Bartricks

No, explain. At the moment it sounds like a distinction without a difference (or, perhaps, the difference will simply be 'exists of necessity and hasn...

Note, if they were the same, then God wouldn't exist - for reasons already given. For if God exists of necessity, then he can't not exist. And that's ...

Now I don't know what you mean. To exist of necessity is for it to be impossible for it not to exist, yes? Well, if God exists of necessity and God - ...

I'll go through the example again. Let's assume that God exists of necessity. Let's assume that God necessarily creates the universe. Now, the univers...

No, it doesn't mean that. I just showed you how something might exist of necessity, yet have a cause. And we both agreed that something exists uncause...

God is such a thing. Does that mean God exists of necessity? I don't see why it does. To get to that conclusion one would have to stipulate that if so...

To follow on, we know that not everything that exists has a cause of its existence, for otherwise we would have to posit infinite causes. So we know b...

Yes, I agree - because it is self-evident to reason - that any existing thing has either to exist contingently or necessarily. But no, God exists cont...

I'm a rationalist. I follow reason ruthlessly, and reason tells me that she is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being - that is, God. So I be...

Yes, and I have argued that the argument is a good one, except that it mistakenly invokes the concepts of contingency and necessity, whereas the argum...

I'm not God. I know, hard to believe - but I'm not. So I am not the author of the laws of Reason. Not, then, the author of the laws of logic, and not ...

You're just appealing to scholars and not addressing anything I argued. I genuinely couldn't care less what the Koran or the Bible or Jesus says about...

I believe God can do anything and that God does not exist of necessity, but I'm not Greek and I did not arrive at this belief via reading Greek philos...

And this is what the Koran says: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Allah! There is no God but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, t...

That's true of most contemporary theists - they believe omnipotence involves being able to do all things logically possible or some suitably qualified...

These are not objections to anything I've argued. You're just telling me you don't find the argument compelling - well, no, I'm sure you don't given t...

Again, you're once more appealing to your belief in a prima facie implausible moral theory (we obviously do sometimes have moral obligations to do all...

Intuitively one of the considerations that informs the morality of our actions is how much pain or pleasure they produce. Not the only consideration, ...

Well, all you're doing there is expressing a belief in a prima facie implausible view. Even if your view is correct - and I see no evidence that it is...

I think it is a very good argument. Indeed, I think it is sound so long as we clarify that by 'necessary' what's really meant is 'self-explanatory'. (...

Again, that's a fact about you and isn't relevant to the topic.

Not a problem, but surely if you're genuinely interested in what's true then you have to listen to reason? Otherwise all you're doing is listening to ...

t But that's trivial. Yes, if we ignore all the ways in which we have a negative impact and focus only on the ways in which we have a positive impact,...

Because most people don't want to live such monkish lives of self deprivation. So they will suffer considerably if they live such lives. And that suff...

The pains and pleasures caused to others, obviously. No, I said that's one way in which one might come to deserve pleasure, I did not say that it was ...

I do not understand your reply. It didn't engage with the arguments I presented.

Another argument against materialism, this time by George Berkeley. Let's start by just clarifying what we mean by 'material world'. We mean a world t...

I don't think the material world exists. Here's an argument for that: 1. Material objects are, by their very nature, infinitely divisible 2. Nothing t...

We don't rate him.

No it wouldn't. There's nothing 'impossible' about a hedonic calculator incidentally. But like I say, I stipulated that, for the sake of argument, the...

Yes, but that's beside the point. Most people aren't going to live such lives, nor are they morally required to, and if they did then - for most peopl...

Well none of that made any sense to me at all. Sorry.

How does that follow? It's not better 'for me' to live as a hermit. It is better for me to live as I am - which is in a manner that causes a great dea...

It doesn't look circular, and nor is it. But perhaps you do not know what a circular argument is or maybe you are using the term in an unorthodox way....

My case above assumes that the amount of pleasure and pain created by the average human life are equal, but that they differ only in terms of their de...

I don't see what's problematic in that assertion. You say that suffering is a personal experience. Yes, nothing I've said supposes otherwise. You say ...

But that's not what I'm saying. I am unclear how you got that from anything I said. I have not expressed a commitment to utilitarianism. indeed, far f...

No, not necessarily or likely. You're mistakenly assuming that I am talking exclusively about the pains and pleasures contained in the life of the one...

It seems to me that you are conflating 'deserved' suffering with 'justified' suffering. Sure, it can sometimes be morally justified to make one person...

Not relevant. This thread is about whether an act that creates equal quantities of undeserved pain and non-deserved pleasure is good or right.

Imagine someone who is living a kind, generous and honest life. That person, I'd say, deserves to be happy. Or imagine someone who, through no fault o...

Contrary to what you assert, it is not relevant. The soundness of an argument is unaffected by the motives of the arguer.

Although I think it is almost certainly the case that an average human life will cause much more suffering than pleasure overall, I was very clear in ...

That isn't what I said - I said that bad art is art that we have reason (lower case r) not to adopt certain attitudes towards. The kind of reason in q...

Question begging. What's BS about it? You conflated an idea with the thing it is an idea of. A classic mistake. I said Reason is a person and persons ...

Back at you. I never said 'concepts adopt attitudes' did I? I said Reason adopts attitudes towards things. And I said that Reason is a person. Persons...

Yes. Reason with a capital 'R' that is. She's a person. Our 'reason' is a faculty that gives us some awareness of her attitudes. And 'reasons' are her...

No it isn't. Inferences to the best explanation are not circular arguments. And, to my knowledge, you are not my friend.

No you don't, for I am not exhibiting any misunderstanding. So I don't know what you're astonished at, but it isn't that.

Well I hope you're laughing out loud in astonishment at the brevity with which I accurately answered the question. If art is bad, then - other things ...