Er, no. That's valid. — Bartricks
And that's invalid because it is invalid. — Bartricks
Yet you don't know it. Not a good student then. — Bartricks
Anyway, do. you. have. anything. philosophical. to. say. about. anything. in. the. OP? — 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. — Sir2u
You have got to be freaking kiddin mate. No one I know would have anything philosophical to say about the load of bollocks you wrote.
How the hell did you ever come up with such bullshit anyway? That would most likely be a more interesting thing to talk about. — Sir2u
Sorry again, that p's and r's — Sir2u
Those aren't the same. — Bartricks
And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much. — Bartricks
What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly. — Sir2u
And thus presumably you would agree that God and antinatalism are compatible? — Bartricks
As I said from the beginning, your statement is based on the fact that there is a god.
Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be? — Sir2u
Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be? — Sir2u
Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP. — Bartricks
So your "God" is indistinguishable from being a mere figment of your imagination. And since you deny any relation to religion, your "God" is a mere figment of your imagination. And being a mere figment of your imagination it can do and be whatever you want it to do and be. It can favor antinatalism, if you want it to, yay!So? — Bartricks
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.