But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A word without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things). — Benj96

I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in enjoying how the flames of a fire dance about. But if you also enjoy seeing a person dance about, it would be wrong to throw a person into the fire and watch them dance about in it. Watch the dance of the flames, or watch the dance of a human, but don't combine them.

That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate. — Bartricks

This anti-natalism "appears" logical. But it does not consider free will. If an omnipotent omniscient presence/entity were to abstain from allowing things to run in its own way then they must remain as only "potential to be" rather than "being/existence".

To exist is to be at odds with all other existents that themselves wish to exist. As they are in constant power struggle. For example in order for a Virus to exist it is in conflict with the immune systems of its potential hosts.

Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so.

It is true that for free will to exist an omniscient omnipotent person could not exist for any significant amount of time. They could merely exist briefly. If they are the "truth" (because of their superior knowledge and thus power/potency) then the truth is an unstable state in a changing/free will governed system.

In essence if the truth of things were to come out, it would be gravitated towards and dissected and dissolved and thus vanish almost as quickly as it appeared. In order to preserve free will. So if there is a god (an omniscient omnipotent being, a pure unarguable logic), they would likely not wish to be known, for if they did free will would dissolve and thus they must be destroyed to bring back choice.

A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having free will to choose one's action at all times. Being omniscient means knowing what every future choice will be. Can't have both. — Real Gone Cat

I think that's false, but it wouldn't matter much if it were true, given the point I am making. Just imagine that we have an omnipotent and very knowledgeable person on our hands. The same applies.

I genuinely do not know what you are talking about. You state that I have ignored free will. I do not know what you mean. I haven't mentioned free will. Why would I? I have also not mentioned granary loaves. There are all manner of things I have not mentioned. If you think free will is relevant, explain clearly how.

Do you understand the scenario I have described? There's an omnipotent omniscient person. Call them Tony. And there is a sensible world.

Tony does not want to interfere with the operations of the sensible world.

Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world.

It is wrong for Tony to do both of those things. Yes? (If your answer to that question is 'no' then you don't think there's a problem of evil and my case is not addressed to you).

I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. — Bartricks

To an omniscient, omnipotent person would their own existence be compatible with a "sensible" world ?

If they "know all" and have "all power" then they're totalitarian. Nothing logical can occur outside of their omniscience. There is thus no choice for any of their subjects as their (the subjects) choice is already made knowingly and powerfully for them. In this case they are mere extensions of the omniscient/omnipotent being and not their own "Agents". They cannot logically revolt.

What sensibility is there in being the only thing that exists and the only controller. In that case you exist alone. A "sensible" world is one where mistakes can be made, experiences can be learned from, agents can be free to decide for themselves what they believe.

To an omniscient, omnipotent person would their own existence be compatible with a "sensible" world ? — Benj96

I don't understand that question.

Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space. — Vera Mont

I see the problem rather that there is a system that always has to be in place when someone is born. It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. X hours for employer. X hours for self is our current system. Perhaps it cannot be any other way if we are to have this kind of system. Afterall, technology came about through this system. Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? I don't see how it can be contingently linked and went a different way really. Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. Distributors and laborers market, distribute, sell, support, fix, all the rest of it. Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. You are laborer. That is your value. If you deviate, you are a free rider (or you better be either independently wealthy or a one-off genius). This is how it is and will be and will continue with each new generation. All the change is window dressing.

I don't understand that question — Bartricks

What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". Nothing can oppose that which knows all and has all capability (potency). In order to have freedom/free will, in order to have multiple conscious agents with their own agency and decisions to make, an omniscient omnipotent being cannot be present.

If such a creator exists then their absence/ unavailability to humanity is the only true reason people have any free will. People are illogical and make decisions based on that imperfect/flawed logic. If an ultimate logic were to be presented, individual flawed logic would be overwhelmed and destroyed and total autocratic control would be assumed.

What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". — Benj96

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Yes they can. But what's the relevance? You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying. It doesn't address anything I am saying. "Would you like sugar in your coffee?" "Without sugar there can be no free will. That is what you're overlooking". "Er, I just want to know if you want sugar in your coffee. Do you?" "I can't want something without also not wanting it. And free will is what sugar lacks. Though sugar provides free will, it does not itself have it. Coffee, on the other hand, is flawed by its own internal logic. Does the coffee view itself as sugar?" And so on.

Let's make it easier. If you like watching fires and if you like watching people dance, is it ok to throw a person in a fire and watch them dance and watch the flames?

Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world. — Bartricks

If Tony wants to create new life and put it into a sensible world, he is creating something insensible (living beings with irrational/imperfect thought) and putting them into a sensible world (something logical/rational)

To the living beings (which are illogical/flawed - as all beings are) they would naturally project insensibility onto a sensible world through their insensible perception. They would likely have disputes and argue with one another as to what the sensible world really was - again because of their insensible/flawed understanding.

Does this explain where I coming from? Or should I elaborate? If both the living things were sensible and the environment - that which they were added to, then all would be sensible, agreed upon and therefore not argued. There would be no possible difference in opinion and therefore no free will.

That's why I cited free will. It is relevant

Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.

Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then.

You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying — Bartricks

I'm trying. I think you're likely an articulate and intelligent person. I respect your views and am attempting to offer views I think may be useful. I like to listen, try to digest the information and come up with a responsible and reasonable response to furher the discourse.

It's not relevant.

I have provided a new example, this time involving regular folk. Again then:

Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes. She does not have to cook that dish - she has other things available, including things James really likes.

Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike. Or, if she really wants to cook the hot curry, then she should do that and not invite James over.

Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. Yes?

Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.

Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. — Bartricks

Yes agreed. Nobody with sensible intentions wishes James to suffer an insufferably hot curry. So either cook something he will like, don't invite him or get takeout..

This is obvious. What relevance does it have to our previous discourse? Please explain

It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. — schopenhauer1

Except for the times when a system stops working and is overthrown from within, or suffers a major collapse and disintegrates or is overwhelmed by an outside force. People born into the period of upheaval have nothing to become habituated to and are free to experiment, until they empower a new elite who then impose their own system.

Afterall, technology came about through this system. — schopenhauer1

Not quite. Technology begins with bone tools, stone weapons, fire and dugout canoes. It is a process of human invention on which each succeeding civilization builds.

Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? — schopenhauer1

Serially and temporarily. Every system takes advantage of whatever technology exists when it assumes power and adds to the body of innovations according to its own requirements. The bronze age produced a lot of war equipment and personal decoration. Agricultural expansion periods improve on farm implement. Exploring/trading systems speed up methods of transportation; industrial periods expand the use of motive power and manufactury. The monetary age creates technologies for instant transfer of funds and information. None of it is necessary to human survival; it's driven by the needs of the prevailing system.

Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. — schopenhauer1

The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, just as the artistic mind creates art, music and poetry, whether it sells or not, the adventuresome mind explores and makes maps; the healing mind devises ways to mitigate pain. All of these activities were taking place in primitive cultures that knew nothing of money and lending.

Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. — schopenhauer1

Until the system breaks down. The Greatest Depression, collapse of the web, storms rip apart the electric grid and wipe out the commercial crops, migrants battle locals; cities starve in the cold...
and the Mennonites and Seventh-Day Adventists, Okushiri and Harga survive. Then they build whatever those small populations want to.

You are laborer. — schopenhauer1

I am a parasite, a surplus old person, sucking up a pension and contributing only unpopular novels. I can do that, because the relatively benign political regime under which I live has not yet unravelled. It's in the process of unravelling, but might, with a bit of luck, outlast me...

... Or Putin drops a few nukes and all bets for a future civilization are off.

Susan is the omnipotent, omniscient person. The desire to have James over for dinner is the desire to introduce new life into the sensible world. The incredibly hot curry that Susan wants to cook is the omnipotent, omniscient person's desire to leave the world to operate in its own way.

You are you. Susan has the ability to cook James anything. You don't. You only have the ability to cook the hot curry. Well, if it was wrong for Susan to invite James over and cook him the hot curry, then it is wrong for you to invite James over given you can only cook him hot curry.

So, it is wrong for you to procreate. It would be wrong for the omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate if, that is, she is not going to adjust the world. You can't adjust the world. So you ought not to procreate.

:roll:

No problem to discuss here, moving on. — Sir2u

:yawn: :up:

And one can go the other way around if one likes. That is, let's assume that it is morally fine to procreate. Well, then that means there is no problem of evil for God.

For let's imagine that you only have the ingredients to make spaghetti bolognaise. However, this is a meal that, though far from James's favourite, is nevertheless one that he enjoys well enough. Is it okay for you to invite him over for dinner given that you can only serve him spaghetti bolognaise? Yes.

Now imagine that Susan also wants to invite James over and that she wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Unlike you, she has a larder full of food and could cook James the dish he most likes. But she just wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Is it okay for her to invite James over given that she is going to cook spaghetti bolognaise? Yes, surely. If it was okay for you to invite James over and serve him spaghetti bolognaise, then it is okay for her to do the same.

Thus, if it is morally okay for us to procreate - so, okay for us to invite (well, force) guests to eat spaghetti bolognaise - then it is morally okay for an omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate as well. She could change the world and make it a much safer place for its inhabitants. But then she could cook James his favourite dish. But she is not obliged to do so and does no wrong - does no injustice to James - if she serves him spaghetti bolognaise.

And so, in this way we can see that either there is a problem of evil - in which case it is wrong for us to procreate - or it is morally okay for us to procreate and there is no problem of evil.

That posted twice. Not sure why. Presumably the system recognized that it was sufficiently important to be worth reiterating.

Bartricks :roll:
No problem to discuss here, moving on.
— Sir2u
:yawn: :up: — 180 Proof

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Another "so what?" thread. :meh:

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks

Of course you're not ...

Zinger! I'd have gone with "you're dealing with bloody Durga mate" or some such. But 'of course you're not' is very good.

And clearly you're not very smart, Bratshitz. I guess that makes me the straight man in this clown show. :smirk:

This anti-natalism "appears" logical. — Benj96

No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous.

A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids.

Oh do stop trying to derail this thread. Pure Bartricks baiting. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you're not being at all funny either. My cat just brought in a half-dead bird. I had to take it outside and stamp it to death. That's about how funny you are. So, again, engage with the argument, or go away. I've got a bird to nurse back to health.

No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous.

A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids. — Banno

How does that engage with the argument I made?

We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate. — Bartricks

That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it?

How does that engage with the argument I made? — Bartricks

Apparently, no response does.

That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it? — Vera Mont

Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting.