts indicate that it's painful). Back to square one which is the pressing/urgent matter that life and suffering can't seem to be told apart.

But I don't believe in hell — DA671

Whether one believes or does not believe in gravity, one falls if one trips.

I merely stated the needed corrections to your uninformed argument — TonesInDeepFreeze

What's so uninformed about:

I'm just puzzled/intrigued by the fact that you can't do math with nihilism and also with $\infty$ . — Agent Smith

?

I’m just not that scared of the consequences. — Real Gone Cat

You should be! E-T-E-R-N-A-L T-O-R-M-E-N-T!

You just went right past what I wrote. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm just puzzled/intrigued by the fact that you can't do math with nihilism and also with $\infty$.

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe.
— Agent Smith

It's possible for him to have created Himself. He be omnipotent, ain't He? — god must be atheist

For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
If x creates x, x must exist before x exists. :chin:
:confused:

How do I know that I can't comprehend God?
— Zebeden
IMO "God" is an anxiety, not an entity, like death.
That's still something said if not about God himself then about our conception of God, isn't it? But by saying "X is incomprehensible", "X is something we can't say anything about" etc.
Re: negative theology (which inspires my own decades-old position ↪180 Proof).

A warning. There are a lot of anti-religion bigots here on the forum who often give believers a hard time
— T Clark
Do we scare you? :sweat: — 180 Proof

:clap: :fire:

Then God can be ignored. — Real Gone Cat

Pascal's wager?

I was simply pointing out that basic arithmetic operations are undefined for $\infty$ which, to me, implies it (infinity) isn't a number like 2, 3, 18986, 0.98457..., 1/8, etc.

Thanks.

You have described the argument, as did I, but not addressed my criticisms of it. — Bartricks

Your 1^st point: No explanation for Benatar's asymmetry. Suffering has more weightage than joy; people want to get rid of pain more than they want to acquire joy. Put simply the priority, first objective, is to end pain (at all costs); only after that can we discuss pleasure.

This makes sense, oui? How can we think of happiness when we're suffering? First, clear our debts (end suffering) and then and then only are profits (gain happiness) possible.

Your 2^nd point: I mentioned suicide as evidence. People don't mind/even prefer nonexistence to pain and this basically proves Benatar's asymmetry: absence of pain is good even when there's no one to experience it + the absence of pleasure is bad only when there's someone who exists and experiences that absence.

Your 3^rd point: Preexistence nullifies the asymmetery. I'm afraid that isn't correct. Benatar's asymmetry applies to all existence involving suffering and the ability to opt out (suicide).

Unless God created himself, God can't be in the universe.

The suicider's logic is simple and clear.

Nonexistence is to be released from suffering. That the suicider ceases to exist upon death doesn't concern him/her (the absence of pain even when there's no one to experience that absence is good).

What about the pleasure that a person forfeits upon death/choosing nonexistence? The absence of pleasure, if you really look at it, is, in essence, pain and we've already demonstrated (vide supra) that "the absence of pain even when there's no one to experience that absence is good" (as per suiciders).

That's basically Benatar's asymmetry.

However, the asymmetry ignores the contributions a would-be person could make to the overall alleviation/elimination of suffering. Imagine that you refuse to start a family and it's the case that your children would've discovered the cure for cancer, solved world poverty, brought world peace, and so on. To illustrate, the Bernoulli family, father and two sons, were instrumental to the advancement of mathematics; if genius/goodness runs in the family, is hereditary, it would be a capital mistake not to...er...breed a good stock! :smile:

This is exactly how I feel about myself. J/k, heh. — Garrett Travers

:smile:

In math and physics too I suppose, it's more difficult to simplify than complexify. Thus the simpler something is, the more likely there's a powerful mind at work/behind it.

In Martin Rees' book Just Six Numbers we find out that for the universe to be as it is, life-friendly, all that had to be done was fine-tune the values of just 6 constants. Such simplicity! Surely the work of unparalleled genius!

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. Re: apophatic theology (via negativa).

Nonmathematical infinity seems to be a category mistake. Infinity is a mathematical concept, oui?

If anyone persists in this madness, s/he would need a nonquantitative definition of limit.

The obvious question: is $\infty$ a number?

Have a dekko at the following:

6 and 2 are numbers

$6 + 2 = 8$
$6 - 2 = 4$
$6 \times 2 = 12$
$6 \div 2 = 3$

Now $\infty$

$\infty + \infty = ?$
$\infty - \infty = ?$
$\infty \times \infty = ?$
$\infty \div \infty = ?$

$\infty$ isn't a number like 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12.

Don't get me started on $0$!

Spirit lives on in infinite slumber. — L'éléphant

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Benatar's asymmetry is simply this:

1. Nonexistence means the absence of both pleasure & pain.

2. The absence of pain is good even if there's no one to experience it.

3. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there's someone who experiences it.

I reckon Benatar's asymmetry is true :point: suicide!

Suicide suggests/indicates that people believe 1, 2 & 3 (above).

Gennaion pseudos (Noble lie) = White lie.

Those who advocate white lies should be closet/open antinatalists; truth is bitter i.e. life is suffering (re: the Buddha).

The beautiful bouquet of flowers :flower: on a gravestone hide the decomposing form beneath :death: .

There's something you're not telling us.
— Agent Smith
It's okay to beat around the bush. — L'éléphant

Yeah, one gets a rough idea of what an interlocutor actually wants to discuss. :smile:

Time to bring out the de re/de dicto distinction. Are people in love with Ariana Grande or will any person like Ariana Grande send them into a tizzy of excitement?

People might not be Jesus freaks as such but may be simply looking for someone who fits the description of what to them is the ideal person and Jesus just happens to be it.

The OP's friend stands for those people who have a specific idea of what spouses should be like (submissive, loves you no matter what, etc.) I believe the latter characteristic (loves you no matter what) is a trait we all look for in a partner and so your friend, OP, isn't saying anything which either a male or a female wouldn't have said.

Nevertheless, there's the issue of autonomy. The description of a spouse your friend gives resembles that of a slave. That's the downside, but then the million dollar question is, at the end of the day, are we not looking for slaves after all?

Impossibilities:

1. Physically impossible: No human, without the aid of machines, can lift the rock of Gibraltar (Long live the Queen). Time-limited (enhanced humans, like superheroes, may be able to pull it of in the future).

2. Technologically impossible: A manned mission to the dwarf planet Pluto is out of the question. Time limited (as we discover new technologies, we may be able to send a man/men to Pluto).

3. Logically impossible: A contradiction (p & ~p) is impossible. Married bachelor! Time limited?

4. Left to the reader as an exercise.

Indeed, randomness & determinism can simultaneously be true of the universe, but my point was that neither by itself or a combination of the two fulfill the criterion of free will.

Come to think of it, there's a paradox contained in the notion of free will: To be able to do what one wants, determinism is a sine qua non; in the same sentence, one wants determinism to be false.

Yeah, we (akratic) higher primates are just (sleepwalking junkie) slaves to that damned – damning – mesolimbic dopamine pathway. :sweat: — 180 Proof

:lol:

No comment!

I've run out of things to say.

Good day!

And you are the forums resident squeaky wheel. — T Clark

I'm not alone in exposing the flaws in our universe - just talk to any atheist worth his salt on the topic of intelligent design.

Talk about delusions of grandeur. — T Clark

:smile: A fact is a fact! If people had never complained about the awful heat/cold, no one would've ever thought of inventing the AC/heater!

Too, I don't see why anyone would get an ego boost from constantly seeing the dark side of reality. If anything, it makes us morose/despondent/melancholic.

You; in your self-righteous, self-serving, self-satisfied smugness; say that having children is evil. You deserve to be denounced in degrading terms. — T Clark

Hey, don't fly off the handle! I thought you said it was great to be alive!

I propose a distinction betweem absolute and relative infinities.

As a kindergarten child, I couldn't count beyond 10; the numbers greater than 10 are beyond my ken. This, is relative infinity and since it's in fact not an absolute infinity (more on this in a while), it can be treated as a nonmathematical/qualitative infinity.

Now, as an adult, I could go on counting (the natural numbers), but of course I'll never complete the task; this, is absolute infinity and it's mathematical/quantitative.

Qualitative infinity has to do with limits (our own, our tools'); Quantitative infinity is, at the end of the day, a concept to which limits don't apply.

So, you are not advocating that the end of all life in the Universe is a moral imperative due to the existence of suffering. You merely suggest that the Earth is over-populated and due to the fact that resources are not equitably distributed we need to stop producing children that we cant nurture adequately. — universeness

I'm not Thanos! :grin:

Suffering is a real problem! Luckily or not, the issue is complex enough to induce analysis paralysis. I just met someone from work who complained "I don't know where to start!" I suspect we're all in the same boat.

Coming to overpopulation, I simply echoed the views of others. They seem to make sense as far as I can tell.

I remember a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on how a tabletop (2D) quickly runs out of space, but that once you start stacking items into 3D, we can fit more stuff (area becomes volume). Birth and death at different times (4^th dimension) is the same principle in action. We pack more people in the same 3D space by using the 4^th dimension. In other words, the overpopulation crisis can be solved by timing births (deaths can't be controlled for to do so might require us to legalize murder of the elderly aka senicide).

:chin:

Information on ethnically Asian Jews are sketchy but there are black Jews and racial discrimination against them have been reported (vide the story of Nadine-Batchelor Hunt. So, are Jews a race or not?

I do have a love for her right to talk herself into a hole, though. — Harry Hindu

:lol: