HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. — schopenhauer1
That's irrelevant. All that is relevant here is whether this principle is true:
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is. — Bartricks
For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that, — Bartricks
Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP — EricH
If you are using your omnipotent, omniscient person (OO-P) as an example/template to possibly emulate - as the OP clearly states - then your discussion of the properties & behavior of the OO-P is subject to debate - since that is the foundation on which you construct your Ps & Qs. — EricH
What I was trying to do is show how a proponent of the problem of evil is committed to affirming the truth of a disjunctive moral principle. — Bartricks
Existence before essence is the case for humans in many ways that human pretend isn’t. Bad faith. :up:.Mind there is not at a subservient level to matter as in science, but transcends actuality to create nothing. This is the spirit that I favor in antinatalism. — introbert
Thoughts can occur to any of us, but only in an insignificant number will thinking interfere with basic functions like eating (animals), procreating, and working. — introbert
By a proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] I mean someone who thinks that the evils of the world imply God's non-existence. — Bartricks
Yet that is analogous to the view of the person who thinks it would have been wrong for God needlessly to make innocent persons live in this world with all its evils, yet not wrong for them to do so. — Bartricks
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?" — EricH
Before continuing I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we have had an invective free conversation. I believe very strongly (that whenever possible) it is ideas that should be criticized, not people. I hope that we can continue in that vein — EricH
I think I finally understand what you're getting at - and here is where we disagree. I am not seeing any connection between being a PPE and your Ps & Qs. Being a PPE does not imply that one should have any opinion on how God should act, let alone that it is wrong of God. — EricH
So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN? — EricH
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?" — EricH
We cannot alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we plan on introducing into it (not P) — Bartricks
I understand your example. I was trying to use some gentle humor to illustrate that your analogy lacks a certain rigor. But your example is irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to get across.You don't seem to understand the example. — Bartricks
Mr. X does not believe this - he is simply pointing out the inconsistency in the definition of God.. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs.They believe that God would either have altered how the sensible world operates so that it doesn't visit any horrendous evils on the innocents he puts in it, or he would not have put innocent persons into it. — Bartricks
Mr. X does not believe this principal. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs. — EricH
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.