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

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

For fucks sake make up your mind, if you have one to make up.

Does this bloody god of yours exist or not.

Yes. The point is that whether God's existence is compatible with the truth of antinatalism does not depend on whether or not God exists.

For example, the existence of Dodos is compatible with the truth of antinatalism. That's true, regardless of whether any Dodos exist.

No though. I'm well paid.
— Bartricks

So, am I. — Sir2u

Yes, well people are very generous aren't they?

Anyway, you're still not addressing anything in the OP.

It seems you agree that God's existence is indeed compatible with antinatalism (and thus agree with me that omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything).

But do you, then, agree with my case for thinking that if God exists, the truth of antinatalism is positively implied?

Anyway, you're still not addressing anything in the OP. — Bartricks

I guess you did not read where I said there was nothing there worth addressing.

It seems you agree that God's existence is indeed compatible with antinatalism — Bartricks

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Not a bloody chance on agreeing to that either.

Yes, well people are very generous aren't they? — Bartricks

Funny you should mention that. My job is one of the reasons why I am bother to post here.

I am actually a teacher, I teach people to explain things to other people.

AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE ELSE FUCKED UP THEIR JOB WHEN THEY TAUGHT YOU.

Makes me feel good to know that, in all my years of teaching, I have never had a student as screwed up as you.
:rofl: :lol: :lol:

Guess I lost the bet, he made it to 51 posts by my count.
I must be losing my touch.

I guess you did not read where I said there was nothing there worth addressing. — Sir2u

Well that's false. The arguments I have made show that God's existence implies antinatalism. That's quite significant, as anyone with an inquiring mind would recognise.

Funny you should mention that. My job is one of the reasons why I am bother to post here. — Sir2u

You're job is to derail discussions?

I am actually a teacher, I teach people to explain things to other people. — Sir2u

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible.

AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE ELSE FUCKED UP THEIR JOB WHEN THEY TAUGHT YOU. — Sir2u

Glad to see you're acknowledging you're bad at your job. But nobody taught me to teach. You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university.

I have never had a student as screwed up as you. — Sir2u

They're called 'pupils' at your level, not 'students'.

Anyway, we're getting distracted by your pathetic attempts to insult me. Let's return to the OP.

One of my points was that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism.

In an earlier post we had this exchange:

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

No. — Sir2u

So, you think that omnipotence is compatible with not having created everything.

Yet you are now insisting that God's existence is not compatible with antinatalism.

So on what basis do you believe that? Do you think that the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence entails that the being possessed of such features will have created us? How? By hypothesis antinatalism is correct - for the question is whether God's existence is compatible with it - and thus being omnibenevolent would involve 'not' creating people. That's why the only basis upon which one could maintain that antinatalism and God are incompatible is if one thought that omnipotence (or omniscience) required having created everything. See? Or does this make your mind go a bit fuzzy and start hurting?

Nobody’s disagreed about their compatibility, theoretically. Everyone is disagreed whether either of them being true. Especially with the way you derived your “God”.

You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know.

And everyone is disagreeing with a view that has all acts be morally permissible, even if they’re not what God expects of you. You haven’t answered that objection.

And I am not talking about whether they are true. I am talking about their compatibility!

Can't quote as on mobile. But second paragraph: Dunning and Kruger.

Third paragraph - I don't know what you're talking about.

Well that's false. The arguments I have made show that God's existence implies antinatalism. — Bartricks

Only in your head does that argument make sense.

You're job is to derail discussions? — Bartricks

No one pays me to do it so I doubt it could be counted as a job.

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible. — Bartricks

No one really gives a flying f**k what you find plausible.

Glad to see you're acknowledging you're bad at your job. — Bartricks

I have never met anyone who is perfect, and even the best of any profession can have a bad day. But at least I know how to admit it.

But nobody taught me to teach. You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Nobody taught you to teach, does that mean that you do not know how to teach or that you learned all by yourself?

You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Really, I would really love to know where those universities are.
https://www.teacher.org/career/college-professor/
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/further-education-lecturer

These qualifications seem to be pretty standard worldwide. Do you by any chance live on another planet?

They're called 'pupils' at your level, not 'students'. — Bartricks

No they are not and you have no idea at which level I teach. It would be good for your reputation if you stopped making these stupid unfounded statements.

Anyway, we're getting distracted by your pathetic attempts to insult me. — Bartricks

I have no need to try to insult you, you are doing a perfectly good job of that yourself.

One of my points was that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, I think that was your only and principle point.

So, you think that omnipotence is compatible with not having created everything. — Bartricks

Obviously, just because something has the power to create does not make it a given fact they it will create. It can just create beer and then sit around drinking for eternity.
But I still fail to see the reason you say this.

Yet you are now insisting that God's existence is not compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, again, Not now but since the beginning. I am not insisting that god's existence is incompatible with antinatalism. I only said it about 20 times, and that surely cannot count as being insistent, can it?

So on what basis do you believe that? — Bartricks

The basis that it is bloody stupid.

Do you think that the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence entails that the being possessed of such features will have created us? — Bartricks

So if you god did not create us, where did we come from? I am not sure about your use of the word WILL in that sentence but I would guess you meant MIGHT

How? — Bartricks

How should I know how a omnipotence and omnibenevolence being would be able to create us. I have never met one to ask about it. Must put that on my bucket list.

By hypothesis antinatalism is correct — Bartricks

By hypothesis shooting people is correct, but that does not prove a thing.

for the question is whether God's existence is compatible with it - and thus being omnibenevolent would involve 'not' creating people — Bartricks

Which brings us to what you claim should be its reasons for not creating us. The fucked up world and our ignorance about how to live in it. Exactly what parts of the world make it dangerous for humans to live in?

Let us go back to the beginning again and look at what you said about god creating us for a purpose. Do you have any knowledge of that purpose?
If you do not then you cannot say that it has placed humans on earth to suffer. Maybe its purpose is to create a race of super beings that can take over the running of the universe when it retires. And that can only evolve through the suffering of hardships he has placed before us. Just look at how many human institutions work on basically the same principle.
So unless you can actually state the reasons we are here your case for the ungodly behavior you accuse it of has little meaning.

That's why the only basis upon which one could maintain that antinatalism and God are incompatible is if one thought that omnipotence (or omniscience) required having created everything. — Bartricks

No, again again. I explained another reason why it is incompatible with antinatalism . And I can think of several others.


I knew you would be back, even though I lost the bet by a couple of posts. Like the song says, "you just can't get enough" of being shown your wrong.

God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know — khaled

I don't think it is where he lives, it appears to happen 365 days a year.

And I am not talking about whether they are true. I am talking about their compatibility! — Bartricks

On other threads you talk about whether or not they’re true. And on this one I try to show how many absurd scenarios your view leads to.

Can't quote as on mobile. — Bartricks

Yes you can.

Third paragraph - I don't know what you're talking about. — Bartricks

Everything that happens here is just -> Everything that you do is morally permitted.

Who cares if God’s intention for you is to rehabilitate. That doesn’t make refusing to rehabilitate by treating people justly (as criminals) wrong. Just against God’s ideal. Which is not the same thing as wrong.

You haven’t responded to this.

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible. — Bartricks

You find it plausible that rape is just because the rape victim deserved it. So I don’t think what you find plausible or implausible says much.

Focus. This thread is about the compatibility of God and antinatalism and whether God's existence would positively imply antinatalism.
My view that God demonstrably exists, and my view that if God exists then everything that happens to us is deserved, are distinct views. Perhaps because you have trouble distinguishing between the arguer and the argument you think that any thread I start is a thread about any view I hold. That's a mistake.

My view that God demonstrably exists, and my view that if God exists then everything that happens to us is deserved, are distinct views. — Bartricks

Both of which you espoused here. And the latter leads to everything being morally permissible. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not a reductio ad absurdum to you I don’t know what is.

This thread is about the compatibility of God and antinatalism and whether God's existence would positively imply antinatalism. — Bartricks

This is a philosophy forum, not a fan fiction site. Discussions about whether made-up entities are compatible with philosophical positions are a waste of space. The answer is yes, or no, depending on the properties you choose to assign to your made up entity. We all knew that from the beginning

Those arguing about consequences, assuming God is real, are being charitable (or exasperated) enough to presume you wouldn't be so stupid as to want a whole thread dedicated to the question of whether you have sufficient imagination to make up an entity who would be compatible with antinatalism.

Isaac, go away. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you seem humourless.

go away. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you seem humourless. — Bartricks

Wise words of wisdom, you should try taking your own advice.

I do. I have philosophical contributions to make and I am full of humor. Thus I post.

No it doesn't lead to that conclusion as I explained elsewhere. You didn't understand that argument, that's all. I feel sorry for you about that as it wasn't tricky. But anyway, do try to focus on this thread.

Thus I post. — Bartricks

Finish the sentence "and abuse but never answer"

I understood and replied to it. You didn’t understand my reply.

You’re shifting goal posts in your answer. You’re changing what is “morally permissible” from “what our moral intuitions tell us” to “what God wants from us”.

and I am full of humor. — Bartricks

Well you got one thing right :lol:

Focus.

First - if you deserve something, it doesn't follow that it is permissible to give it to you.

Rapists deserve to be taped. Wrong to rape them though. Torturers deserve to be tortured. Wrong to torture them though. Simple point, well understood for millennia. You might want to learn it.

As a result it does not follow from us all deserving everything that happens to us that we are permitted to a anything to anyone.

Now, that's not relevant to this debate. So do try and focus. Christ.

Torturers deserve to be tortured. Wrong to torture them though. — Bartricks

False. If they deserve to be tortured then it is not wrong to torture them. By definition.

Definition of deserve:

"do something or have or show qualities worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate)."

What most people would say is "Torturers don't deserve to be tortured" and "Rapists don't deserve to be raped".

You should have payed attention in English class.

First - if you deserve something, it doesn't follow that it is permissible to give it to you. — Bartricks

Yes, you are right. We all deserve medals for putting up with your oral vomiting, but here at TPF it is not permitted to do such things.

Rapists deserve to be taped. — Bartricks

I'll be charitable and presume you mean raped, unless there is some new kind of punishment of which I am not aware. But this is false. In some places it is called rape when an adult has consensual sex with a minor even if the adult was tricked into thinking that the other was also an adult.

But even accepting what you state to be true as a fact, who would do the raping? Would that person also have to be punished in the same way?

Simple point, well understood for millennia. You might want to learn it. — Bartricks

Again, actual no. It is only in recent times that it has become the practice of some societies to move away from the "eye for an eye" concept of punishment. And I say some because it is still practiced in a lot of places around the world.

As a result it does not follow from us all deserving everything that happens to us that we are permitted to a anything to anyone. — Bartricks

Why would anyone with half a brain and a minimum of education think that we deserve everything that happens to us? The rest of the sentence makes no sense at all.

Now, that's not relevant to this debate. So do try and focus. — Bartricks

Nothing is really relevant to this for the simple reason that it is not a debate. It is a tirade of unabashed bullshit from you followed by another tirade of unabashed insults from you whenever someone posts anything you disagree with. With is basically everything everyone has posted.

Christ. — Bartricks

And why are you bring him into this. He would be a useless waste of time as well if humans snuffed themselves out.

You should have payed attention in English class. — khaled

Do you really think he ever took any?

@Bartricks Trolls like you "deserve" to be target practice dummies but it still isn't "right" to feed you all. :sweat:

No, Khaled, to 'deserve' something does not mean 'right to give it to you'. Exactly what desert involves is a matter of debate. But no one thinks it means 'is right to give it to', for if it did then if it is right to give me x, then deserve x, which clearly doesn't follow.

But once more: focus. Read the op and focus.

look up the definition of the word “deserve”. I’m not your English teacher.

So you are not paid to teach. You just scream some 'teachings' at passers-by do you?
I am on my mobile at the moment as I am up a mountain. Consequently I cannot quote any of your angry blitherings as I do not know how. But yes, there is no requirement - certainly wasn't when I was appointed anyway - to have any formal teaching qualification in order to be able to teach in a university. Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. Perhaps we should hire you to come in and tell us how it's done?
Did you say anything philosophical? No, I don't think so. Just more about how whether x is compatible with y turns essentially on whether s exists. Which is wrong of course. But there's no teaching some people. That's actually my attitude when it comes to teaching: let the thick go to the wall.

But I'm your philosophy teacher. And we don't do philosophy by looking up words in the dictionary.

But I'm your philosophy teacher. — Bartricks

I don’t remember ever hiring you or signing up for any of your classes.

But since I apparently did, you’re fired/I drop out. On account of you being an idiot. No doubt you think you’re not an idiot, but that’s just the Dunning Kruger effect.

And we don't do philosophy by looking up words in the dictionary. — Bartricks

No but we do it by speaking English in this case. So if you refuse to use words properly you can’t do much philosophy.

“Non material energy” “They deserve it but it’s wrong to do to them” are examples of not understanding English.

Furthermore, you refuse to even elaborate what you mean when you are misusing words.

Exactly what desert involves is a matter of debate. But no one thinks it means 'is right to give it to', — Bartricks

You deny the common definition because you don’t want to face inconsistencies in your system, and provide no alternative. “Desert is defined in such a way that my system is consistent, but what exactly it means I don’t know”. Nice one.

Dunning and Kruger.