Er, no. That's valid. — Bartricks

Sorry I got my p's and q's mixed up.
Sorry again, that p's and r's

And that's invalid because it is invalid. — Bartricks

Absolutely fucking amazing. I never would have guessed that.

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

Probably true, but I guess I have probably forgotten more than you know.

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

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.

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

Hmm, by my calculations you were at college (presumably woodwork) in the 1970s, so that would make you in your 70s today, or perhaps your 60s. Yet you write like an adolescent and seem to have the wit of one too. Methinks you lie, sir.

Sorry again, that p's and r's — Sir2u

No, it's ps and rs. Not p's and r's.

Now, once more, anything philosophical to contribute?

so that would make you in your 70s today. — Bartricks

The only true thing you have said so far.

Question begging.

me - so far as I can tell the only proper philosopher on here — Bartricks

:rofl: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Question begging. — Bartricks

That's what you did when you said you could prove god existed.

Er no. Cast your mind back to when you were doing philosophy at woodwork college in 1812 with the 'respect philosopher' and try and remember what 'question begging' means.

Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved.

You assume to much.

Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved.

You assume to much — Sir2u

Those aren't the same. And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much.

You think there are more?

Those aren't the same. — Bartricks

What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly.

And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much. — Bartricks

That one was too easy for a bright boy like you. But you did not find the others I left for you.
Yes sir, next thing we know Barfricks will be joining the grammar nazis, or is that the spelling nazis. Whatever.

You think there are more? — Bartricks

Oh no anointed one, thou has blessed us with thine mere presence. :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :lol:

What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly. — Sir2u

Assuming the truth of that which one was trying to show is not the same as assuming too much, for one can do the latter without doing the former.

I explain things for a living. You're getting it for free. Thank me.

Back to the OP: do you think omnipotence involves having created everything?

Back to the OP: do you think omnipotence involves having created everything? — Bartricks

No.

Then we agree. And thus presumably you would agree that God and antinatalism are compatible? Or do we need to go through why you should?

And thus presumably you would agree that God and antinatalism are compatible? — Bartricks

I do not, and you do little for your case presuming such things.

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?

Oh dear, and things were going so well between us, and with apologies to Frank Sinatra, "then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like:

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

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. Obviously.

Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be? — Sir2u

Read the OP. It is explained.

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. — Bartricks

Did I say anything about the existence of god? I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god. — Sir2u

Yeah, that's false. Is the existence of a unicorn compatible with antinatalism? Yes. Does that mean unicorns exist? Er, no.

Yeah, that's false. — Bartricks

Once again, what is. Please learn to explain.

Please learn to explain. — Sir2u

First thank me for explaining the blindingly obvious to you thus far. Like I say, I explain things for a living, but I'm not going to give you free lessons in such tediously elementary matters until or unless you thank me for having done so thus far.

Like I say, I explain things for a living, — Bartricks

So you live in poverty?

So let me presume then that you meant that

I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

is a lie.

So you live in poverty? — Sir2u

Ah, some wit.

No though. I'm well paid.

No though. I'm well paid. — Bartricks

So, am I.

But you once again failed to confirm my presumption or tell me I was wrong.

Well, you haven't thanked me. But okay, yes - you were wrong. That's what I said before and then again and then again. Here again, for the slow witted: the claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not, for its truth, require that God actually exist.

Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP.

Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP. — Bartricks

Shumptrimshaft has super super powers. With his strength he can move the universe all by himself. He was around before the universe came into being, he has even claimed to have helped in the process. He has a system of information gathering that is capable of providing him with everything he needs or wants to know.

Because of this knowledge he decides that he will try to help a group of beings on one of the planets. He gives them guidance on how to behave and become better beings. All that he asks for in return is that the beings adore him, because no one else does.

A group of these beings decide that they do not want to continue breeding because they think it is wrong, that they should not have more off springs because they will only suffer in live. They try to spread their ideas to the other beings on the planet and convince them to join with them. Eventual, they succeed and all of them stop breeding.

Would Shumptrimshaft be compatible with the concept of not breeding?

So that you do not get confused, here is the definition of compatible that I am using. If this is incorrect, please advise me of the one that you are using.

Compatible = Able to exist and perform in harmonious or agreeable combination

So? — 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!


The religious theists are at least bound to some code external to them, so they can't just make stuff up and ascribe to God whatever they want.

Just read the OP and address something argued in it. Simple.

Now, in the OP I argued that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being is compatible with the truth of antinatalism. And I gave interesting arguments for that view. I argued that being omnipotent does not -contrary to widespread belief - require having created everything. That's important, becasue if that is false then God is incompatible with antinatalism.

I then argued that God's existence, combined with the nature of the world we live in, positively implies the truth of antinatalism.

Address something I argued.

You're too confused.

Well, you've got that smug confidence. Unfortunately, said confidence doesn't guarantee knowledge of God ... or anything else, for that matter. But it helps you to stay childless. Now that's a twofer!