Bartricks

There we go. That's more like it. Little pictures. Them's funny.

Again, you would fail a philosophy course with answers like that.

An answer worthy of 180 Proof. Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. See if you can.

You don't have an argument, do you? You would fail a philosophy course.

Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then? That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the sensible world with life if, ...

I do not follow you. Do you agree that the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate one of their desires? That is, do you agree that they ough...

That's question begging. The OP contains a highly original argument for antinatalism (or conversely, a highly original way of dealing with the problem...

Focus! This thread is not about metaethics. Here's how our exchange is going: Me "which way to the centre of town?" You: "the centre of a town is the ...

No, responses that don't don't. I mark lots of essays. And a common mistake - by far the most common - is not to address the question but simply to bl...

Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this i...

How does that engage with the argument I made?

Oh do stop trying to derail this thread. Pure Bartricks baiting. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you're not being at all funny either...

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

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

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

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

Susan is the omnipotent, omniscient person. The desire to have James over for dinner is the desire to introduce new life into the sensible world. The ...

It's not relevant. I have provided a new example, this time involving regular folk. Again then: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan als...

Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislik...

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Yes they can. But what's the relevance? You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff....

I don't understand that question.

I genuinely do not know what you are talking about. You state that I have ignored free will. I do not know what you mean. I haven't mentioned free wil...

I think that's false, but it wouldn't matter much if it were true, given the point I am making. Just imagine that we have an omnipotent and very knowl...

I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the...

I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the...

No it isn't. But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. Rookie mistake. Me: "which way to the city cent...

My favourite colour is the colour I like most.

You're not addressing the question. The omnipotent, omniscient person desires to leave the world to run in its own way. They also desire to introduce ...

See my careful explanation in my previous reply to you. It seems you missed the point of that one too. Again, nothing you're saying has anything to do...

I have no idea how anything you are saying connects with anything I have said. Again then: the omnipotent person wants to keep the sensible world oper...

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Imagine that Mary has two offers of marriage - one from John and one from Tony. So, she can pledge lifelong...

It doesn't because it would just qualify as another antemortem harm and would not be sufficient to account for the harmfulness of death. It isn't cohe...

] Do I mean sufficient or necessary? Well, I used the word sufficient, didn't I. So what do you think? If someone says 'sufficient' do they mean 'suff...

Nothing you are saying makes a blind bit of sense. I have said numerous times what I mean by innocence. And it's nothing remotely similar to the claim...

You seem to think any argument for antinatalism is the same argument. Once more, that is not my argument!

That confirms it

no it isn't. Just because you have a hammer that doesn't mean everything is a nail. My argument goes through even if life here - where life is underst...

But that's not my argument. My argument is that innocent people deserve entirely harm-free happy lives that this world is not going to provide. I am n...

It is sufficient to be innocent that one has not done anything freely. And that's the case with a newly created person. The newly created person has n...

It is curious to me how you can possibly think the claims you made are equivalent to mine. Bartricks: apples are fruit. You: so you are saying there i...

Again, you are not addressing the argument. Your third option isn't a distinct option, but even if it was it would not help. It's like distinguishing ...

You clearly don't understand the case I have made at all.

You haven't addressed the argument. Note, I have not denied that death visits ante morten harms on those it kills. I have argued that they are not suf...

No, quote me saying that. This: Is not a quote from me, is it?! I did not 'assume' such a thing. It's a 'conclusion'. Big difference. Read the OP if y...

Read the OP. If you are already convinced that death is harmless then your view is absolutely absurd and this thread is not addressed to you

To make a case for thinking that the harms are post mortem. That would then constitute some evidence that we survive our deaths. That is, it would pro...

You are just stipulating. We do not know what death does to us. Whether it ceases our existence or takes us elsewhere is an open question. Note my neu...

Why would God want a relationship with you? I don't think he would, so I think P1 is false. When Sarah forms a relationship with utterly absurd Willia...

So killing someone doesn't harm them? Also, note that I am taking for granted that death harms the one who dies. I was very clear in the OP about this...

Did you lean on the keyboard?