Meh. You set up a false dilemma in the fifth paragraph. But i know from previous discussions that there is little point in explaining this to you. — Banno

Just answer the question.

:grin:
Cheers, Bart.

Cheers, Bart. — Banno

That's not an answer to the question. I understand you're scared. The nasty reasoning man has come to town, so now the squiggle squoggle salesman better pack up his cart and run away.

I'll answer for you.

Banno: yes fartypants.

Right. Now a proponent of the problem of evil must accept this moral principle:

Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world

If they think that principle is false, a problem of evil does not arise. Thus, they must affirm it.

So, this premise is true (or at least a proponent of the problem of evil must accept it anyway):

1. Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world

Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true:

2. We are not going to adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it.

And from that it follows that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it. That's antinatalism.

1. Either P or Q — Bartricks

You set up a false dilemma in the fifth paragraph. — Banno

Show your working. Identify the false premise above and explain its falsity. Christ. You know you would have shown your working if you could.

Which one is false - 1 or 2? Come along.

Are you still saying stuff? — Bartricks

I know that you hear a lot of stuff in your own head, but yes, I am still TYPING words, thanks for your encouragement.

Would you like me to tell you what a disjunctive syllogism is?

It is an argument that has this form:

1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Now see if you can detect that argument form in the OP. You have 1 minute. — Bartricks

You can try, but you are not the most reliable source of accurate descriptions.

1. P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. Look at a truth table for an electronic OR gate.
So, in your OP, both your posits are false.

a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world. — Bartricks

P = 'a desire to leave the (sensible :roll: ) world to operate in its own manner,' IS FALSE, as an omniscient would have no desires and no omnipotent exists
Q = 'a desire to introduce sentient life into the world,' IS FALSE, as an omnipotent would have no desires and no omnipotent exists.

So, your gameplay is to conflate your disjointed and dysfunctional musings with the rules of propositional logic and your attempt is irrational and laughable.

Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you? — Bartricks

Are you staring at yourself in the mirror again when you form such thoughts? I agree, you are not very good at this!

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks

No, reproduction will continue, as a natural imperative for the human species and we will continue to combat suffering so we can further assist people like you, when you again get scared due to your awareness of self.
You don't have any arguments, you merely live in fear, you choose to live life as a curse. I pity you.

So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse — Sir2u

:clap: :100:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it. — Bartricks

Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true: — Bartricks

Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?

It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.

Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.

And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.

Bye.

For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise. — Banno

That's fine. Germans living under Nazi Germany felt more content in the 30s. Colonizers killing aborigines in Australia felt more content. Southern US Jim Crow society felt content (for those it benefited). So that doesn't do much philosophically for pointing structural problems. Pessimists simply point out what these structural problems are and explain why they are indeed structural problems and not simply a matter of contented feelings of an individual at a point in time.

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?

I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it — Bartricks

an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc — Bartricks

So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it.

They should change @Bartricks name to 'Fartricks'

I'm a big fan of B's rambling posts - albeit not in a way he appreciates. So I'm not defending his OP. But in this particular narrow case it looks to me your critique is misplaced.

P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. — universeness

If you were to set up a standard truth table of the 4 permutations then of course you are correct, but here B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.

Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person. — Bartricks

Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things.

B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.

Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.
— Bartricks — EricH

It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic.
I would think that it's his burden to clearly state what he intends with P or Q. If he intended P or Q = True, then that's what he should have typed, which would be equivalent to the 'exclusive or.' I think this should be written as P ⊕ Q not P or Q.

Anyway, it matters not, as
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires.
Bar tricks is all smoke and mirrors, but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. I am just trying to help redress that balance.

It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic. — universeness

Agree

If he intended P or Q = True, — universeness

To me, given the full context, it was clear that this was his intention.

Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires. — universeness

Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes.

but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. — universeness

I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:

EDIT EDIT:
Now that I'm thinking about it some more, B is not even asserting POR Q, it seems that he is asserting (sort of) P OR ~P

where P is "leave world as it is & do not introduce sentient beings" and ~P is "change world so it is safe & introduce sentient life". Yeah, yeah P is actually two propositions, but I think you get the basic idea.

Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things. — Banno

I mentioned nothing about you improving things so you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction. What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life.

you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction — schopenhauer1

Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp.

What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life. — schopenhauer1

And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist.

You are trying to 'patch' the inaccuracies in the sophistry employed by bar tricks when you would do better to pull back the curtain and expose his sophistry.

Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes. — EricH

I am glad you can garnish entertainment from antinatalism and antinatalists but I personally see them as a more destructive and pernicious group than you do. For example, they exist as a particularly nasty organised group in America. Footage from this group has already been posted on TPF and I don't take such organised nasty groups, lightly.

but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS.
— universeness
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk: — EricH

Easy for you to type but I think you are wrong and that there is a very real and very valid concern involved.

And we can work to remove them. — Banno

:clap:

Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp. — Banno

HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. You know it too. You cannot be that un-selfaware.. Or you are being super ironic. Either way, pot calling kettle black.

And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist. — Banno

But that is precisely what a Pessimist does.. He sees the intractable, pervasive, necessary harms that are structural. Even contingent harms that are consistently pervasive can look quite necessary as to structural. But though you're being tongue-in-cheek with your use of pessimism here, how your using it here is precisely what a philosophical pessimist is not. A philosophical pessimist does not just think things can't get better, but rather that the fact that there are structural negatives in the first place is something to explore, and to explore what those are and reveal them. The "optimist" in this regard is not just someone who "sees the glass full" but is someone who is overlooking what is structurally the case. Perhaps just to make their case about this and that project (like discussing analytic philosophy and logic on a philosophy forum) being important.

So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it. — EricH

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the case I am making. For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that, for there we find much more agreement than we do on the issue of antinatalism.

When it comes to the problem of evil, there is widespread - though not universal - agreement that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not invest a world like this one with innocent life.

Those who think that is not true can simply ignore the rest of what I say. The majority - certainly the majority of contemporary philosophers - will agree that it is true.

These folk will agree to the truth of this claim:

Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into it.

For if that claim is not true, then there is no problem of evil. And they think there is.

God has the ability to do the former, but we do not. But that's irrelevant. For all it means is that we must accept that we cannot ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it. Thus, what follows is that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it.

Pointing out that God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue - misses the point. The LNC is actually true and we gain insight into moral matters by employing our reason. It is what is actually moral - not what could be - that I am interested in.

And it would seem that this is a sound argument, or at least that a proponent of the problem of evil seems bound to accept it is.

1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)

There's that, then. Thanks for the chat.

There's that, then. Thanks for the chat. — Banno

No problem. Love telling smugs why the be smugs.

I think supercilious is more accurate than smug. But, as you say, the pot speaks to the kettle. That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point.

That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point. — Banno

Isn't that the name of your game? I mean you can retreat into what I predicted you would.. "That you are posing as ironic" all you want. Smug is smug. You can say Socrates was smug then.. but wooohee.. then you are comparing yourself to Socrates.. and maybe he was indeed a smuggy.

I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein.

I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein. — Banno

Ok.

This thread is about this argument:

1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)

Now, you have had long enough to read up on disjunctive syllogisms and research how they can fail such that you can then wearily tell me that the one above fails in one of those ways and then refuse to clarify in the hope that others will charitably assume that you do know, even though you and I know that you don't.

So, come along. Say where the argument goes wrong. You are sure it does go wrong, for no better reason than that I have made it. Yes? If Bartricks makes an argument, that argument is rubbish. So, now try and explain why it is rubbish. Do so without quoting yourself as if your pronouncements constitute pieces of evidence. And do so without any squiggling and squoggling.

For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. — Bartricks

But that is exactly what you did in your OP. Right here:

I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. — Bartricks

In other words, if She cannot satisfy both desires, then neither should you. But as you have stated, since She is omnipotent She can do both.

God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue — Bartricks

That's irrelevant. All that is relevant here is whether this principle is true:

1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)

Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is.

To challenge me you would need to argue that a proponent of the problem of evil can reject that principle. It's not about what abilities God has. Nor is it about what I can deny or affirm. It's about what a proponent of the problem of evil can do. Can they deny that principle? No, not and be consistent.