Cheers, Bart. — Banno
Are you still saying stuff? — Bartricks
Would you like me to tell you what a disjunctive syllogism is?
It is an argument that has this form:
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
Now see if you can detect that argument form in the OP. You have 1 minute. — Bartricks
a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world. — Bartricks
Are you staring at yourself in the mirror again when you form such thoughts? I agree, you are not very good at this!Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you? — Bartricks
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks
So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse — Sir2u
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it. — Bartricks
Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true: — Bartricks
For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise. — Banno
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it — Bartricks
an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc — Bartricks
P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. — universeness
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person. — Bartricks
B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.
Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.
— Bartricks — EricH
AgreeIt seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic. — universeness
To me, given the full context, it was clear that this was his intention.If he intended P or Q = True, — universeness
Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes.Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires. — universeness
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. — universeness
Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things. — Banno
Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp.you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction — schopenhauer1
What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life. — schopenhauer1
Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes. — EricH
but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS.
— universeness
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk: — EricH
Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp. — Banno
And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist. — Banno
So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it. — EricH
There's that, then. Thanks for the chat. — Banno
That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point. — Banno
But that is exactly what you did in your OP. Right here:For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. — Bartricks
In other words, if She cannot satisfy both desires, then neither should you. But as you have stated, since She is omnipotent She can do both.I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. — Bartricks
God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue — 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.