• Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    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).Bartricks

    Would god still exist if mankind stopped procreating?

    If you can prove that he would, then the answer would be yes.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    with respect, you are a very intelligent person, but if you are so down on life that you telling others that life a prison, you need to see a professional mental health counsellor. Respectfully, but you need to.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Ad hominem. Do you have a criticism of the argument or can you not face arguments for conclusions that you dislike?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Yes, God would obviously still exist if we all stopped procreating. Why on earth would you think otherwise? And what is your 'yes' an answer to??
  • ernest meyer
    100
    Double bind, and double binds are not atypical for sociopaths, in fact it is one of the preferred techniques for such minded people.

    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Ad hominem again. Are you a psychologist?
  • ernest meyer
    100
    Again, seek professional help, and don't expect any more replies from me.ernest meyer
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Okay, if you can't take it. Man has a view you can't accept, therefore that man needs counselling. The arrogance is breathtaking. Unhinged, one might say.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k


    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!
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Ad hominem. Do you have a criticism of the argument or can you not face arguments for conclusions that you dislike?Bartricks

    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Did you actually read the OP?
    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.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    It turns out I was actually a psychologist, and I agree my first answer was not appropriate, but my second was.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Well you know what they say about psychologists.
  • Banno
    25k
    What is wrong with you people?Bartricks

    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.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    Did you actually read the OP? 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.Bartricks

    Yes, I did, and no-one says something like:

    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.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!
  • khaled
    3.5k

    But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world.Bartricks

    If this is true then this is false:

    if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join youBartricks

    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)

    What is wrong with you people?Bartricks

    It's much more likely that something is wrong with you than that something is wrong with everyone.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    :pray:
    [ ... ] 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, ...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.

    If a creator deity
    If its creatures are procreative
    If that creator deity is triple-omni and created "the best of all possible worlds"
    If a "teleological suspension of the ethical" obtains (i.e. "faith" in your deity) and thereby justifies theodicy
    If "revealed truth" includes the command from this deity to his procreative creatures to "be fruitful and multiply",
    Then antinatalism disobeys "the teleological suspension of the ethical" (i.e. loss of "faith" in your deity) and the command to "be fruitful and multiply"
    Therefore antinatalism goes against "God" (i.e. sin aka "wicked")
    :naughty:
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    It turns out I was actually a psychologist, and I agree my first answer was not appropriate, but my second was.ernest meyer

    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Hmm. If there is something wrong with everyone you look at, perhaps you are looking in the wrong direction...Banno

    Are you George Bush?
  • Banno
    25k
    I'll put my money on another ad hom.Banno

    I won.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.T Clark

    Ad hominem. Blub, blub, blub. Try and argue something. Notice the arguments I have made. Then try and address them.
  • Aryamoy Mitra
    156
    If you abnegate Empirical constructs, and leap to a omniscient entity without an underlying genesis, you will reaffirm your faith in any God.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Ad hominem. Blub, blub, blub. Try and argue something. Notice the arguments I have made. Then try and address them.Bartricks

    You've misused the term "ad hominem" again.
  • Banno
    25k


    ...but his reply to your accusation has me in stitches. Oh, the irony!
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    ...but his reply to your accusation has me in stitches. Oh, the irony!Banno

    Actually, I hate to admit it, but "blub, blub, blub" is a pretty good summary of my philosophy.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Bartricks
    But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world.
    — Bartricks

    If this is true then this is false:

    if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you
    — Bartricks

    You can't have both.
    khaled

    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.

    It's much more likely that something is wrong with you than that something is wrong with everyone.khaled

    No, because I am demonstrably arguing something whereas others are demonstrably not. See this thread for evidence.
  • Banno
    25k
    It's a pretty good summary of any philosophy, in my opinion.

    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.
  • Ying
    397
    Actually, I hate to admit it, but "blub, blub, blub" is a pretty good summary of my philosophy.T Clark

    Mine is more like "blah blah blah", but basically yeah, same here. :grin:
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Anything can be construed to be rational, if you commence with an unfounded presupposition.Aryamoy Mitra

    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.