My apologies if any of these questions don't make much sense, I'm just starting out :) — ratgambling

Welcome to the forum. You'll find lots of discussions about this type of question here. It's generally called "antinatalism," the idea that it is immoral to bring new lives into the world to suffer. @schopenhauer1 is probably the strongest spokesman for the position here. It's not an idea I have sympathy for.

From "Diary of an Addict":

"How preferable it is not to exist or never to have existed. Only intense pain, deep misery, and prolonged suffering seem to show up and the few moments of drug-induced instant-fix warmth and well-being wear off rapidly and only lead to a deepening of the hopeless despair, making one crave for new relief soon after.
Of course you have to exist first to come to this horrible conclusion, which makes it even worse and the realization that one is too big a coward to end the horror oneself can only make one long for the day the last breath is taken."

would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable? — ratgambling

I think it can only state value.

1) Evaluation about good and bad, worth or not worth, is a subjective matter: a calculator will never tell you that 2 is better than 3 or viceversa. This means thst dealing with the question by relying just on reasoning and syllogisms is a mistake. In any reasoning or syllogism about this question we just need to find the subjective elements and it is automatically demolished.
2) We can deal with the question by mixing subjective and objective elements, hoping that other subjects will agree with our own feelings.

A mixed reasoning that I consider very strong, if we agree the subjective elements, is this one: the tiniest amount of evil, or suffering in existence is enough to reject it as valuable. There is nlo reason why evil should exist in this world. Actually, the existence of evil makes the worl impossible to understand, to conceive.

Having children is far more complex than (some) parents imagine. Filial responsibility doesn't stop at feeding, clothing, and sheltering. Parents have to ensure their children are good (sensu lato) and only a handful of people are privy to that secret! In fact we could make the case that all human problems are due to bad parenting.

Before I forget, suffering, extremum, is how it all manifests.

"It is better ..." is a value judgement. There are no objective sets of values. So every statement "X is better than Y" should be read as "Given my values A, B, C, ... it follows that X is better than Y". Only then can a discussion arise if it really follows or if there is a flaw in the logic.
E.g.: Are squares better than triangles?
If symmetry is a value then, yes, squares are better because they have more symmetries.

And to your original problem:
An often cited value most people can agree upon is human well being. To have human well being, humans have to exist so existence is better than non-existence. But if the existence of more human beings doesn't increase the overall well being of all humans, more human beings is not better than fewer human beings.
An argument can be made that humans have overshot that threshold of optimal numbers a long time ago.

Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. — Hume

What people are calling 'subjective' is an area of lived experience that is evaluative. It encompasses desire and desirability, preference, morality, and whatever is 'what one makes' of 'what is'. So in order to evaluate life, one needs life, and as your intuition seems to be telling you, in order to evaluate non-existence, one needs to experience non-existence. The latter is not possible, and to me, this makes the former also impossible. One can not unreasonably prefer pizza to cheese on toast if one has experienced both, but to prefer non-existence to existence... ??? Ask anyone who has died which they prefer, the living cannot know. Or just wait 'til you attain this status yourself, and then decide.

-"existence is preferable over nonexistence...."
Only if you enjoy living and the conditions of your life are satisfactory.
You do understand that such question casn only have a subjective answer based on the situation. I can not really see how this question can produce a philosophical model that can be wise or helpful for everyone.

What people are calling 'subjective' is an area of lived experience that is evaluative. It encompasses desire and desirability, preference, morality, and whatever is 'what one makes' of 'what is'. So in order to evaluate life, one needs life, and as your intuition seems to be telling you, in order to evaluate non-existence, one needs to experience non-existence. The latter is not possible, and to me, this makes the former also impossible. One can not unreasonably prefer pizza to cheese on toast if one has experienced both, but to prefer non-existence to existence... ??? Ask anyone who has died which they prefer, the living cannot know. Or just wait 'til you attain this status yourself, and then decide. — unenlightened

Not necessarily so..

Procreation gives us the unique perspective of someone living making a decision on behalf of someone else.. If we know suffering exists, we can prevent yet another person from suffering. From the perspective of the already living, this evaluation can take place.

If the universe had 0 sentient beings on it.. Nothing to no one.. No harm, no foul as a state of affairs in the universe.

If the universe had sentient beings that can evaluate that there are negatives of the world, and indeed can and are experiencing them, one can say harm and foul is part of the state of affairs in the universe. That is to say we assume that states of affairs persist without sentience knowing it.

Also one doesn't "experience" non-existence. That word doesn't go with that state. Non-existence is never "experienced".

would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? — ratgambling

Yes, this is actually a fallacy. I don't know the name -- maybe false equivalence. But yes, close to circular reasoning.

The correct way to put that argument is to put the subject, the person, in two different situations and argue that one situation fosters happiness, while the other does not. The incorrect way is the one you pointed out -- cancelling the subject altogether in one situation.

Yes, this is actually a fallacy. I don't know the name -- maybe false equivalence. But yes, close to circular reasoning.

The correct way to put that argument is to put the subject, the person, in two different situations and argue that one situation fosters happiness, while the other does not. The incorrect way is the one you pointed out -- cancelling the subject altogether in one situation. — L'éléphant

The idea that it is better to exist than not exist seems to be purely a value statement. It is usually made by Christian theologians to justify their belief in God.

"Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came.' (Sophocles)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0190%3Acard%3D1225#:~:text=%5B1225%5D%20Not%20to%20be%20born,back%20from%20where%20he%20came.

"It is better ..." is a value judgement. There are no objective sets of values. So every statement "X is better than Y" should be read as "Given my values A, B, C, ... it follows that X is better than Y". Only then can a discussion arise if it really follows or if there is a flaw in the logic.
E.g.: Are squares better than triangles?
If symmetry is a value then, yes, squares are better because they have more symmetries.

And to your original problem:
An often cited value most people can agree upon is human well being. To have human well being, humans have to exist so existence is better than non-existence. But if the existence of more human beings doesn't increase the overall well being of all humans, more human beings is not better than fewer human beings.
An argument can be made that humans have overshot that threshold of optimal numbers a long time ago. — ArmChairPhilosopher

This makes sense to me. But what about the question:

Are squares better than shapelessness?

I wonder what value would one have that would lead them to decide on shapelessness. Or perhaps it is more a feature of shapes in general that they find repellent, and not just squares. Just a thought...

There is nlo reason why evil should exist in this world. Actually, the existence of evil makes the worl impossible to understand, to conceive. — Angelo Cannata

So how can we know what good is without evil (or not good) to compare against?

This is a kind of mathematical reasoning. I was talking in an existential way. Besides, with your reasoning we obtain the paradox that, if evil is needed to make possible good to be distinguished, then evil is not evil; however, it is evil, because it makes a difference from good; so, the logical conclusion is that, in order to make good distinguished, we need something that is evil and is not evil at the same time. Actually, this contradiction comes out because you are applying some sort of mathematical logic to the ideas of good and evil. But in strict logic good and evil just don't exist: we cannot say that 2 is good and 3 is evil. The ideas of good and evil come from a human, subjective, emotional, psychological experience, so, it is nonsense dealing with them with a theoretical logic that says that something needs an opposite to make it distinguished.

Namely, would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable?
I'd love to hear about how you would approach this statement! — ratgambling

'It is better to live than to never exist' is a simple question of meaning - most young people find themselves exploring it at some point. What answer you settle on will depend upon experience, not logic - your personal situation, your value system and the status of your mental health. It's pretty easy to see how a personal situation can land you to accept one answer over another.

This is a kind of mathematical reasoning. I was talking in an existential way. Besides, with your reasoning we obtain the paradox that, if evil is needed to make possible good to be distinguished, then evil is not evil; however, it is evil, because it makes a difference from good; so, the logical conclusion is that, in order to make good distinguished, we need something that is evil and is not evil at the same time. — Angelo Cannata

I think that's the problem with an existential approach to such musings, They are often poorly grounded in the everyday real-life experiences of humans.
I see no paradox in my reasoning. Up and down only exist for species such as humans in a relative sense but up and down are a very important part of everyday human life. Good and evil are more nuanced than up and down, in everyday human life. There are exemplifications of what almost every human would consider a truly evil act but we still cannot call any act as objectively evil as there can always be extenuating circumstances.
The labeling of a particular act as evil, is often quite subjective and some will support the application of the label in a particular instance and others won't but the fact that the two categorisations exist and can be used as 'extremities' from a range between good/bad, right/wrong, love/hate desirable/undesirable etc seem essential to the human condition.

Actually, this contradiction comes out because you are applying some sort of mathematical logic to the ideas of good and evil. But in strict logic good and evil just don't exist: we cannot say that 2 is good and 3 is evil. The ideas of good and evil come from a human, subjective, emotional, psychological experience, so, it is nonsense dealing with them with a theoretical logic that says that something needs an opposite to make it distinguished. — Angelo Cannata

I think the contradiction you suggest is of your own creation and is not based on any logic that I recognise as having any significant value. I am presenting good and evil as comparator labels.
The two labels are very valid to the human condition. You try to dismiss the two terms by suggesting they have no significance to what you are calling 'strict logic' or to a Universe that has no such lifeforms as humans in it. It is this suggestion that is nonsense. This thread is asking about humans choosing to live as opposed to choosing nonexistence. So the way we perceive good and evil seems essential to me when considering the OP.
You are suggesting that good/evil and it would follow that hunger, fear, love etc have little significance because they have no REAL objective reality but that's just BS. Humans need hunger to enjoy eating, fear to enjoy feeling secure and love as a comparator for hate. It's why heaven as traditionally described by some religions makes no sense, as a place of eternal pleasure would soon become hell for humans.

I often wondered that, especially in the modern world this question is often asked. My mind reacted with psychosis, depression, and addiction. The psychosis and depression are gone, though psychosis actually feels wonderful. Good and bad are simply part of creation. No big deal. It is their unnatural acting out that leads to problem, not the good and bad per se. To answer the question: of course it's better to exist than never to have existed at all, because if you didn't exist, you couldn't ask this question in the first place. It we didn't exist though, that would be a good sign as well. The gods in heaven would still be living their normal life.

The gods in heaven would still be living their normal life. — Hillary

Do you know of any god posit or worship from a non-human source?
If we have no existence then gods have no existence ad we created them.

Do you know of any god posit or worship from a non-human source? — universeness

Goodday uuuuuniverse(ness)! Animals don't question gods. They just live their life to please the gods (unknowingly) as they did in heaven. It are humans having knowledge of the heavens. Already in heaven they stood apart from the other gods. Trying to investigate everything, questioning eveverything philosophizing about everything, fooling around, theorizing, mathematicing, trying to find out their origins, etc. As human gods took part in the common effort of trying to find the right material for creation, it's no wonder humans in the universe try too.

If we have no existence then gods have no existence ad we created them. — universeness

That's the big question!

value judgement — ArmChairPhilosopher

:up:

Hello Hillary. You could have just answered with NO, you know of no other source for the god posit than humans. I think it's true that god needs humans like you to assign it value, in the same way that all fictional characters need human authors. No point in humans dressing up as Santa if kids no longer believe that the stories about him are true.

Hello Hillary. You could have just answered with NO, you know of no other source for the god posit than humans. I think it's true that god needs humans like you to assign it value, in the same way that all fictional characters need human authors. No point in humans dressing up as Santa if kids no longer believe that the stories about him are true. — universeness

I did answer with no. Although I must admit that I don't know how humans on other planets look like. Probably just like us. And that's because humans have evolved into beings that look like the heavenly god beings.

God beings don't need us to assign them value. They just want to act life as was acted in heaven. They don't want worship or admiration. They just want life to live life. And watch it. The fantasy of Santa Claus is a welcome feature, but they get embarrassed if they see people building churches and bowing to them. They just want us to live. And that's why life is a miracle.

Although I must admit that I don't know how humans on other planets look like. Probably just like us. And that's because humans have evolved into beings that look like the heavenly god beings. — Hillary

So did the gods look like humans 13.8 billion years ago?
So the Adam and Eve fable is more likely then than the whole time-consuming evolution through natural selection story?

They just want to act life as was acted in heaven — Hillary

Did they build this 'heaven' place you mention or did they command it to exist and from where did they issue this command? Did/do their bodies function like ours.

They just want life to live life. And watch it. — Hillary

but they get embarrassed if they see people building churches and bowing to them. They just want us to live. And that's why life is a miracle. — Hillary

You seem to claim to know a little about what these gods want, so do you also know if their bodies function like ours or have they kept that a secret from you so far?

So did the gods look like humans 13.8 billion years ago?
So the Adam and Eve fable is more likely then than the whole time-consuming evolution through natural selection story? — universeness

Good questions! The gods just look like all life in the universe, and they have created the universe and live evolving in it because like that all heavenly creatures get their turn.

Did they build this 'heaven' place you mention or did they command it to exist and from where did they issue this command? Did/do their bodies function like ours. — universeness

The eternal heaven is not build. It's an eternally existing state. Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true.

Their bodies function not just like ours. Only the material bodies in the universe decay and get reborn again, so in a sense all life is immortal too.

You seem to claim to know a little about what these gods want, so do you also know if their bodies function like ours or have they kept that a secret from you so far? — universeness

Their bodies don't decay like ours, nor are they born. They are not material.

The gods just look like all life in the universe, — Hillary

So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? Like the Dominion on Deep Space Nine?
Which story first put that notion in your head? Did you see polymorphs first in a story about Zeus turning into a shower of gold to impregnate a mortal or was it an earlier fable about gods turning into animals and back again?

The eternal heaven is not build. It's an eternally existing state. — Hillary

Did it exist before its inhabitants or were they both magicked at the same instant?

Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true. — Hillary

What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself?

Their bodies function not just like ours. — Hillary

So do your gods eat, drink, tire, sleep, itch, sweat, etc? Do they have a bodily waste disposal system?
Do your gods experience joy, sadness, loss, fear, hope, love, hate, suffer pain?

So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? Like the Dominion on Deep Space Nine? — universeness

No, there are just a whole lot of gods.

Did it exist before its inhabitants or were they both magicked at the same instant? — universeness

It existed eternally and then a terrible thing happened which made them engage in creation efforts.

What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself? — universeness

Yes. Why not?

So do your gods eat, drink, tire, sleep, itch, sweat, etc? Do they have a bodily waste disposal system?
Do your gods experience joy, sadness, loss, fear, hope, love, hate, suffer pain? — universeness

Yes, all of it. They fly, crawl, quack, speak, yell, roll over, run, fight for a banana, philosophize, the watch sun go up, watch the heavenly stars, etc. But they let heaven exist in it's paradise state.

The gods just look like all life in the universe — Hillary

So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? — universeness

No, there are just a whole lot of gods — Hillary

You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make.

Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true.
— Hillary
What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself — universeness

Yes. Why not? — Hillary

Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English.

Yes, all of it. They fly, crawl, quack, speak, yell, roll over, run, fight for a banana, philosophize, the watch sun go up, watch the heavenly stars, etc. But they let heaven exist in it's paradise state. — Hillary

:rofl: You really do just make it all up as you toddle along.
Well. this is all very entertaining and it's always good to know how deep the theistic worms can burrow into an individual psyche.
I think the evidence that theists just make shit up has been strong since before the fable of Gilgamesh.
If the lies grow enough they often create a new religion, so that some of them can con a living out of manipulating the primal fears of some easily duped people.
Theism is not worth the time anymore. Mere fables for human fearties.
I think I will save my energy for combatting those theists who are actually in the business of draining money, resources and the wits from innocent, duped fools.
That should leave the majority of my time left for the pursuit of more important goals.
Individuals with a 'personal theism,' who don't preach or try to convert others are harmless at worse and a curious entertainment at best.

You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make. — universeness

What's inconsistent? All forms of universal light have a heavenly counterpart. Even one of yours! He's probably denying you are real...

Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English — universeness

What doesn't make sense then?

You really do just make it all up as you toddle along — universeness

No! I got it all worked out. The universe, considering life in it, is a temporally finite, material version of heaven. Matter is bound to certain laws. But... they made it such that it can eternally repeat. Serial big bangs and all that.

You really do just make it all up as you toddle along. — universeness

Exactly as science proceeds. Toddling along can both stimulate science as theology. They both are not static monolith institutions, as they both want it to be. In a sense, they are pretty alike!