God and antinatalism
This discussion is about two things. First, the compatibility of God (understood as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being) and antinatalism (understood to be the thesis that it is immoral to procreate, other things being equal). Second, to what extent the existence of God implies the truth of antinatalism.
The compatibility question first: is God's existence compatible with antinatalism? Yes, I think so. If antinatalism is true, then God - being morally perfect - would not have created us (or so we would have good reason to believe). But this is entirely consistent with being omnipotent and omniscient.
Being all powerful does not essentially involve having created everything. Being all powerful involves being able to do anything. But being able to do anything is not the same as having created everything (or, indeed, anything). God could make it the case that he created everything - he's all powerful, so that's within his power. But once again, having the power to make it the case that one created everything is not equivalent actually to having created everything.
There is, of course, a 'case' for thinking that God created everything. But the case is not very powerful. There is a very good case - I would say decisive - for thinking that everything that has come into being has a cause of its doing so. And that therefore there must be some thing or things that exist without having been brought into being. But to suppose that there is precisely 'one' such thing, has very little to be said for it.
Some people may, of course, be committed to the idea that God created us because they believe in the truth of this or that religion and this or that religion asserts that God created us. But that's not evidence, it's just dogma.
So, as far as I can see then, God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. But does God's existence positively imply antinatalism? I think so.
First, if God exists, then our lives here serve some purpose. Why? Because our lives here are fraught with danger and we are very ignorant. It stands to reason that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would not have permitted such lives to exist unless doing so served some purpose. Thus, if God exists, our lives have a purpose.
But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. Thus, as God exists and there is no doubt we do live in ignorance in a dangerous world, we can conclude that we are not innocent.
So we now know that if God exists, then a) our lives here have a purpose and b) that we are not innocent. And we can go further, for from this it seems clear what purpose our lives here serve: protection, punishment and rehabilitation. Those seem to be the only reasons why God would suffer us to exist here. That is, to protect the innocent from us without destroying us; to give us our just deserts; and to give us an opportunity to change our ways. No other purpose seems plausible.
Why does this imply antinatalism? Well, if you are in prison, is it morally okay to make innocent people join you? No, obviously not. Someone who attempted to do that, would do no more than make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. So knowingly to attempt to bring what you take to be innocent people into a world such as this one - a world we can know that God would not have suffered innocent people to live in - would be a wicked crime.
I think then that God's existence is entirely compatible with antinatalism and furthermore careful reflection on what the purpose of our lives may be, shows that God's existence positively implies the truth of antinatalism. This world is a prison, and if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you - which is wicked.
The compatibility question first: is God's existence compatible with antinatalism? Yes, I think so. If antinatalism is true, then God - being morally perfect - would not have created us (or so we would have good reason to believe). But this is entirely consistent with being omnipotent and omniscient.
Being all powerful does not essentially involve having created everything. Being all powerful involves being able to do anything. But being able to do anything is not the same as having created everything (or, indeed, anything). God could make it the case that he created everything - he's all powerful, so that's within his power. But once again, having the power to make it the case that one created everything is not equivalent actually to having created everything.
There is, of course, a 'case' for thinking that God created everything. But the case is not very powerful. There is a very good case - I would say decisive - for thinking that everything that has come into being has a cause of its doing so. And that therefore there must be some thing or things that exist without having been brought into being. But to suppose that there is precisely 'one' such thing, has very little to be said for it.
Some people may, of course, be committed to the idea that God created us because they believe in the truth of this or that religion and this or that religion asserts that God created us. But that's not evidence, it's just dogma.
So, as far as I can see then, God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. But does God's existence positively imply antinatalism? I think so.
First, if God exists, then our lives here serve some purpose. Why? Because our lives here are fraught with danger and we are very ignorant. It stands to reason that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would not have permitted such lives to exist unless doing so served some purpose. Thus, if God exists, our lives have a purpose.
But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. Thus, as God exists and there is no doubt we do live in ignorance in a dangerous world, we can conclude that we are not innocent.
So we now know that if God exists, then a) our lives here have a purpose and b) that we are not innocent. And we can go further, for from this it seems clear what purpose our lives here serve: protection, punishment and rehabilitation. Those seem to be the only reasons why God would suffer us to exist here. That is, to protect the innocent from us without destroying us; to give us our just deserts; and to give us an opportunity to change our ways. No other purpose seems plausible.
Why does this imply antinatalism? Well, if you are in prison, is it morally okay to make innocent people join you? No, obviously not. Someone who attempted to do that, would do no more than make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. So knowingly to attempt to bring what you take to be innocent people into a world such as this one - a world we can know that God would not have suffered innocent people to live in - would be a wicked crime.
I think then that God's existence is entirely compatible with antinatalism and furthermore careful reflection on what the purpose of our lives may be, shows that God's existence positively implies the truth of antinatalism. This world is a prison, and if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you - which is wicked.
Comments (236)
Would god still exist if mankind stopped procreating?
If you can prove that he would, then the answer would be yes.
You are SERIOUSLY mentally ill to propose an argument that God doesnt want children too.
I didnt want to say it the first time, but you asked for it.
Again, seek professional help, and don't expect any more replies from me.
I don't know if God exists or not, and furthermore, I know I don't know. In my philosophy it's important to acknowledge what can and cannot, reasonably be known. I'd have to have some very compelling reason to abandon the epistemological basis of my entire philosophy, for then - on what basis could I reason?
I suppose I could, like you seem to have done above, just spew misanthropic bile, but I have not found emotion a sound basis for reasoned argument, and I don't hate the world that much.
Sheldon makes a joke about why he knows he's not in the Matrix, because the food would be better, but I think to the contrary - food verges on the miraculous. I like to cook, and it astonishes me every time - that we are able to gather all these naturally occurring ingredients, and combine them, apply heat, to produce an endless variety of delicious meals. I'm guessing you eat a lot of burgers and pizza. Have a piece of fruit now and then!
Not an ad hominem argument. Not an argument at all. I think the worst that can be said against @ernest meyer is that he did not appropriately respond to the question.
What is wrong with you people? Rather than address the actual arguments you just decide the arguer is a misanthrope. Er, I'm not. I just follow arguments where they lead and don't pathetically decide that what's true is what i want to be. Now stop the ad hominems and try - try - and engage with the arguments if you can. Sheesh.
Hmm. If there is something wrong with everyone you look at, perhaps you are looking in the wrong direction...
That OP is distinctly misanthropic.
The god you describe therein is a nasty sod who, if we take your word for it that the world is a nasty place, condemns the souls he creates to torment.
The obvious conclusion is that such a being does not exist.
Oddly, elsewhere you argue that god is the source of morality.
This is perverse.
Now you might, if you were interested in rational conversation, come back at this post with an argument, or some sort of back down, or any of a number of other responses.
But on the basis of experience I'll put my money on another ad hom.
Yes, I did, and no-one says something like:
Quoting Bartricks
...unless there's something wrong. Ernest went right to the head end, but I'm starting at the bottom. Eat some fruit for goodness sake, put a bit of fibre in your diet. You'll be happier for it. Your digestive transit (to use the approved euphemism taking a dump) will be much easier. And maybe then, you won't feel so ...locked up!
Quoting Bartricks
If this is true then this is false:
Quoting Bartricks
You can't have both.
EITHER, an omnipotent omnibenevolent God exists and so everyone here, and everyone you bring here, must be a sinner (because God wouldn't have suffered innocent people exist here, your own words) in which case having children is fine (you're just putting criminals in jail). OR people here (or at least people you bring here) are innocent and God allows procreation in which case he is either not omnibenevolent/not omnipotent/not omniscient or a combination (if antinatalism is true, he either can’t stop people from having kids even though it’s wrong, can stop them but chooses not to, or doesn’t know that people are having kids). Or having kids is fine (if you want to keep the 3 omnis)
Quoting Bartricks
It's much more likely that something is wrong with you than that something is wrong with everyone.
Quoting Bartricks
:halo:
I'm not smart enough for your argument, Bartricks, so have at mine (it's oh so simple) with hammer & tongs if you like – others are welcome to help you.
:naughty:
We're on a philosophy forum. I said your comment was unresponsive, not inappropriate. That's a quibble, but, hey, as I said, it's a philosophy forum. We had a discussion to decide on a new name for the forum a few years ago. My favorite was "Quibbles R Us."
@Bartricks is a bully. He likes to push people around to try to intimidate and humiliate them. That's what passes for rational argument with him.
Are you George Bush?
I won.
Ad hominem. Blub, blub, blub. Try and argue something. Notice the arguments I have made. Then try and address them.
You've misused the term "ad hominem" again.
...but his reply to your accusation has me in stitches. Oh, the irony!
Actually, I hate to admit it, but "blub, blub, blub" is a pretty good summary of my philosophy.
Yes I can. You seem to be overlooking an obvious distinction: what's actually the case and what people believe to be the case.
This world is a prison, whether you believe it is or not. But most people don't think it is, because they haven't gone through the reflections above, yes? So most people think anyone they bring into being here, is innocent. So, as far as they are concerned, they made an ignorant innocent person join them in a world they knew was full of dangers. Wicked.
An analogy: Jeremy plans on punching me, but I have no idea about that. I think Jeremy is just some chap. Nevertheless, I don't like the look of him, so I punch him. That was wrong of me. I am a wicked person for doing such a thing. Even though, as it happens, what I did thwarted an unjust attack on myself and resulted in Jeremy receiving what he deserved.
What if one does believe this world is a prison and that by procreating one is providing God with accommodation for other convicts (and one has arrived at this conclusion responsibly - that is, by carefully reasoning to the conclusion in the same manner I have done)? Well, that alters the moral quality of one's actions, but it remains wrong, I think, however the vice it displays would be presumptuousness, not wickedness. For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation; your job is just to do your time and mend your ways, not get involved in the administrative side of things. It is to set oneself up as a vigilante.
Quoting khaled
No, because I am demonstrably arguing something whereas others are demonstrably not. See this thread for evidence.
There's a bit of a pile-on happening here. Bartricks has overstayed his welcome. His failure is to inadequately address the replies to his musings. See how in the reply to Khaled he fails to address the criticism that if the world is a prison then its creator is an evil bastard, choosing instead to simply to re-state his position by insisting that the world is a prison.
Mine is more like "blah blah blah", but basically yeah, same here. :grin:
What? So, I make an argument - two arguments, in fact - and your response is to dismiss the entire project of using reasoned argument to find out about the world. Excellent. What you actually mean is that you want to believe whatever the hell you want and if anyone dares to use reason to arrive at a different view, then reasoned argument is to be dismissed.
He didn't say that. He said this: Quoting khaled
And I addressed that. Bertrand Russell said "never trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said". Seems we can add 'or a stupid man's report of what a stupid man has said" too.
That's quite sad, I think.
But for anyone that has done these reflections, they would soon find that everyone here and everyone they bring here is not innocent. So I’m confused as to why you’re an antinatalist then.
Most people THINK they’re doing something wrong but by your standard they’re actually not.
Quoting Bartricks
Well then why did he make it such that people CAN procreate in the first place? Him being omnipotent could’ve made it otherwise. Why is he giving us criminals the ability to bring in more people?
So it seems that the way he provides accommodation is precisely by allowing procreation (ethically speaking). And this seems to be the case since having kids appears to be fine at first glance. And also because people don’t just appear out of thin air. God seems to never “provide accommodation” directly. Two pieces of evidence which lead to the belief that having kids is fine, hell, is precisely what God wants you to do (since he doesn’t seem to want to materialize us criminals out of thin air, and instead made it so that we have the urge to bring in more criminals)
Quoting Bartricks
And what’s wrong with that. Sure God may not need your help in providing accommodation, but that does not make it wrong to provide it nonetheless. Again, it’s just putting criminals in jail. And as shown above it seems that that’s what God wants you to do.
Sorry. Just typing out loud. I know one poster here, who goes by the name Schopenhauer1, who argues about antinatlism, it seems as if Schopenhauer influenced his views. And it is correct Schopenhauer thought life was a curse. But Schopenhauer is so, so, so much more than that.
I'm neither actually. I'm sympathetic to some aspects of antinatlism in that the way the world is going, specifically connected to the topic of global warming, mentions serios consideration of brining someone to this world.
Having said that, I think telling people they should not have babies does not make much sense. Each person has his or her own reasons. They should consider the pros and cons of having a baby. But the focus on pain avoidance is too narrow, in my view.
If you view this as being a foe, ok. I try to avoid painting such black and white considerations in general, not always of course.
I am probably the main proponent of Schopenhauer around here, so not sure your assessment of associating him with popular versions of AN is on the mark. As far as his metaphysics, it was suffused with philosophical pessimism. Will is insatiable, and eats its own tail which leads to the World as Representation being that of illusionary individuation (aka suffering of the individual being).
As far as the popularity of the topic, it's not really, but as of late there have been several threads, which I'm glad to see. But you can say any philosophy you don't get or agree with as "sad" to be popular, so this just shows your personal bias more than anything about the philosophy. I do hope it gets more popular, but Socrates was hoping the Socratic Method would be popular, and Plato the Forms and Wittgenstein the idea of language games. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see the popularity of a philosophy one agrees with.
Yet human life is about living in a society which is a collection of habits and historical contingency, which forces one to deal with these de facto actions one must do to survive, get comfortable, and find ways to occupy the mind. So having babies is not only "telling" people they "should" do something, but actually FORCES people do literally "DO SOMETHING" lest dire circumstances of neglect, homelessness, starvation, free-riding (pushing it on others), or the like. So one is a strong suggestion, the other is a de facto force on another. I don't think I have to say which one is more intrusive to another individual in a profound way.
If only I bet on how many times you used sarcasm and one-line quips as a stand-in for philosophy I would be a pretend billionaire.
Besides, it would presumably ruin your day, were you to find something positive in the world.
Why are you confused? I explained! Here:
Quoting Bartricks
Then you say
Quoting khaled
Er, no. Baby steps. They are doing wrong. Not right. Wrong. Wrong. Wrongy wrongingtons.
Just because a state of affairs is good, does not mean that the acts that bring it about are right.
Again with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. That doesn't mean what I did was right. It was wrong. But Jeremy got what he deserved. But my act was wrong, not right. But Jeremy got what he deserved. But the act that gave him what he deserved was wrong. (I'm imagining you've glazed over by now).
Quoting khaled
Why wouldn't he? No harm is done. They, by procreating, make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. Good - that's what they deserve - and further accommodation is provided for other criminals (two birds, one stone). And those who listen to reason and decide instead either not to bring what they suppose to be innocent people into an ignorant and dangerous world, or - realizing this is a prison and that everyone here is getting what they deserve - decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly to take their licks - will no doubt do well at their parole hearing, for they will have freely shown themselves not to be a self-indulgent busy-body git.
Again, relevance? Did you read the OP? Nothing you've said there addresses anything in it. I think you have literally just seen the word 'antinatalism' in the title and then blurted what you blurted. Bizarre.
Quoting Bartricks
They aren't argument that are commensurate with your assertions. You're eliciting
tangential ideas, and implicitly restating statements of contention. You've not once explicated why the world is a prison; only having used propositions of it being rife with malevolence and connivance. Why is it a prison, though? Incarceration implies isolation, abject and unfettered suffering, being bereft of one's elementary liberties and existing in a downtrodden fashion. You can use practical examples that underpin those traits.
Quoting Bartricks
'No harm is done'? If no harm is done, then why is this a transgression? This analogy's not likely to be valid, and its representations of a presumed God are equivalent to that of a tyrant (albeit that's not unforeseeable). How can an entity be omniscient if it allows for any lapses, or omnibenevolent despite passively witnessing suffering?
They 'are' arguments, it is just that you lack the comprehension skills to see this.
First I argued that God and antinatalism are compatible.
Then I argued that God's existence actually implies the truth of antinatalism.
But, like I say, you need to know what an argument is in order to recognise that I made arguments. Most believers in God think that procreation is moral. They're wrong. Most believers in God think that God created everything. They're wrong. Those are interesting claims and I have made arguments in support of them.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Stop trying to sound clever. You just sound like a policeman.
Quoting Bartricks
Of course.
Most theists believe that God created everything. But if antinatalism is true, then God did not create us - or at least, we seem to have very powerful reason to believe that God did not create us.
So, is God's existence consistent with there existing other things that he did not create? Well, I think so. Crucial to this question is what omnipotence involves. Does being all powerful involve having created everything?
I think not. I think it involves having the power to destroy anything and everything that exists. And it involves having the ability to make it the case that one created everything. But if one has those abilities, then it doesn't seem to me to add anything to say that one has actually created everything. How does actually having created everything add to one's powers? A special case that brings this out clearly, if it was not already clear enough, is that of God himself. God did not create himself. But that, surely, does not demonstrate that God is not omnipotent. God doesn't have to have created himself in order to be all powerful.
I apprehended the criminal as he was perambulating the repository.
So far as I can tell, what you were using that thicket of words to try and do was to ask was why, if God exists, would it be reasonable to conclude that this world is a prison.
Well, I explained why our lives here can safely be taken to serve some kind of a purpose if God exists. Because you don't know an argument from your elbow, here it is all nicely laid out:
1. If God exists, no ignorance or suffering would occur in a life without it serving some purpose
2. Our lives here contain much ignorance and suffering
3. Therefore, if God exists our lives here serve some purpose
I then argued that if God exists, we are not innocent.
1. If God exists, God would not suffer innocent people to live lives containing much ignorance and suffering
2. Our lives here contain much ignorance and suffering
3. Therefore, if God exists we are not innocent.
Those are 'arguments'. They extract the implications of their premises. So, if you want to take issue with a conclusion, you now know what you need to dispute - a premise. (Most fools here think it sufficient simply to point out that an argument 'has' premises - this, they think, constitutes a profound point and a refutation).
Anyway, we now know by ratiocination that if God exists we are not innocent and that our lives serve a purpose. Well, does that not already give us what we need in order to know what our purpose is? Those who are not innocent are those who deserve to come to harm. And here we are, we non-innocents, suffering ignorance and the risk of harm. Stands to reason, then, that one purpose that is served by our being here is a retributive one. Propose any other purpose, save the others I mentioned (protection and rehabilitation) and you face an age-old problem. That being that God, as an omnipotent being, could have realized such ends without suffering us to live here and furthermore can reasonably be expected to have done so.
For example, some propose that God's purpose in suffering us to live here was to allow us free will. But though it is plausible (though questionable) that allowing us free will does indeed mean allowing us the possibility of doing wrong, the simple fact is that the ignorance we suffer, and the vast bulk of the risks of harm we are exposed to here, seem to do no work whatever in allowing us free will, and so it is simply not overall plausible that this is what purpose this world serves.
The same goes for any other purpose. Namely, the purpose either seems inconsistent with being moral, or seems inefficiently realized in this world. Thus, retribution is left as the only plausible contender - extremely plausible given that we already know that our lives do have a purpose and that we are not innocent.
Quoting Bartricks
Not quite. I was asking why you thought the world was equivalent to a prison, as an a priori truth (independent of any theistic or non-theistic constraints).
Quoting Bartricks
1 is once again not a rationale; it's a supposition, which you may have acknowledged to be a premise. Why would suffering be absent without a purpose, if God was existent? It's not self-evident. It's only if you presuppose an omnibenevolent being, with a specific set of moral virtues, one of whom is ennoblement through suffering, that one can arrive at that conclusion. God, as a term, might be reductive here; that's one contention.
1, 2 and 3 are likely complementary to one another, if that matter is resolved.
Quoting Bartricks
1 is predicated on an idiosyncratic understanding of God, and his/her motives, if an anthropomorphism is even appropriate.
Quoting Bartricks
If an objective is inefficiently realized, then why would an omnipotent entity refrain from intervening? And what does 'retribution' entail, precisely? If you're referring to a literal variant of retribution, shouldn't it imply an egalitarian result (equivalently imprisoning and tyrannizing everyone)? Isn't this inconsistent with how the world's socioeconomic order is organized, for instance?
If you've attempted to answer the cardinal question (why the world is a prison), then from what I can infer, you've invoked a retributive objective as a means to doing so.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Ok.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
What?
I might not be replying to this thread anymore.
I think most people would say “you thought you did something wrong when you didn’t”. That is to say “had you had all the necessary information you would have known the act was fine”. That’s all I’m saying. Had the people undergone these reflections, they would know that having children is merely putting criminals in jail.
Quoting Bartricks
You haven’t shown that this is wrong in any way. As I said, it’s not being presumptuous, it’s just helping out without being asked. The only things that make vigilantism wrong in the real world is that it is often risky, and does more harm than good. But in this case there are no such worries. Everyone here and everyone you bring here is a sinner. You’re just helping out God (again, not that he needed help of course). A criminal that captures other criminals is BETTER not worse than one that doesn’t assuming he can’t make a mistake and capture an innocent (which we know is impossible here). And to go and capture criminals as a criminal is not to presume that the omnipotent warden is incapable, it’s just helping out.
Quoting Bartricks
If “no harm is done” by procreating then what makes it wrong? And you can’t just say “it’s vigilantism” that’s insufficient as I’ve shown above. Helping without being asked is not wrong, even when your help is not needed.
Also according to your view, God would have no problem “providing accommodation” himself. How does that work? Do you wager that if everyone was convinced by your brilliant argument, and thus chose not to have kids anymore, that despite that the human race would not go extinct? We would now have people that materialize out of thin air instead of being born to be punished?
I think the only danger is the danger of over thinking.
To have knowledge is one thing, to have the maturity to understand it is another.
To obtain knowledge is to be troubled and burdened by the responsibility of this knowledge and to be accountable when used.
If the danger does not involve you don’t worry about it, leave it to God to work on it and trust in him.
If the danger is part of your life, trust that the suffering and pain that may come from it is to prepare you for a journey. From this struggle comes valuable lessons required to complete the purpose that will be assigned to you.
Off topic, I preach of faith as in believing in good. To recognizing that everything is designed perfectly and things are how it supposed to be. The pain and suffering you witness is just work in progress and the results will present itself in the future and it will be good.
My teacher once told me “Pain and suffering of this world is like the pain of child birth. The Mother must go through the contractions to bring forth the miracle of life”
Pain and suffering are the contractions and the Mother is this world.
And the child being born is the miracle of bring heaven on Earth.
And purpose is not discovered but assigned to us by God.
Is like a soldier who is in the reserves, we wait patiently to heed the call of God.
When he calls us out that will be our purpose.
Tell that to the person who got transferred here [to this world] from hell. Of course, for people who were deported from heaven, it's exactly what you say it is. This results in much confusion, something you already seem to be aware of. All this assuming god exists.
Potato potarto. It doesn't affect the point. It seems clear enough that our blameworthiness is determined by what we think we are doing, not what we are actually doing (not saying that has to be the case, just that it in fact seems to be). If I attempt to kill Mrs Jones by giving her substance x - a substance I think will kill her - but it turns out that substance x is in fact the very substance she needs in her system to stop her from dying - I am still in the wrong and blameworthy even though my act saved Mrs Jones's life. We can say that 'an' act of administering substance x to Mrs Jones would be right under certain circumstances (such as ones in which an agent knew that doing this to Mrs Jones would save her life). But my act was wrong, because my act can't be divorced from the intentions with which it was performed.
So, let's just be clear about most people. Most people are fully aware of how dangerous this world is and how much ignorance it contains. And most people believe that anyone they bring into being here will be born innocent. Yet they do it anyway. Now that's wicked. You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. It is sufficient that one believes one is bringing innocent beings into this world, a world one is aware is dangerous and full of ignorance. The fact that, in reality, those who are brought into being here are not innocent and deserve everything they get is neither here nor there.
What about those who believe that God exists; that none of us have been created; that this world is a prison, and that everyone who comes here deserves to come here (and have arrived at this belief responsibly)? Let's first be clear how many people satisfy that set of criteria. Me. I think that's it. Just me. Is it morally ok for me to procreate, given my beliefs?
No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just. This is a prison, and we deserve to face the risks of harm we face, and we deserve our ignorance. That conclusion is, I think, inescapable, for reasons already given. So that means that no matter what I do to someone else, that person deserves it, and no matter what anyone does to me, I deserve it. Now by your logic, that means that here all is permitted - that I have no moral obligations, for no matter what I do to someone else, that someone will deserve what I do to them. That is what you'd conclude, yes? You'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".
But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.
Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be. Why should we treat others 'as if' they are innocent, even if we believe, like Pangloss, that anything and everything that happens to anyone here is for the best?
Rehabilitation. A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. They've missed the point of their imprisonment, which was not for them to punish others, for for them to be punished and to learn how to behave among those who are 'not' guilty of anything. (Why else does our reason tell us to assume others are innocent, not guilty; and to adopt an attitude of goodwill towards them?). And their behaviour is repellant. I mean, who the hell do they think they are? They are behaving 'as if' they have the moral authority of a judge and jury - that their job is to mete out justice. No, they absolutely do not have that authority and for them to think that they have it is, well, obnoxious. The people they're killing deserve to die; but their behaviour in killing them is no less obnoxious for that. Their job is not to mete out justice; their job is to do their time, understand how appalling they are, and undertake to change their ways. They are behaving 'as if' they themselves are innocent, when in fact their job is to learn how to behave towards the innocent.
Anyway, let's say I'm wrong about the above and someone who sincerely and responsibly believes that this world is a prison and procreation provides more cells for criminals is someone for whom procreation will not be wrong. So what? I mean, that just means it is morally ok for me to procreate. That's all. Antinatalism is not an absolutist position. Antinatalists do not typically hold that every conceivable act of procreation is wrong. Far from it: there will be lots of exceptions. They hold instead that procreation is in general wrong or wrong under regular circumstances. Now, most people do not believe this world is a prison and that their offspring are born criminals who deserve every risk of harm they face, do they?
It's "sad" insofar as it leaves out many fascinating topics of conversation that Schopenhauer was fascinated by, such as his accounts of the world being a representations, his observations about psychology, physiology, art and much else.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't have much to add that others haven't already said many times. However, I don't think you'll get far by trying to get people to feel bad for having kids.
Quoting Bartricks
You are correct. You won't see me again in this thread.
Good. Go randomly blurt elsewhere.
Should be a red flag. But anyways.
Quoting Bartricks
False. For one, one could justify such an act by noting that NOT bringing in those people also comes with risks. In other words, since you’re supposed to act as if people are innocent (even if they’re not), then you also recognize that not having a child can cause harm, and so both alternatives are risky, and a cost benefit analysis is needed. Or alternatively they could simply determine that the project of continuing the human race justifies their actions. Fully realizing they are imposing on others who may not be interested in the project.
Quoting Bartricks
Thus no matter what you do, it was just. That’s an inescapable conclusion. So the prisoners are never wrong in what they do. Although they may not be living up to God’s expectations of them, they’re never unjust. Despicable? Obnoxious? Maybe. But did they do anything wrong? No.
Quoting Bartricks
You’d be holding contradictory views. That antinatalism is true although a triple Omni God exists.
Quoting Bartricks
Yes it is. Generally people refer to “hard antinatalism” when they say “antinatalism”. Otherwise everyone is an antinatalist. Because everyone thinks that procreation is wrong sometimes. Which is the same as thinking it’s wrong generally but with a lot of exceptions. There is no hard line here.
Quoting Bartricks
Who cares about that. We’re asking if the act is wrong or not. That is what is being asked here. Not whether or not it is what God expects of you.
An omnipotent warden can expect all his prisoners to treat each other with cordiality as if they’re innocent and give them release if they rehabilitate successfully. But those of them that commit the most atrocious crimes to deserving people, aren’t doing anything wrong. They’re just refusing to rehabilitate. But not doing anything wrong. Because their victim deserved it. They (the crime committers) may not be released as a result, but that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.
:rofl: Yeah, so "forthright" that you're evading a logical counter-argument to your fatuous, fallacious, OP. :eyes:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521348
Indeed! However, look at it this way. You'll be relieved and that must mean something.
Schopenhauer himself would have probably took umbrage at piecemealing his systemic philosophy but ok. Also literally his ethics and aesthetics come out of his metaphysics which is based on Will and Platonic Ideas. No reason to swipe at me if you wanted to start a Schopenhauer thread though. If you want to contribute to the one I recently created where I ask about Will's connection to Representation, have at it.
That would hold under the condition that humans created God.
Living off a cozy trust fund has it upsides, such as one being able to afford decadent pessimist views. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around: indulging in misery doesn't make one rich.
Unnecessary and unfounded ad hom. Are you a trust fund baby for writing a meaningless quip on a philosophy forum?
*sigh*
Hold your Rocinante!
I myself realized, unfortunately rather late in my life and much to my regret, that the pessimism I used to be so fond of is something I cannot actually afford. And by "afford" I mean literally, in terms of energy and money that I have. I sometimes still look back on those days with a woeful happiness. Sometimes, I actually envy the pessimists and the antinatalists and the cynics and such. They can still indulge in something that has become unavailable to me.
That is unfounded and a cliche. You can be poor and pessimistic. You can be digging in a field and think in your mind the whole time "I hate this shit.. Why is life like this?"
Actually, my very point that we are flooded with activities we'd rather not do if we had a choice, is part of the pessimism, so that is just proving the point if anything. But it is not a "truism" that one cannot connect one's very mundane activities with the "larger picture", pessimistic or not. That is up to the individual and how they process their practical efforts with larger ideas in general.
Duh. Of course one can be poor and pessimistic. Many people are. But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor.
That's an assertion that is not even close to being necessarily true. Actually, it might be quite the opposite, that someone is pessimistic because they are poor, and I wouldn't blame them! But I want you to understand that there is a distinction between "pessimism' and "Pessimism". Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic.
Quoting khaled
No, on the supposition that people are innocent, then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply (we do not need to rehearse them here, as this isn't really about them). If procreation creates new people, then it would be wrong. And if it transfers people from elsewhere, then our ignorance of what conditions 'elsewhere' are like means we are not entitled to assume they are better or worse than here, in which case it would be wrong to force the transfer. Furthermore, on the assumption that God exists we can safely assume that 'elsewhere' is considerably better than here, perfect indeed. For God would not have placed innocent people anywhere else (and so on the supposition that offspring are innocent and God exists, we would be transferring innocent people from God's company into our own....which is wrong).
Quoting khaled
Well, you've reasoned exactly as I said you would. Yes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. I am not going to just repeat what I said again. I explained why that simply did not follow at all. But whatever.
Quoting khaled
No I wouldn't, for reasons already explained. Antinatalism is not the view that all acts of procreation are wrong, but that they are wrong in standard circumstances. Thus, it is consistent with being an antinatalist to admit that some acts of procreation are morally permissible or even obligatory.
Quoting khaled
No, 'antinatalism' is the view that procreation is wrong in standard circumstances; default wrong, etc (it's a family of views). That doesn't make 'everyone' an antinatalist. Christ! That's as thick as insisting that being able to speak French involves knowing every damn French word for everything, and then when having the stupidity of that view pointed out to you replying 'well, if you don't have to know every single word, then everyone can speak french because everyone knows some French words". Who is the most famous contemporary antinatalist? David Benatar. And what's his view? Is his view that all acts of procreation are wrong? (No). Try reading the actual literature and not wikipedia entries.
If god exists without mankind, then yes, god is compatible with antinatalism.
Have fun proving he would exist.
But your reasoning is bizarre. I explained why God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. Omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything. That's my case for their compatibility: it has to do with what omnipotence involves.
But you have suggested, on no basis whatsoever, that whether God's existence is compatible with antinatalism has something to do with whether or not God would exist absent mankind. Why do you think that has anything to do with it?
I'm waiting for it.
Quoting Bartricks
For the most simple reason. If god does exist and continues to look favorably on antinatalism, then the the two are compatible or god would be using his superpowers he would make the whole thing disappear.
If god continues to accept antinatalism until there are no more humans then he should continue to exist without us. If he does not continue then god never existed anyway and was just a figment of your imagination.
So all you have to do is prove that god would still be around after we are extinct.
If you cannot do that, then all I can think of to say is that the idea is a load of shit.
But God can quite obviously exist absent us anyway. I mean, why would one think otherwise?
I am still waiting.
Which is dodging the question. What was being asked is not what’s permitted (whatever that means) or not but what’s wrong or right. You’ve shown that acting immorally is not what God expects of you. But so what? Doesn’t make it wrong. That’s my point. In your paradigm, nothing anyone ever did was wrong. Just some of it was closer to what God wanted and some was further. But that’s not the same things as being wrong ethically. You’ve completely dodged the critique.
If an act is just it’s not wrong. Even if it’s not what God would ideally hope you would do. “Hitler did not do anything unjust, he just refused to rehabilitate” is something that is true in your view.
Quoting Bartricks
And they’re fallacious. But this is not the thread for that.
Quoting Sir2u
He made a thread about it but don’t bother. The “proof” was complete nonsense.
1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore all As are Cs
4. All As have a D
5. All As have an E
6. Therefore all As are Cs that have a D and an E
7. Some As exist
8. Therefore, some Cs that have a D and an E exist
Dunning and Kruger. Your expertise?
Quoting khaled
No they're not.
Quoting khaled
Yeah, now I don't have the first idea what you're on about. I explained why even if everything that occurs here is just, that does not mean that everything is permitted. It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong.
The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.
Thus, even if, no matter what we do, our actions will bring about just states of affairs, it does not follow that, no matter what we do, we do right (or wrong, or what is permissible).
But anyway, this is now above your intellectual paygrade and things are going to get very silly very fast methinks.
Quoting Bartricks
Not only is that an argument from authority, but you’ve never actually proven you have any yourself. You first. I’d bet money you have none.
Quoting Bartricks
False. Definition of Just:
“based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.“
Didn’t think I’d have to teach you English.
You’re shifting goal posts. At first what was right was what our moral intuitions told us was right. Well, if someone thinks like you, they will come to the conclusion that everyone here is a criminal. And hurting criminals as much as they deserve (which will always be the case) is not wrong, according to our moral intuitions. So everything you do here IS permissible.
What you’ve “shown” (more so asserted), is that God expects more of you. He expects you to treat people as if they’re innocent. So what? Who cares about that? No relevance to the question. You’ve shifted goal posts and now what’s “right” or “permissible” is what God expects of you. But you haven’t proven that. You just asserted it.
You now introduce the possibility that even though our intuitions (at least moral intuitions) can tell us something, they could be wrong and the actually correct thing is different, and known to God. So then I ask, what makes you trust these intuitions, rational or otherwise?
Quoting Bartricks
Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs.
Quoting Bartricks
Sure but let’s not pretend it’s about finger taps. You just use ad Homs because you can’t substantiate your arguments. So instead you attack everyone who critiques it so you don’t actually have to listen. And so that no one bothers to critique you so you can keep your contradictory views intact.
Err, Have I not made that clear already?
Quoting Bartricks
The feeling is mutual. But I have the advantage of not having to make up a lot of bullshit. Makes it easier for me.
Quoting Bartricks
Shit, it would have taken you longer than this post to do it. I thought you said it was easy.
Quoting Bartricks If you say so.
Actually, I think that the correct way to right it would have been.
1. All A are B
2. All B are C
But maybe you took a skip day when they had that class.
Quoting Bartricks
About as deductively valid as my answer. Unless you want to draw the Venn diagram to prove it.
Quoting Bartricks
I think you're declaiming a metaphysical proof of a transcendental entity that has historically eluded natural philosophers, scientists and thinkers, and then criticising a detractor for being uninformed.
Also this is clearly begging the question. You’re asked to prove that your views do not lead to everything being permissible. It’s not clear at all that they don’t (that’s why you’re being asked). So yes, the question is in fact whether this is so, according to your views.
Now, we can both agree that not everything is permissible. But what’s being asked is whether or not you can consistently hold that with the rest of your beliefs.
No, if 'you' say so. If you can't see that it is deductively valid, then you're below the threshold level of intelligence needed to understand the proof. And you are. Clearly.
Quoting Sir2u
Er, no. It's all As are Bs.
Quoting Sir2u
Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat.
Quoting Bartricks
Well, let's see if we can quote you in replying.
Quoting Bartricks
You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly.
Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say.
Quoting Bartricks
“This is clearly so” as a first premise in proving whether something is so is not begging the question?
Quoting Bartricks
And I’ve responded to this:
Quoting khaled
But you’re right this is pointless.
Get a therapist.
You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" (incidentally, you don't know what bullshit is either - it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject). You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well.
Do you think the argument is valid? Do you have anything philosophical to contribute, or are you also another budding therapist who wishes to express their conviction that I need some?
Quoting Bartricks
Most people here are reasoning like I do and I find it highly unlikely that they all have head injuries. Again, it’s very statistically unlikely that everyone has it wrong and you are the only one that has it right. Should be a red flag.
Quoting Bartricks
“speech intended to persuade without regard for truth”
Fits the bill I’d say.
Quoting Bartricks
Yes I have.
Quoting Bartricks
Anyways hurry up and say the dunning Kruger thing so I can clear the notification and go about my day.
And get a therapist. Or neurosurgeon.
So easy, in fact, that D-K Club members like you can't. :lol:
:up:
Quoting schopenhauer1
:up:
So you start a thread to show that antinatalism is compatible with something that you consider to be, well, a figment of imagination.
If you'd be writing the script of a soap opera, that could be a worthwhile endeavor, but otherwise ...
And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty?
Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along.
Schopy would never invite you over for afternoon tea.
It's quite simple.
Either philosophy has an externally demonstrable measure of 'expertise' or it does not.
If it does, then the fact that virtually every professional philosopher that's ever lived disagrees with you should give adequate cause to assume you're wrong (at least about the clarity of your argument).
If it does not, then your frequent references to expertise, Dunning–Kruger etc. are irrelevant to the assessment of your argument.
You're quite a crude thinker, aren't you? You don't do philosophy by consensus. You assess a position based on the evidence.
Did God contact you?
Have you read books on the topic of God?
So I don't know how you are using pessimism here, is my point. I have never heard "pessimism" be someone's reason for poverty. I have heard a bad set of circumstances (job loss) coupled with bad economy, structural poverty that is generational, drug use, certain preferences and habits, etc.
Quoting baker
This is ridiculous and honestly shouldn't be waste typing on this but:
1) You can argue that anyone who doesn't have proper access to ANY idea is only "viable" for people with that access. This goes for scientific ideas, philosophy, or any academic writing.
2) A crude form of "life is suffering" or even "this shit ain't worth it" can count as philosophical pessimism to me, so this is amenable to anyone, and perhaps may be especially realized by those who are suffering most acutely. But to attribute the poverty to this conclusion is reversing the order of things.
3) I think it ironic you bring this point up when I JUST wrote a WHOLE thread about how people view productivity in socioeconomic terms as how credible a philosophy is. So my point in the thread was that "respectable middle-class types" would more likely view a philosophy as more legitimate because they were "productive" in society. So my example included a person who was extremely "productive" (in the respectable middle-class sense) of creating innovative technology and even designed and built buildings and homes.. All things one woul associate with some positive philosophy of "pragmatic-realism".. now imagine that person is a Philosophical Pessimist. This would be a "kick in the balls" for people who think in these terms of credibility because their "man" is now associated with a philosophy they loathe. There is now a cognitive dissonance they have to accept of this person who is supposed to be "credible" for them, also associating with a philosophy they would normally eschew.
See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia
Then what do you mean by
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
I could go on, I honestly wasn't expecting the search to yield so many results. Central to the support of your premises is that fact that a majority of philosophers agree with them (I don't even think that is true, but that's not the point here). The charge you've yet to answer is how you can use majority consensus to support your premises whilst dismissing this exact same property when it departs from your own preferred positions.
You will, of course, be tempted to turn to a distinction between premises and conclusions - premises are supported by consensus, but conclusions only by reasoning from evidence. But if you want to support that distinction, then what exactly are philosophers doing such that they are more likely to arrive at true premises than non-philosophers? If premises are not reasoned to then there's no skill-set in reasoning being applied to deriving them, if they are being reasoned to then they are a conclusion of some process and as such consensus carries no weight.
The rational intuitions of philosophers are more reliable than those of others, or at least it is reasonable to suppose them to be. Why? Because they can grasp difficult concepts and understand thought experiments and not get distracted by irrelevancies.
Now you took the quotes out of context. When I pointed out that the bulk of philosophers have agreed that we have free will, that was not in itself evidence that we have free will, as the context made clear. (I mean, I said that explicitly). What that broad consensus was evidence of is the fact that the intuition that we are morally responsible for what we do is stronger than any rational intuition we may have about the compatibility or otherwise of free will with determinism. So, that wasn't doing philosophy by consensus. That was noting that a consensus was evidence for something, namely how powerful and widely felt a given intuition is. And those widely shared powerful intuitions were then in turn powerful evidence that a given premise in my case was true.
Similarly, most philosophers agree that one of the marks of a moral norm is that they have categoricity. That is evidence that the reason of those who are exceptionally good at attending to their reason - represents moral norms to be categorical. And that, in turn, is good prima facie evidence that this is indeed a feature of moral norms.
Now, do you have anything at all philosophical to say about anything argued in the OP?
So I take it that not only are you not going to prove the existence of god, but you are also incapable of drawing the Venn diagram to prove your point with the little test.
Well actually, so that you do not get pissy about it, 6 is a valid conclusion from 1,2,3,4,5 but 8 does not need 7 as a premise to be valid and it really does seem that you have no idea what you are doing.
But this begs the question, did you ever read it?
I thought it was very entertaining. I can send you a copy if you tell me where to send it to. For free.
Oh, by the way. That was one of the things he actually calls bullshit. Adding extra useless to the topic information. So good job on telling us abut the book and providing an example for it.
The rational intuitions of my philosophical mind leads me to the following conclusions but not necessarily beliefs:
1. god created mankind
2. god's guide to living says that mankind should worship him
3. therefore god needs mankind to worship him
1. if god needs mankind to worship him the mankind must reproduce to continue worshiping him
2. some people think that not reproducing is a morally correct thing to do
3. therefore either god does not decide what is moral and is not omnipotent OR some people are wrong about their ideas
Quick test for you, are these valid or not.
And I am still waiting for something.
Oh I see. So it wasn’t “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s true”. It was “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s a widely felt intuition, therefore it’s true”.
Stop trolling.
Once more you demonstrate your inability properly to understand the English language.
Not at all. You've already established that they may simply be defending a stupid view cleverly. So their agreement carries no weight at all.
Oh dear, could you possible explain why they are not valid? It seems to me that they are perfectly valid.
Or would that explanation be something else I will never get? Quoting Bartricks
And you sir have once again proved you inability to use the English language to do something productive, like explain properly or give decent answers instead of abuse.
It's not clear how you can be sure that you know the truth about God.
"God" is a term whose native domain are monotheistic religions which offer competing or even mutually exclusive accounts of what "God" is.
Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is?
Yes. And using entirely obvious premise so with simple logic too he claims. Check his thread about the “proof” of God. Though I wouldn’t bother. It’s garbage.
He hasn't answered my questions? :smirk:
Quoting Sir2u
The clue to why lies in the conclusion of this valid argument:
1. If someone thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid, then that person is too dumb for fun
2. Sir2u thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid
3. Therefore....
'God' denotes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. There's no dispute over that. And anyway, I stipulated that this is how I am using the term. But yes, if you are asking me if I am claiming to have proved God exists, then yes, I absolutely am.
But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. This thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the compatibility or otherwise of God with antinatalism and whether God's existence positively implies antinatalism.
Nothing worse than a well fed troll. I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521348
and yet 5 pages on this overfed (D-K) troll still runs from my p.1 post (link above) like a frightened little girl. :smirk:
Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away.
Oh dear, there you go again.
Do you even know why it is invalid? Can you just for once shut your frothing mouth and answer in a civilized manner a simple question?
What you wrote there is in no way considered an explanation, I doubt that it could even live up to the level of a 5 year old's ranting about why he hates to go to the bathroom.
Because I did not make it up. It comes from a very respect person in the area of philosophy and he thinks it is valid.
Go on, just for once indulge a person that is interested in learning and explain to me why the syllogisms are invalid. I have seen the explanations of why they are, now please oh great one show me how the other master is wrong.
If you are not willing to do that then I am sorry. I will nominate you as a candidate for The Wanker of the Year Award in the Category of Vocal Fluidless Vomiting.
No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first.
Who wants to bet that he runs in the next 50 posts or less?
My mistake, apologies.
Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink:
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, you're a troll. You - like most of the others above - are not remotely interested in anything in the OP. Oh well, ho hum.
Quoting Sir2u
Haha, nobody, but nobody, is going to take that bet....you have no idea what you're up against.
Quoting Sir2u
So just to be clear - you're claiming that the following arguments come from a 'respect person' in philosophy. And he thinks they're valid? Where did you find him? In an earlier stage of our evolutionary development? These:
Quoting Sir2u
Are not valid. Here is the first:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.
That's not valid. I think the technical term for an argument of that form is 'stupid'. (In a sentence: "the respect philosopher has 'stupidly' inferred 3 from 1 and 2").
Here is the second:
1. If P, then Q (you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then')
2. R
3. Therefore, either S or T
That one is not valid either. I think the technical term for an argument like that is 'unbelievably stupid'. (In a sentence: "the respect person in philosophy was unbelievably stupid to infer 3 from 1 and 2".
Anyway, rather than explaining to you why those various arbitrary collections of claims do not constitute arguments, why not address something I argued in the OP? (I know 'you' won't, but this isn't really addressed to you, but those with some genuine philosophical nous and a thicker skin)
I mean, they weren't philosophically uninteresting. I have claimed that omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything and explained why. That's quite a big claim and one that those with some philosophical spirit would consider worth exploring.....
There is something attractive about his smug certainty. Being able to prance around with a certainty like that -- that must be great! Yay!
None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism.
So someone is wrong here, you, or them.
Will you argue that you have better knowledge of God (in general, or in particular in reference to antinatalism) than they do?
Mind you, all you've got going is a dictionary definition of the term "God".
They have millennia of sacred texts, some of which are said to have been dictated directly by God.
Your dictionary definition of the term "God" is derived from those monotheistic texts, but the rest of your premises about God are merely your own inferences.
So? I am interested in whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent's existence is consistent with antinatalism, and whether it positively implies it. That's a philosophical matter, not a religious one.
Quoting baker
I really don't know - look, I'm not religious, so I just don't care and i don't know on what basis any religious person claims to know what they know because I don't hang around such people or read their works. So I don't know or care. Why not just address something I argued in the OP rather than focussing on me??
Quoting baker
Oh good grief!! Just engage with something I argued in the OP!
Why? You don't. Nor do you engage with the replies that do.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
...those are just from a quick scroll down the present page.
What I don't get is, why haven't you been banned? Doubtless it will happen.
Yer think.....yer think. Little do you know. I could actually guarantee that you will not post again before the thread reaches another 50 posts.
Quoting Bartricks
I think you need a little guidance here. All you have stated here are the patterns of arguments. P, Q and R are only shown to represent something, as in the argument I posted. By themselves they have no meaning at all.
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why?
Try these web pages to get some ideas. Or maybe that is where you copied them from without reading about how they are used.
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/terms.concepts/forms.of.argument.html
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbraun2/Teaching/244/args.htm
Quoting Bartricks
And another sign in the cracking appears. Picking on typos instead of answering with intelligent, well thought out ideas. You were not called Sappy in a previous incarnation were you? You have a lot in common with him.
Quoting Bartricks
Another sign of cracking, whining will get you no where. The next thing we will see is you using nasty insulting language against the members of this sacred place.
Just so that you have something to bitch about in you next post, I have left 4 grammar or spelling mistakes for you to find.
He is too much fun to ban him, let him stay for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:
Me, complain about him. No way. I want him to stay around for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:
I just love how you work for the cause. Still think no one is taking bets?
No, 'you' need guidance. You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises.
This was your first argument:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.
That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. There are some basic rules of inference - 9 from memory - and this argument conforms to none of them.
This would be valid:
1. P
2. Q
3.Therefore P and Q
But this:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.
Is not.
Now, how about actually addressing something I argued in the OP? I can happily keep saying that for 45 more posts if you wish.
Did you not read what I said?
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Bartricks
That's nice to know. But could you please explain why?
If god created humans and told them they have to worship him would that not prove he needs to be worshiped. So if he let humans become extinct he would not have anyone to worship him.
But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid.
Yes, unfortunately I did waste time doing that. And you asked to be shown why your arguments were not 'valid'. We did not mention their soundness. But you do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes?
The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up.
Now, do you have anything vaguely philosophical to say about the OP?
Who are WE and why did WE not mention it?
Quoting Bartricks
But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p
I see it as
p
q
therefore p and q
Why is that.
Quoting Bartricks
I probably studied this stuff before you were born. Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem, I have forgotten too much of it. No, that's not true.
Er, no. That's valid.
This was the form your first argument took
Quoting Bartricks
And that's invalid because it is invalid.
Quoting Sir2u
Yet you don't know it. Not a good student then.
Quoting Sir2u
Why does it matter when you went to college or whether anyone had color televisions at the time?
Anyway, do. you. have. anything. philosophical. to. say. about. anything. in. the. OP. Grandpa?
[s]Sorry I got my p's and q's mixed up.[/s]
Sorry again, that p's and r's
Quoting Bartricks
Absolutely fucking amazing. I never would have guessed that.
Quoting Bartricks
Probably true, but I guess I have probably forgotten more than you know.
Quoting Bartricks
You have got to be freaking kiddin mate. No one I know would have anything philosophical to say about the load of bollocks you wrote.
How the hell did you ever come up with such bullshit anyway? That would most likely be a more interesting thing to talk about.
Quoting Sir2u
Hmm, by my calculations you were at college (presumably woodwork) in the 1970s, so that would make you in your 70s today, or perhaps your 60s. Yet you write like an adolescent and seem to have the wit of one too. Methinks you lie, sir.
Quoting Sir2u
No, it's ps and rs. Not p's and r's.
Now, once more, anything philosophical to contribute?
The only true thing you have said so far.
:rofl: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
That's what you did when you said you could prove god existed.
You assume to much.
Those aren't the same. And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much.
What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly.
Quoting Bartricks
That one was too easy for a bright boy like you. But you did not find the others I left for you.
Yes sir, next thing we know Barfricks will be joining the grammar nazis, or is that the spelling nazis. Whatever.
Oh no anointed one, thou has blessed us with thine mere presence. :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :lol:
Assuming the truth of that which one was trying to show is not the same as assuming too much, for one can do the latter without doing the former.
I explain things for a living. You're getting it for free. Thank me.
Back to the OP: do you think omnipotence involves having created everything?
No.
I do not, and you do little for your case presuming such things.
As I said from the beginning, your statement is based on the fact that there is a god.
Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be?
Quoting Sir2u
The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. Obviously.
Quoting Sir2u
Read the OP. It is explained.
Did I say anything about the existence of god? I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.
Yeah, that's false. Is the existence of a unicorn compatible with antinatalism? Yes. Does that mean unicorns exist? Er, no.
Once again, what is. Please learn to explain.
First thank me for explaining the blindingly obvious to you thus far. Like I say, I explain things for a living, but I'm not going to give you free lessons in such tediously elementary matters until or unless you thank me for having done so thus far.
So you live in poverty?
So let me presume then that you meant that
I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.
is a lie.
Ah, some wit.
No though. I'm well paid.
So, am I.
But you once again failed to confirm my presumption or tell me I was wrong.
Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP.
Shumptrimshaft has super super powers. With his strength he can move the universe all by himself. He was around before the universe came into being, he has even claimed to have helped in the process. He has a system of information gathering that is capable of providing him with everything he needs or wants to know.
Because of this knowledge he decides that he will try to help a group of beings on one of the planets. He gives them guidance on how to behave and become better beings. All that he asks for in return is that the beings adore him, because no one else does.
A group of these beings decide that they do not want to continue breeding because they think it is wrong, that they should not have more off springs because they will only suffer in live. They try to spread their ideas to the other beings on the planet and convince them to join with them. Eventual, they succeed and all of them stop breeding.
Would Shumptrimshaft be compatible with the concept of not breeding?
So that you do not get confused, here is the definition of compatible that I am using. If this is incorrect, please advise me of the one that you are using.
Compatible = Able to exist and perform in harmonious or agreeable combination
So your "God" is indistinguishable from being a mere figment of your imagination. And since you deny any relation to religion, your "God" is a mere figment of your imagination. And being a mere figment of your imagination it can do and be whatever you want it to do and be. It can favor antinatalism, if you want it to, yay!
The religious theists are at least bound to some code external to them, so they can't just make stuff up and ascribe to God whatever they want.
Now, in the OP I argued that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being is compatible with the truth of antinatalism. And I gave interesting arguments for that view. I argued that being omnipotent does not -contrary to widespread belief - require having created everything. That's important, becasue if that is false then God is incompatible with antinatalism.
I then argued that God's existence, combined with the nature of the world we live in, positively implies the truth of antinatalism.
Address something I argued.
Quoting Bartricks
For fucks sake make up your mind, if you have one to make up.
Does this bloody god of yours exist or not.
For example, the existence of Dodos is compatible with the truth of antinatalism. That's true, regardless of whether any Dodos exist.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, well people are very generous aren't they?
Anyway, you're still not addressing anything in the OP.
It seems you agree that God's existence is indeed compatible with antinatalism (and thus agree with me that omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything).
But do you, then, agree with my case for thinking that if God exists, the truth of antinatalism is positively implied?
I guess you did not read where I said there was nothing there worth addressing.
Quoting Bartricks
Where the hell did you get that idea?
Not a bloody chance on agreeing to that either.
Quoting Bartricks
Funny you should mention that. My job is one of the reasons why I am bother to post here.
I am actually a teacher, I teach people to explain things to other people.
AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE ELSE FUCKED UP THEIR JOB WHEN THEY TAUGHT YOU.
Makes me feel good to know that, in all my years of teaching, I have never had a student as screwed up as you.
:rofl: :lol: :lol:
I must be losing my touch.
Well that's false. The arguments I have made show that God's existence implies antinatalism. That's quite significant, as anyone with an inquiring mind would recognise.
Quoting Sir2u
You're job is to derail discussions?
Quoting Sir2u
Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible.
Quoting Sir2u
Glad to see you're acknowledging you're bad at your job. But nobody taught me to teach. You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university.
Quoting Sir2u
They're called 'pupils' at your level, not 'students'.
Anyway, we're getting distracted by your pathetic attempts to insult me. Let's return to the OP.
One of my points was that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism.
In an earlier post we had this exchange:
Quoting Sir2u
So, you think that omnipotence is compatible with not having created everything.
Yet you are now insisting that God's existence is not compatible with antinatalism.
So on what basis do you believe that? Do you think that the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence entails that the being possessed of such features will have created us? How? By hypothesis antinatalism is correct - for the question is whether God's existence is compatible with it - and thus being omnibenevolent would involve 'not' creating people. That's why the only basis upon which one could maintain that antinatalism and God are incompatible is if one thought that omnipotence (or omniscience) required having created everything. See? Or does this make your mind go a bit fuzzy and start hurting?
Quoting Bartricks
God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know.
And everyone is disagreeing with a view that has all acts be morally permissible, even if they’re not what God expects of you. You haven’t answered that objection.
Can't quote as on mobile. But second paragraph: Dunning and Kruger.
Third paragraph - I don't know what you're talking about.
Only in your head does that argument make sense.
Quoting Bartricks
No one pays me to do it so I doubt it could be counted as a job.
Quoting Bartricks
No one really gives a flying f**k what you find plausible.
Quoting Bartricks
I have never met anyone who is perfect, and even the best of any profession can have a bad day. But at least I know how to admit it.
Quoting Bartricks
Nobody taught you to teach, does that mean that you do not know how to teach or that you learned all by yourself?
Quoting Bartricks
Really, I would really love to know where those universities are.
https://www.teacher.org/career/college-professor/
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/further-education-lecturer
These qualifications seem to be pretty standard worldwide. Do you by any chance live on another planet?
Quoting Bartricks
No they are not and you have no idea at which level I teach. It would be good for your reputation if you stopped making these stupid unfounded statements.
Quoting Bartricks
I have no need to try to insult you, you are doing a perfectly good job of that yourself.
Quoting Bartricks
No, I think that was your only and principle point.
Quoting Bartricks
Obviously, just because something has the power to create does not make it a given fact they it will create. It can just create beer and then sit around drinking for eternity.
But I still fail to see the reason you say this.
Quoting Bartricks
No, again, Not now but since the beginning. I am not insisting that god's existence is incompatible with antinatalism. I only said it about 20 times, and that surely cannot count as being insistent, can it?
Quoting Bartricks
The basis that it is bloody stupid.
Quoting Bartricks
So if you god did not create us, where did we come from? I am not sure about your use of the word WILL in that sentence but I would guess you meant MIGHT
Quoting Bartricks
How should I know how a omnipotence and omnibenevolence being would be able to create us. I have never met one to ask about it. Must put that on my bucket list.
Quoting Bartricks
By hypothesis shooting people is correct, but that does not prove a thing.
Quoting Bartricks
Which brings us to what you claim should be its reasons for not creating us. The fucked up world and our ignorance about how to live in it. Exactly what parts of the world make it dangerous for humans to live in?
Let us go back to the beginning again and look at what you said about god creating us for a purpose. Do you have any knowledge of that purpose?
If you do not then you cannot say that it has placed humans on earth to suffer. Maybe its purpose is to create a race of super beings that can take over the running of the universe when it retires. And that can only evolve through the suffering of hardships he has placed before us. Just look at how many human institutions work on basically the same principle.
So unless you can actually state the reasons we are here your case for the ungodly behavior you accuse it of has little meaning.
Quoting Bartricks
No, again again. I explained another reason why it is incompatible with antinatalism . And I can think of several others.
I knew you would be back, even though I lost the bet by a couple of posts. Like the song says, "you just can't get enough" of being shown your wrong.
I don't think it is where he lives, it appears to happen 365 days a year.
On other threads you talk about whether or not they’re true. And on this one I try to show how many absurd scenarios your view leads to.
Quoting Bartricks
Yes you can.
Quoting Bartricks
Everything that happens here is just -> Everything that you do is morally permitted.
Who cares if God’s intention for you is to rehabilitate. That doesn’t make refusing to rehabilitate by treating people justly (as criminals) wrong. Just against God’s ideal. Which is not the same thing as wrong.
You haven’t responded to this.
Quoting Bartricks
You find it plausible that rape is just because the rape victim deserved it. So I don’t think what you find plausible or implausible says much.
My view that God demonstrably exists, and my view that if God exists then everything that happens to us is deserved, are distinct views. Perhaps because you have trouble distinguishing between the arguer and the argument you think that any thread I start is a thread about any view I hold. That's a mistake.
Both of which you espoused here. And the latter leads to everything being morally permissible. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not a reductio ad absurdum to you I don’t know what is.
This is a philosophy forum, not a fan fiction site. Discussions about whether made-up entities are compatible with philosophical positions are a waste of space. The answer is yes, or no, depending on the properties you choose to assign to your made up entity. We all knew that from the beginning
Those arguing about consequences, assuming God is real, are being charitable (or exasperated) enough to presume you wouldn't be so stupid as to want a whole thread dedicated to the question of whether you have sufficient imagination to make up an entity who would be compatible with antinatalism.
Wise words of wisdom, you should try taking your own advice.
Finish the sentence "and abuse but never answer"
You’re shifting goal posts in your answer. You’re changing what is “morally permissible” from “what our moral intuitions tell us” to “what God wants from us”.
Quoting Bartricks
Well you got one thing right :lol:
First - if you deserve something, it doesn't follow that it is permissible to give it to you.
Rapists deserve to be taped. Wrong to rape them though. Torturers deserve to be tortured. Wrong to torture them though. Simple point, well understood for millennia. You might want to learn it.
As a result it does not follow from us all deserving everything that happens to us that we are permitted to a anything to anyone.
Now, that's not relevant to this debate. So do try and focus. Christ.
False. If they deserve to be tortured then it is not wrong to torture them. By definition.
Definition of deserve:
"do something or have or show qualities worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate)."
What most people would say is "Torturers don't deserve to be tortured" and "Rapists don't deserve to be raped".
You should have payed attention in English class.
Yes, you are right. We all deserve medals for putting up with your oral vomiting, but here at TPF it is not permitted to do such things.
Quoting Bartricks
I'll be charitable and presume you mean raped, unless there is some new kind of punishment of which I am not aware. But this is false. In some places it is called rape when an adult has consensual sex with a minor even if the adult was tricked into thinking that the other was also an adult.
But even accepting what you state to be true as a fact, who would do the raping? Would that person also have to be punished in the same way?
Quoting Bartricks
Again, actual no. It is only in recent times that it has become the practice of some societies to move away from the "eye for an eye" concept of punishment. And I say some because it is still practiced in a lot of places around the world.
Quoting Bartricks
Why would anyone with half a brain and a minimum of education think that we deserve everything that happens to us? The rest of the sentence makes no sense at all.
Quoting Bartricks
Nothing is really relevant to this for the simple reason that it is not a debate. It is a tirade of unabashed bullshit from you followed by another tirade of unabashed insults from you whenever someone posts anything you disagree with. With is basically everything everyone has posted.
Quoting Bartricks
And why are you bring him into this. He would be a useless waste of time as well if humans snuffed themselves out.
Do you really think he ever took any?
But once more: focus. Read the op and focus.
I am on my mobile at the moment as I am up a mountain. Consequently I cannot quote any of your angry blitherings as I do not know how. But yes, there is no requirement - certainly wasn't when I was appointed anyway - to have any formal teaching qualification in order to be able to teach in a university. Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. Perhaps we should hire you to come in and tell us how it's done?
Did you say anything philosophical? No, I don't think so. Just more about how whether x is compatible with y turns essentially on whether s exists. Which is wrong of course. But there's no teaching some people. That's actually my attitude when it comes to teaching: let the thick go to the wall.
I don’t remember ever hiring you or signing up for any of your classes.
But since I apparently did, you’re fired/I drop out. On account of you being an idiot. No doubt you think you’re not an idiot, but that’s just the Dunning Kruger effect.
Quoting Bartricks
No but we do it by speaking English in this case. So if you refuse to use words properly you can’t do much philosophy.
“Non material energy” “They deserve it but it’s wrong to do to them” are examples of not understanding English.
Furthermore, you refuse to even elaborate what you mean when you are misusing words.
Quoting Bartricks
You deny the common definition because you don’t want to face inconsistencies in your system, and provide no alternative. “Desert is defined in such a way that my system is consistent, but what exactly it means I don’t know”. Nice one.
Yes! Full house!
Is anyone else playing Dunning-Kruger bingo?
Oh, and argue something if you dare, or go away.
How did you deduce that from anything I said? That is screwed up I am not even going to try making sense of it.
Quoting Bartricks
Some fucked up place you live in them. In the civilized world you can lecture without an educational degree in some places, they are usually reserved for primary and secondary levels. But you usually have to have a Ph.D. and usually experience in the field.
Quoting Bartricks
I did, and most of my colleagues have a masters degree.
Quoting Bartricks
Whether x is compatible with y is actually a moot question unless x exists. If x does not exist then it is not compatible with anything. Which is the point I think you have missed all along.
Cookies are not compatible with milk unless there are actually cookies.
No thanks, it is amusing enough watching the kettle call the pot black ass.
1. If theists can say that God did not create humans, then antinatalism and theism are compatible.
2. Theists can say that God did not create humans.
3. Therefore, antinatalism and theism are compatible.
Premise 1 seems intuitive. Given that God is all good, He would only be able to do good things. On antinatalism, making humans is not good. Therefore, in order for one to be an antinatalist theist, one would need to show that God did not make humans. This premise seems airtight. On its face, premise 2 seems absurd and indefensible. After all, look around us and you'll see tons of humans. However, you make a very smart move that saves this premise. You justify premise 2 by claiming that it is possible that God created everything except humans. God knew that humans would eventually come about, but He certainly did not want them. God merely permitted humans to come about but was not involved in their creation. To make this argument more plausible, one can point to replies that theists give to questions about where evil comes from. God did not create evil, he merely permits it (hopefully for good reasons). Why can't we say the same about humans?
I don't think this argument works, however. The reasons that theists can make this claim while maintaining coherent beliefs is that they say evil does not actually exist. In other words, evil does not have a positive ontological status. Evil is a deprivation of goodness, much like cold is a deprivation of heat and does not actually exist. Humans, on the other hand, are not a deprivation of something but are actually real. Further, in order to maintains God's ontological priority, we have to say that God created everything that exists, including humans. By ontological priority, the theist merely means that God exists prior to everything else that exists and, thus, everything is contingent on God's existence. I suppose someone might say we can deny that everything that exists is contingent on God, but this would be positing a necessary, coeternal object that exists independent of God's will. This would clearly cause some problems for the theist. All in all, I think these are good reasons to reject premise 2.
Slightly more than that - I claim that it is entirely possible that God created nothing. Being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent does not, so far as I can see, essentially involve having created anything at all.
Quoting Raymond Rider
I would not make that claim. God would have stopped us coming into being, for he would not want a person to come into being without prior consent.
The combination of theism and antinatalism thus gets me to the conclusion that we have not been created, but exist in the same manner as God - that is, we exist with aseity.
God exists and billions of other souls exist. And nothing has created any of them, for some things exist uncreated and we and God are among those things.
These souls - some of them - are evilly disposed. We know this, for we are those souls.
To be evilly disposed is to be disposed to behave in ways that God disapproves of.
What would God do with such souls? Destroy them? Seems too harsh. Quarantine them? Yes, surely. That is what we ourselves do to those among us who show themselves to be very evil. We have the power, as a society, to destroy them. But we do not - we imprison them. And we imprison them primarily to protect innocent others from them; secondarily to give them something of what they deserve; and finally to reform them.
Thus as the best among us imprison the worst, it is reasonable to suppose God would do the same. And as we are not living in a world that God would suffer innocent people to live in, we can safely conclude that God is doing it to us: that we are in prison. And if we wonder what we might have done to deserve to be here, exposed to all the risks of harm this world creates for us, we need only look to those who, knowing what kind of a place this is, think nothing of exposing innocent others to it by breeding. Those who freely and knowingly suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a world like this one deserve themselves to live in ignorance in a world like this one. And here we are.
Quoting Raymond Rider
This seems false on its face. There is goodness, badness and indifference. Absence of goodness is mere indifference, not positive badness. Take cruelty - what is that an absence of? Kindness? But someone who is indifferent lacks kindness. To be cruel is far more than merely 'not' to be kind. And so on.
So the privation account is implausible and also does nothing in itself to overcome the problem of evil as it just relabels evil 'absence of good' but leaves the question of why God would permit it unanswered.
If God gives me a glass half empty, then there is a problem of evil: why did God give me a glass half empty when he had the power to give me a full glass, and the goodness to want to, other things being equal?
It does nothing to solve this to insist that the glass is not half empty, but half full.
God has not created us. He would not, as antinatalism is true. And nothing save religious dogma commits the theist to thinking he created us.
Why would God create creatures like us? It makes no sense. There is no benefit that accrues to us through being ignorant and evilly disposed. And God would not create us anyway, as to do that would be to make a significant imposition on another without prior consent, which is not something a good person does to another unless necessary to spare them some greater evil (which does not apply in the creation case, for the uncreated are at no risk of anything).
To start, I do not believe that theists (or anyone at all for that matter) can claim that humans possess the property of aseity. First, there are just too many obvious examples of humans existing contingently. For example, there was a time before I existed and my existence is dependent on many things outside of myself. Before my parents conceived me I did not exist and my existence is very much dependent on my parents. I assume your coming into existence worked roughly the same as mine. There are many possible worlds in which my parents never had me. Thus, we do not necessarily exist. I suppose that you might reply that the theist can just affirm pre-existent souls. I guess these souls would just exist somewhere and then forget everything when they get put in a body or something. I would need to hear an argument from someone about why a theist should believe in pre-existent souls, as I think it is rather counterintuitive to think that I existed before I showed up on earth. Second, I think that affirming that there are things which possess the property of aseity apart from God causes a few problems for theism. This would involve the denial of God's ontological priority, an important good-making property. If there are things which exist in and of themselves apart from God, then God is not ontologically prior to those things. Thus, this would require us to believe that God is not perfect, as he lacks a good-making property. Because of this, I do not think that theists can say that humans possess aseity.
As to your comments about evil, you employ some smart counterexamples. You said, "There is goodness, badness and indifference. Absence of goodness is mere indifference, not positive badness. Take cruelty - what is that an absence of? Kindness? But someone who is indifferent lacks kindness. To be cruel is far more than merely 'not' to be kind. And so on." However, all of the examples that you employ are dissimilar in some important ways. Kindness and cruelty are attitudes that one can have. The lack of an attitude is indifference. Yet, goodness is not an attitude, it is a metaphysical term. Metaphysical terms cannot be indifferent, or have any attitudes at all. Further, goodness is higher up on the ontological ladder compared to attitudes. There are good attitudes, but not vice versa. We can say, "kindness is good," meaningfully, but we cannot say, "good is kindness," meaningfully. Kindness is a kind of good. For these reasons, I do not think your counterexamples work.
First, to exist with aseity is not to exist of necessity. It is to exist uncaused. That is, it is to exist, yet not to have been created. If a person exists of necessity, then they would exist with aseity. But it does not follow that if someone exists with aseity, then they exist of necessity.
Second, I did not claim that 'humans' have this property, for humans are a composite of immaterial mind and sensible body. It is our sensible bodies that have come into being. Our immaterial minds have not.
Quoting Raymond Rider
It is not counterintuitive, rather it simply contradicts a conventional view about when we started to exist. In this thread antinatalism and theism are both taken for granted. And our self-existence is implied by these two views. For if antinatalism is true, then God has not created us. Furthermore, God would not permit anyone else to create us. Thus, as we exist we can conclude that we exist uncreated - that is, we exist with aseity.
But there are other arguments for our self-existence. For instance, we are indivisible. That is, we have a no parts (one cannot have half a mind). Sensible objects - such as our bodies - are divisible. Thus we are not our bodies. And simple things - things without parts - are not of a sort that can be created, for there is nothing from which one can create them. Thus, we exist with aseity (and are not our sensible bodies).
Finally, we have free will and are morally responsible for what we do. We would not have free will and would not be morally responsible for anything we did if everything about us traced to external causes. if we have ever come into being then everything about us would trace to external causes. Thus we have not come into being (and thus we exist with aseity).
The aseity thesis is, then, not counter-intuitive at all, for it follows from some apparent self-evident truths about us. It is unconventional, that's all. But philosophy is not about vindicating conventional views, is it?
Quoting Raymond Rider
I use the term God to denote a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That's an orthodox use of the term (it's standard in philosophy to take the term to denote such a being). If someone wants to pack more into the term than that, then they are simply not talking about what I am talking about when I use the term. (They are free to do so - let's not get into a pointless discussion over how a word is used - it's just that it is not how I am using the word). Ontological priority just means 'existing before other things' and yes, I deny God exists before us. We all exist with aseity. But that is entirely consistent with God having the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
You say lacking ontological priority would be a defect - how? I'll tell you what would be a defect: being the creators of us. We are ignorant bad people. You think a morally perfect, all powerful all knowing person would create creatures like us? That - that - would be a defect. Far from presenting any problem for theism, our self-existence shows just how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being's existence is entirely consistent with our own and explains why we are living here, in ignorance, in a dangerous world. My thesis generates no problems. It is the thesis that we are God's creations - a thesis that religious people subscribe to for dogmatic reasons and that enjoys no support from reasoned-reflection - that generates problems.
But if a God can't show us his omnipotence, how can he be omnipotent?
No, he can't. His omnibenevolence forbids that. So he's not omnipotent.
You just showed one.
He's omnipotent, so he can do anything, including demonstrating to us that he is omnipotent.
Omnibenevolence does not 'forbid' anything. Christ, you really don't get this do you? Omnipotent - it means being able to do anything. So, he can do anything. That includes making any act right and any act wrong.
Being omnibenevolent means being morally perfect. What does that involve? Well, it involves having the omnipotent being's full approval. And an omnipotent being is going to fully approve of himself. Thus an omnipotent being will also be morally perfect.
No I didn't. Describing a thought is not the same as showing you it. I am aware of my thoughts in a way that you are not - I have an introspective awareness of them that you lack. That's not an essential feature of a thought - God could show us his thoughts if he wanted. But I personally lack the ability to give you an introspective awareness of my thoughts. All I can do is tell you about them. And believe me, some of the thoughts I am having about you are ones you don't want to know about.
Thanks for the compliment! If he would destroy the universe he would be ultimately evil. So he can't destroy it because he's omnibenevolent. So he's not omnipotent. Simple as that.
And more thoughts...
Now I wanna know! Tell me! I won't get angry!
This is kindergarten simple. He can do anything. That means he can do anything. That means he can destroy the universe. Doesn't mean he wants to. Doesn't mean he's going to. He can. I, for instance, could kick the head off my cat right now. I don't want to. I am not going to. I am never going to. But I have the ability to do it.
He's omnibenevolent. I have just told you what that involves. You just ignored that, yes? You are like a little parrot who is just going to keep chirping the same old things.
Chirp chirp. I'm Eugene and I don't understand what I am saying or what anyone says in response, but I am not going to let that stop me saying it.
Look matey, this is not going to work. I could keep saying intelligent stuff to you, but it'd be like putting high performance petrol into a horse.
You might better rethink that. Your horse could get killed. Or is that not what you think?
No. You can't. Same for God.
Okay parrot boy
All the omnis of God contradict each other. His omnipotence contradicts his omnobenevolence. His omnipresence the likewise. His omniscience contradicts all the others. The poor thing is completely paralyzed.