Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is? — baker

'God' denotes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. There's no dispute over that. And anyway, I stipulated that this is how I am using the term. But yes, if you are asking me if I am claiming to have proved God exists, then yes, I absolutely am.

But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. This thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the compatibility or otherwise of God with antinatalism and whether God's existence positively implies antinatalism.

Hmm.

-maybe not-

Nothing worse than a well fed troll. I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him.

I've pissed right on Barftrix's fatuous, fallacious, OP

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521348

and yet 5 pages on this overfed (D-K) troll still runs from my p.1 post (link above) like a frightened little girl. :smirk:

Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away.

I've only posted once to engage and twice more to "remind" him so. I ain't one of Barftrix's feeders any more than you are, DJ.

The clue to why lies in the conclusion of this valid argument:

1. If someone thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid, then that person is too dumb for fun
2. Sir2u thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid
3. Therefore.... — Bartricks

Oh dear, there you go again.

Do you even know why it is invalid? Can you just for once shut your frothing mouth and answer in a civilized manner a simple question?
What you wrote there is in no way considered an explanation, I doubt that it could even live up to the level of a 5 year old's ranting about why he hates to go to the bathroom.

Because I did not make it up. It comes from a very respect person in the area of philosophy and he thinks it is valid.

Go on, just for once indulge a person that is interested in learning and explain to me why the syllogisms are invalid. I have seen the explanations of why they are, now please oh great one show me how the other master is wrong.

If you are not willing to do that then I am sorry. I will nominate you as a candidate for The Wanker of the Year Award in the Category of Vocal Fluidless Vomiting.

Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away. — DingoJones

No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first.

Who wants to bet that he runs in the next 50 posts or less?

My mistake, apologies.

Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink:

No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first.

Who wants to bet that he runs in the next 50 posts or less? — Sir2u

Yes, you're a troll. You - like most of the others above - are not remotely interested in anything in the OP. Oh well, ho hum.

No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first. — Sir2u

Haha, nobody, but nobody, is going to take that bet....you have no idea what you're up against.

Because I did not make it up. It comes from a very respect person in the area of philosophy and he thinks it is valid. — Sir2u

So just to be clear - you're claiming that the following arguments come from a 'respect person' in philosophy. And he thinks they're valid? Where did you find him? In an earlier stage of our evolutionary development? These:

The rational intuitions of my philosophical mind leads me to the following conclusions but not necessarily beliefs:
1. god created mankind
2. god's guide to living says that mankind should worship him
3. therefore god needs mankind to worship him

1. if god needs mankind to worship him the mankind must reproduce to continue worshiping him
2. some people think that not reproducing is a morally correct thing to do
3. therefore either god does not decide what is moral and is not omnipotent OR some people are wrong about their ideas — Sir2u

Are not valid. Here is the first:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.

That's not valid. I think the technical term for an argument of that form is 'stupid'. (In a sentence: "the respect philosopher has 'stupidly' inferred 3 from 1 and 2").

Here is the second:

1. If P, then Q (you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then')
2. R
3. Therefore, either S or T

That one is not valid either. I think the technical term for an argument like that is 'unbelievably stupid'. (In a sentence: "the respect person in philosophy was unbelievably stupid to infer 3 from 1 and 2".

Anyway, rather than explaining to you why those various arbitrary collections of claims do not constitute arguments, why not address something I argued in the OP? (I know 'you' won't, but this isn't really addressed to you, but those with some genuine philosophical nous and a thicker skin)

I mean, they weren't philosophically uninteresting. I have claimed that omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything and explained why. That's quite a big claim and one that those with some philosophical spirit would consider worth exploring.....

I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him. — DingoJones

There is something attractive about his smug certainty. Being able to prance around with a certainty like that -- that must be great! Yay!

'God' denotes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. There's no dispute over that. And anyway, I stipulated that this is how I am using the term. But yes, if you are asking me if I am claiming to have proved God exists, then yes, I absolutely am.

But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. This thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the compatibility or otherwise of God with antinatalism and whether God's existence positively implies antinatalism. — Bartricks

None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism.
So someone is wrong here, you, or them.

Will you argue that you have better knowledge of God (in general, or in particular in reference to antinatalism) than they do?

Mind you, all you've got going is a dictionary definition of the term "God".
They have millennia of sacred texts, some of which are said to have been dictated directly by God.
Your dictionary definition of the term "God" is derived from those monotheistic texts, but the rest of your premises about God are merely your own inferences.

None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism. — baker

So? I am interested in whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent's existence is consistent with antinatalism, and whether it positively implies it. That's a philosophical matter, not a religious one.

Will you argue that you have better knowledge of God (in general, or in particular in reference to antinatalism) than they do? — baker

I really don't know - look, I'm not religious, so I just don't care and i don't know on what basis any religious person claims to know what they know because I don't hang around such people or read their works. So I don't know or care. Why not just address something I argued in the OP rather than focussing on me??

They have millennia of sacred texts, some of which are said to have been dictated directly by God.
Your dictionary definition of the term "God" is derived from those monotheistic texts, but the rest of your premises about God are merely your own inferences. — baker

Oh good grief!! Just engage with something I argued in the OP!

Just engage with something I argued in the OP! — Bartricks

Why? You don't. Nor do you engage with the replies that do.

I bloody do.

No, you don't. You try to bully objections into submission.

But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. — Bartricks

Yes, you're a troll. — Bartricks

you have no idea what you're up against. — Bartricks

I think the technical term for an argument of that form is 'stupid'. — Bartricks

I think the technical term for an argument like that is 'unbelievably stupid'. — Bartricks

Oh good grief!! Just engage with something I argued in the OP! — Bartricks

...those are just from a quick scroll down the present page.

What I don't get is, why haven't you been banned? Doubtless it will happen.

Haha, nobody, but nobody, is going to take that bet....you have no idea what you're up against. — Bartricks

Yer think.....yer think. Little do you know. I could actually guarantee that you will not post again before the thread reaches another 50 posts.

Are not valid. Here is the first:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.

1. If P, then Q (you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then')
2. R
3. Therefore, either S or T — Bartricks

I think you need a little guidance here. All you have stated here are the patterns of arguments. P, Q and R are only shown to represent something, as in the argument I posted. By themselves they have no meaning at all.
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why?

Try these web pages to get some ideas. Or maybe that is where you copied them from without reading about how they are used.
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/terms.concepts/forms.of.argument.html
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbraun2/Teaching/244/args.htm

So just to be clear - you're claiming that the following arguments come from a 'respect person' in philosophy.
(you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then') — Bartricks

And another sign in the cracking appears. Picking on typos instead of answering with intelligent, well thought out ideas. You were not called Sappy in a previous incarnation were you? You have a lot in common with him.

why not address something I argued in the OP? — Bartricks

Another sign of cracking, whining will get you no where. The next thing we will see is you using nasty insulting language against the members of this sacred place.

Just so that you have something to bitch about in you next post, I have left 4 grammar or spelling mistakes for you to find.

What I don't get is, why haven't you been banned? Doubtless it will happen. — Banno

He is too much fun to ban him, let him stay for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:

Oh, change the record you whiny creep. You're the bully. You're obsessed with 'me' and getting me - so far as I can tell the only proper philosopher on here - banned. Pathetic. Try saying something philosophical for once: engage in some reasoned argument and grow a thicker skin. If you can't do that or don't like it when people refute your arguments, go elsewhere! Jeez. You come onto my threads and make no attempt - none - to make any kind of philosophical contribution. You actively try and annoy. That's literally all you do. So just don't engage with my threads. Easy, yes? Stay away and stop coming in and saying things designed to do no more than needle.

Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink: — DingoJones

Me, complain about him. No way. I want him to stay around for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:

So just don't engage with my threads. Easy, yes? Stay away and stop coming in and saying things designed to do no more than annoy. — Bartricks

I just love how you work for the cause. Still think no one is taking bets?

Do you get banned often?

I think you need a little guidance here. All you have stated here are the patterns of arguments. P, Q and R are only shown to represent something, as in the argument I posted. By themselves they have no meaning at all.
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u

No, 'you' need guidance. You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises.

This was your first argument:


1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.

That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. There are some basic rules of inference - 9 from memory - and this argument conforms to none of them.

This would be valid:

1. P
2. Q
3.Therefore P and Q

But this:


1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.

Is not.

Now, how about actually addressing something I argued in the OP? I can happily keep saying that for 45 more posts if you wish.

You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises. — Bartricks

Did you not read what I said?

To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u

That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. — Bartricks

That's nice to know. But could you please explain why?
If god created humans and told them they have to worship him would that not prove he needs to be worshiped. So if he let humans become extinct he would not have anyone to worship him.

But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid.

Did you not read what I said? — Sir2u

Yes, unfortunately I did waste time doing that. And you asked to be shown why your arguments were not 'valid'. We did not mention their soundness. But you do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes?

But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid. — Sir2u

The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up.

Now, do you have anything vaguely philosophical to say about the OP?

We did not mention their soundness. — Bartricks

Who are WE and why did WE not mention it?

The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up. — Bartricks

But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p

I see it as
p
q
therefore p and q

Why is that.

But do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes? — Bartricks

I probably studied this stuff before you were born. Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem, I have forgotten too much of it. No, that's not true.

But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p — Sir2u

Er, no. That's valid.

This was the form your first argument took

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R. — Bartricks

And that's invalid because it is invalid.

I probably studied this stuff before you were born. — Sir2u

Yet you don't know it. Not a good student then.

Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem — Sir2u

Why does it matter when you went to college or whether anyone had color televisions at the time?

Anyway, do. you. have. anything. philosophical. to. say. about. anything. in. the. OP. Grandpa?