Would you like me to tell you what a disjunctive syllogism is?

It is an argument that has this form:

1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Now see if you can detect that argument form in the OP. You have 1 minute.

Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children. — Bartricks

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same. — Bartricks

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes? — Bartricks

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.

So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.

Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.

You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God. — Bartricks

Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence

Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.

And why do you have to capitalize the word god?

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks

Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.

Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?

Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny. — Sir2u

It make good laughings in any accent.

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind. — Sir2u

It is irrelevant to the argument. I never said it wasn't. You are clearly reasoning that if you say something irrelevant enough times - and I lower myself to respond to the irrelevant point in question (for I find stupid reasoning almost intolerable and believe I am doing you a favour in pointing it out to you) - then I am acknowledging its relevance. That is itself, of course, an example of incredibly poor reasoning.

What I was hoping to achieve by this - and it really was just a hope, for I don't believe for a moment that it will actually happen - was that you might then realize how unbelievably bad at thinking you are and either slink away in shame or re-read the OP with an eye to understanding it.

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry. — Sir2u

What? What you have just said reminded me of something Peter Singer once said. I think it was Peter Singer, anyway. That when he started out as a philosopher he sincerely believed that anyone possessed of reason could, if they put enough effort in, understand anything. But then after trying to teach people he gradually came to the conclusion that some people are just stupid and there's really no helping them.

I live in hope though. So, read the OP and try and make sense of my argument. I have done all I can to make it clear to you. It is now down to you. Then - and only then - should you start trying to criticize it.

Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence — Sir2u

I don't know what a noun is or an adjective.

But what are you on about?

Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place. — Sir2u

You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. And now you think that you know more about this style of argument than I do and that I didn't engage in it in the OP. Most peculiar.

I have done all I can to make it clear to you. — Bartricks

And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.

You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. — Bartricks

No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?

The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.

Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.

So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.

And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers. — Sir2u

I am not responsible for the fact that most people here can't follow an argument or can't tell what is or isn't relevant.

No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything? — Sir2u

No, you did what I said you did. You passed off a line on the internet as a line from you. That's called plagiarism. And you don't know what a disjunctive syllogism is. You hadn't heard of them before today. Yet you still think you know more about how to argue well than I do, don't you?

Now, when you read my extremely helpful example of Jennifer and the curry and James, you probably though that it was about curry (or the beginning of a romantic novel about how Jennifer and James eventually get together after a rocky start). When in fact it was just illustrating a pattern of reasoning. But in order to be able to tell that it was illustrating a pattern of reasoning, you'd need to have the intellectual power to abstract that pattern from the example and notice its presence in my original reasoning about the omnipotent, omniscient person. What dawned on Peter Singer - as it has also dawned on me - is that vast swathes of the population are simply unable to do this. Just as there are sounds some of us can't hear, there are mental operations that some can't perform.

Here's the example again. Try and understand what it's illustrating and try not to get hung up on the picturesque details.

Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner. She also wants to cook a particular dish -a hot curry that James dislikes.

She should thwart one of those desires. That is, she should either invite James over for dinner and cook him something else (thus thwarting her desire to cook the curry). Or she would indulge her desire to cook the curry, but thwart her desire to invite James over.

Now. if you also want to invite James over for dinner, but you are only capable of cooking that very hot curry, then you ought not to invite James over for dinner.

So, either invite James to dinner or cook a curry, but not both
Cook a curry
Therefore, do not invite James to dinner

In Jennifer's case cooking a curry is simply something she wants to do, but does not have to - for she has the ability to cook other things. Still, if she decides to cook the curry, she ought not invite James to dinner. In your case you lack the ability to do anything other than cook a curry. But it still follows that you ought not invite James to dinner.

Now, when it comes to God, God ought either to alter the world so that it does not subject people living in it to horrendous evils, or she ought not to create new life.
That is something a proponent of the problem of evil agrees with. THey must do, for if they thought God could satisfy both desires, they wouldn't think there was a problem of evil.
If, then, God decides not to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils, then God ought not to invest the world with life.
We are unable to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils. Therefore we ought not to invest it with life either.

See?

Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice. — Sir2u

But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! You called my OP "claptrap" among other things.

What? — Banno

given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities — Banno

This is an excuse a manager uses to justify giving subordinates more work. It's shining a turd.

See? — Bartricks

But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! — Bartricks

I rarely do this because it is sort of frowned upon, but.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on — Sir2u

Well, that's not nice either. Odd. Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you?

It's shining a turd. — schopenhauer1

As is your philosophy.

Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you? — Bartricks

No, I've been modelling myself on you!

And one last piece of advice. Using what gods do as a way of specifying what humans should do does not work, humans are actually real.

No, I've been modelling myself on you! — Sir2u

But I'm clever and witty.

But I'm clever and witty. — Bartricks

Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face.

As is your philosophy. — Banno

Good one :roll:. But indeed it is managerial speak to make more work for others.

It's a "learning opportunity" is another one.

Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face. — Sir2u

Well that wasn't very witty now was it. Up your game.

Well that wasn't very witty now was it. — Bartricks

The truth is seldom witty, like you.

Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.

I had surmised that you were drunk when you wrote this. Sad that I seem to have been mistaken.

With "capabilities" I had Nussbaum and Sen in mind. So you are farting in quite the wrong direction.

You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day.

You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day. — Banno

To be fair, I didn't read what you were replying to, but that got my spidey-sense going with the phrase "capabilities.."

But looking at it, just more of the same from you.. A small sentence that has little weight behind it except that you "don't like bad ole antinatalism".

And by little weight I mean, there is no explanation.. just indignity as argument.

Hmm. Do you take comfort in your new bedfellow? Having Bart's support ought be enough to have one reconsider one's position, I would have thought. There's nothing in the OP worthy of consideration, unlike some of your posts, to which I have occasionally replied. It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart.

I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous.

Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP.

It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart. — Banno

Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them. Granted he can get very unnecessarily pernicious, it's just an exaggerated clown mirror of the tendency of many other posters on here that also argue unproductively. If he is doing anything, it is simply being an exaggerated jester of the bad faith arguing others tend to do.

As to his philosophy, I usually also don't get the theistic approach he often takes, so I don't comment on it much because it's not what I would argue.

I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous. — Banno

But even if we were to drop all other arguments, what does that say that a system must steamroll the individual? Is your basis simply, majority is always right? But also, part of the debate is what counts as negative/not right/unjust.

Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP. — Banno

I don't put stock in archetypes such as "broken, bent, elderly, disabled, and ill". Rather, I try to see what are the pervasive harms that are necessary for being at all, and consider the pervasive contingent harms that are also pernicious. It is deciding what these are that a good Pessimist explores. Deciding what counts as an negative, is also in question.

In this case, I was questioning the idea that one needs to develop capacities in the first place. Why is it our job to bring others to comply with this agenda of capacity building in the first place? It's as if you are implying that this is some necessary thing. Rather, no that is not how this works. Rather, people are born, and must comply in a fashion that isn't too disturbing. Otherwise, the habitual response from those who have been thus enculturated (perhaps yourself) will respond that "you should just die so the herd is not disturbed".

When you are born into a society, from the minute you are born, you are going to be judged as to how useful you will be to the society you are born into. In a modern context, you will be judged by how much valuable labor you can provide. Your only usefulness to broader society is your ability to both produce and consume. If we do not value these things (in the modern context at least), the system collapses.

If you don't value work, you are considered lazy. Lazy people are of no use to society. You are free riding, according to the elders and other workers. If you are not lazy, you must be one-off genius. You have to produce something of value.

"You better be lazing around re-thinking the next engineering marvel or physics theory! Otherwise, hopefully you get what you deserve by living in poverty or offing yourself" is the mentality.

If everyone didn't work hard or think of intricate minutia of physics/engineering problems, we would live in poverty and ghettos. We would be living in ignorance and privation, no motivation to "produce" and simply be passive consumers..

On the other hand, if we don't consume, the producers can't produce. Crime begets a whole business of keeping crime at bay. Pain keeps people needing to alleviate it. Our wants and needs need solutions.

All of this.. being useful items for society, and its opposite.. being passive ignorant lazing types, is bad. None of it is good. It is using people for their labor and consumption. Yet not doing so collapses the system. Being that it is a conundrum that is pernicious, intractable and pervasive to human life (as we know it)- heap it on the pile of evidence for the pessimism of life.

Here's a hint to know when you’re hitting on bedrock pessimistic points.. If it is intractable negative aspects that are so pervasive we say, "That's just the way it is. And there is no other way", you've hit upon something. — schopenhauer1

Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps, but the quality of his arguments is quite low.

For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise.

There's nothing in the OP worthy of consideration, unlike some of your posts, to which I have occasionally replied. — Banno

Yes there is. I've shown how those who think there's a problem of evil should accept that it is wrong to procreate. That's extraordinarily interesting. An actual philosopher would recognize that.

It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart. — Banno

Er, okaay.

I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous. — Banno

Like many, you ignorantly assume that the only argument for antinatalism is one that assumes life is unpleasant. Presumably that's because it's the only one you understand. Therefore, it must be the only one that is ever offered! Or perhaps it is becasue it is the only one you can say anything to challenge.
Therefore it is the only one!

There are lots of arguments for antinatalism, as you'd know if you had studied the area. Which you haven't.

The argument that I gave in the OP, for instance, does not assume that life is miserable. As anyone who has taken the time to read and understand it would know.

Perhaps, but the quality of his arguments is quite low. — Banno

No they aren't. You just think they are. That's not the same.

Take the argument in the OP. What's poor about it?

For instance, do you think this is valid?:

1. Either P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Meh. You set up a false dilemma in the fifth paragraph. But I know from previous discussions that there is little point in explaining this to you.