My apologies if any of these questions don't make much sense, I'm just starting out :) — ratgambling
would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable? — ratgambling
Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. — Hume
What people are calling 'subjective' is an area of lived experience that is evaluative. It encompasses desire and desirability, preference, morality, and whatever is 'what one makes' of 'what is'. So in order to evaluate life, one needs life, and as your intuition seems to be telling you, in order to evaluate non-existence, one needs to experience non-existence. The latter is not possible, and to me, this makes the former also impossible. One can not unreasonably prefer pizza to cheese on toast if one has experienced both, but to prefer non-existence to existence... ??? Ask anyone who has died which they prefer, the living cannot know. Or just wait 'til you attain this status yourself, and then decide. — unenlightened
Yes, this is actually a fallacy. I don't know the name -- maybe false equivalence. But yes, close to circular reasoning.would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? — ratgambling
Yes, this is actually a fallacy. I don't know the name -- maybe false equivalence. But yes, close to circular reasoning.
The correct way to put that argument is to put the subject, the person, in two different situations and argue that one situation fosters happiness, while the other does not. The incorrect way is the one you pointed out -- cancelling the subject altogether in one situation. — L'éléphant
"It is better ..." is a value judgement. There are no objective sets of values. So every statement "X is better than Y" should be read as "Given my values A, B, C, ... it follows that X is better than Y". Only then can a discussion arise if it really follows or if there is a flaw in the logic.
E.g.: Are squares better than triangles?
If symmetry is a value then, yes, squares are better because they have more symmetries.
And to your original problem:
An often cited value most people can agree upon is human well being. To have human well being, humans have to exist so existence is better than non-existence. But if the existence of more human beings doesn't increase the overall well being of all humans, more human beings is not better than fewer human beings.
An argument can be made that humans have overshot that threshold of optimal numbers a long time ago. — ArmChairPhilosopher
There is nlo reason why evil should exist in this world. Actually, the existence of evil makes the worl impossible to understand, to conceive. — Angelo Cannata
Namely, would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable?
I'd love to hear about how you would approach this statement! — ratgambling
This is a kind of mathematical reasoning. I was talking in an existential way. Besides, with your reasoning we obtain the paradox that, if evil is needed to make possible good to be distinguished, then evil is not evil; however, it is evil, because it makes a difference from good; so, the logical conclusion is that, in order to make good distinguished, we need something that is evil and is not evil at the same time. — Angelo Cannata
Actually, this contradiction comes out because you are applying some sort of mathematical logic to the ideas of good and evil. But in strict logic good and evil just don't exist: we cannot say that 2 is good and 3 is evil. The ideas of good and evil come from a human, subjective, emotional, psychological experience, so, it is nonsense dealing with them with a theoretical logic that says that something needs an opposite to make it distinguished. — Angelo Cannata
The gods in heaven would still be living their normal life. — Hillary
Do you know of any god posit or worship from a non-human source? — universeness
If we have no existence then gods have no existence ad we created them. — universeness
Hello Hillary. You could have just answered with NO, you know of no other source for the god posit than humans. I think it's true that god needs humans like you to assign it value, in the same way that all fictional characters need human authors. No point in humans dressing up as Santa if kids no longer believe that the stories about him are true. — universeness
Although I must admit that I don't know how humans on other planets look like. Probably just like us. And that's because humans have evolved into beings that look like the heavenly god beings. — Hillary
They just want to act life as was acted in heaven — Hillary
They just want life to live life. And watch it. — Hillary
but they get embarrassed if they see people building churches and bowing to them. They just want us to live. And that's why life is a miracle. — Hillary
So did the gods look like humans 13.8 billion years ago?
So the Adam and Eve fable is more likely then than the whole time-consuming evolution through natural selection story? — universeness
Did they build this 'heaven' place you mention or did they command it to exist and from where did they issue this command? Did/do their bodies function like ours. — universeness
You seem to claim to know a little about what these gods want, so do you also know if their bodies function like ours or have they kept that a secret from you so far? — universeness
The gods just look like all life in the universe, — Hillary
The eternal heaven is not build. It's an eternally existing state. — Hillary
Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true. — Hillary
Their bodies function not just like ours. — Hillary
So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? Like the Dominion on Deep Space Nine? — universeness
Did it exist before its inhabitants or were they both magicked at the same instant? — universeness
What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself? — universeness
So do your gods eat, drink, tire, sleep, itch, sweat, etc? Do they have a bodily waste disposal system?
Do your gods experience joy, sadness, loss, fear, hope, love, hate, suffer pain? — universeness
The gods just look like all life in the universe — Hillary
So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? — universeness
You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make.No, there are just a whole lot of gods — Hillary
Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true.
— Hillary
What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself — universeness
Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English.Yes. Why not? — Hillary
Yes, all of it. They fly, crawl, quack, speak, yell, roll over, run, fight for a banana, philosophize, the watch sun go up, watch the heavenly stars, etc. But they let heaven exist in it's paradise state. — Hillary
You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make. — universeness
Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English — universeness
You really do just make it all up as you toddle along — universeness
You really do just make it all up as you toddle along. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.