Transitoriness is a reference to change, death is a harbinger of change, change creates different states, combinatorial change creates mutation and NEW states that had no existence before the mutation occurred. Self-awareness/realisation allows change based on INTENT, rather than happenstance.
This is where sentients like humans enter and can seriously affect what changes happen. This creates a situation whereby an individual human life can have very significant affects.
Individuals CAN therefore live a very interesting and significant life (judged as good or bad by supporters/dissenters). Change, time and self-awareness allows for the advent of choice and perhaps even free will.

Progressive and compassionate humans (which are most humans) will ever strive to, and continue to succeed in, improving the human experience of 'the world,' by removing/diluting that which the majority of humans have judged to be 'horrendous/nasty experiences.'
Any manipulations of the problem of human suffering that have the goal of championing the anti-life cause are bogus and is based on nothing more than the proponent's inability to live life as anything other than a curse.
The OP has been fully debunked despite the continuing protestations of its author, that it has not even been addressed. Let the fool on the hill continue to shout. At least some on TPF, find it entertaining, in the sense of laughing at the freak show. Time to move on to other threads. Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread.

And we can work to remove them. — Banno

:clap:

You are trying to 'patch' the inaccuracies in the sophistry employed by bar tricks when you would do better to pull back the curtain and expose his sophistry.

Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes. — EricH

I am glad you can garnish entertainment from antinatalism and antinatalists but I personally see them as a more destructive and pernicious group than you do. For example, they exist as a particularly nasty organised group in America. Footage from this group has already been posted on TPF and I don't take such organised nasty groups, lightly.

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

Easy for you to type but I think you are wrong and that there is a very real and very valid concern involved.

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

It 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.
I would think that it's his burden to clearly state what he intends with P or Q. If he intended P or Q = True, then that's what he should have typed, which would be equivalent to the 'exclusive or.' I think this should be written as P ⊕ Q not P or Q.

Anyway, it matters not, as
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires.
Bar tricks is all smoke and mirrors, but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. I am just trying to help redress that balance.

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

:clap: :100:

Are you still saying stuff? — Bartricks

I know that you hear a lot of stuff in your own head, but yes, I am still TYPING words, thanks for your encouragement.

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

You can try, but you are not the most reliable source of accurate descriptions.

1. P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. Look at a truth table for an electronic OR gate.
So, in your OP, both your posits are false.

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

P = 'a desire to leave the (sensible :roll: ) world to operate in its own manner,' IS FALSE, as an omniscient would have no desires and no omnipotent exists
Q = 'a desire to introduce sentient life into the world,' IS FALSE, as an omnipotent would have no desires and no omnipotent exists.

So, your gameplay is to conflate your disjointed and dysfunctional musings with the rules of propositional logic and your attempt is irrational and laughable.

Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you? — Bartricks

Are you staring at yourself in the mirror again when you form such thoughts? I agree, you are not very good at this!

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

No, reproduction will continue, as a natural imperative for the human species and we will continue to combat suffering so we can further assist people like you, when you again get scared due to your awareness of self.
You don't have any arguments, you merely live in fear, you choose to live life as a curse. I pity you.

Are you someone who can't understand that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks God 'can' exist — Bartricks

Bart Ehrman for example, cites the problem of evil as the reason he no longer believes that god exists.
But sure, anybody can still believe any BS no matter how illogical it is.

You have 30 seconds. — Bartricks

Do you understand how manic this makes you seem?

Do you really think you can use some BS rule of inference to add any weight to your absolutely illogical viewpoints?

What is a disjunctive syllogism? You have 30 seconds. — Bartricks

What is a dysfunctional misanthrope? You have the rest of your life?

That is what decency demands — Bartricks

Decency demands that I help ensure your BS gets revealed as such.
I am quite willing to not engage with you directly as you are currently lost in your own fallacious miasma. I hope more and more members at TPF will also choose not to engage with you.

Make an argument. — Bartricks

Learn what an argument is!

Try and stick to the topic. Do you have the ability to prevent all of the horrendous evils that are occurring in the world? Yes or no? — Bartricks

Yes, given enough time and scientists and human assistants. If not me then others like me from the same species.

Make an argument. — Bartricks

My argument is that your omnipotent/omniscient does not exist, prove it does, put up or shut up!

You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God. — Bartricks

No one is, god doesn't exist. I can change how the world operates through scientific breakthrough that can indeed prevent many horrendous evils. Are you still afraid of smallpox for example?

That's a blurt. That's not an argument. It's just you saying something. — Bartricks

So, identify this omnipotent/omniscient, get it to reveal itself and demonstrate its ability. Can you do that or is it you that's just typing BS.

If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes? — Bartricks

No, you can change the world, many historical people have and your desire to pass on your legacy to your children to continue your work is valid. Do you need me to name some people from history that have 'changed the world?' Like the unknown creature who first used fire to cook meat or used tree trunks to roll a big boulder over a distance to turn it into a standing stone?

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person. — Bartricks

Impossible, illogical, no such entity exists.

And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, — Bartricks

BY definition, an omni cannot have 'desires,' it's illogical to suggest it can.
Desire is about need, how can an omni need? This is illogical and contradictory.
You fall miserably at the first fence. But you already know that don't you.

You are just saying things. — Bartricks

Well, I am typing things, sure, what do you think you are doing?
Your evidence begins by positing entities that do not exist, that is illogical.
Who is this omnipotent, omniscient you posit? They exist only in your head?
If this is not evidence enough that you are being illogical, then you need professional help with your mental state. A troll is another mythical beast and the idea that I am trolling you is just you, experiencing panic. I have little interest in your ability to appreciate my humour. You go away and stop trying to downgrade the lives of others. You will fail!

Procreation is essential as there are no gods and no omnis. We are not yet individually immortal, and we demonstrate no ability to be omni anything. To continue the story of the universe, lifeforms which can demonstrate awareness of self, must reproduce.
The only alternative, is indeed, a lifeless meaningless universe. The universe has already demonstrated that life is part of its evolution, therefore, we should get on with living life not as a curse but as part of the natural development of a universe.

There is an illogical argument in the OP that does not in any way show that the problem of evil implies antinatalism. That's just your morose opinion, nothing more. I can just as easily claim that you are psychologically incapable of accepting that you are positing illogical nonsense.
I am certainly asserting that you are utterly wrong, yes, just as you are asserting you are correct.
Those are the normal ingredients of 'argument.'
I continue to explain why you are being so illogical to try to help you face the primal fears that seem to make you so morose. I also wish to prevent you from infecting anyone else with your misguided logic and your negative viewpoints. You go away!

The problem of evil implies the immorality of procreation. See op for details. — Bartricks

No, it doesn't, and the OP is drivel and illogical. There is no such existent, as a living omni and there are no gods, and evil is not a self-sustaining force. Don't try to infect others with your own struggle with religion. If you want a god to comfort you when you are scared, then accept that any omni god must be the source of evil, as such a first cause is the ultimate solipsist, as it claims nothing really exists, except it, and its existence is only by its own will. Procreation is not evil, it's a natural imperative against extinction, that can be controlled through reason or indeed, legislation, if overpopulation is proving problematic.
The universe is a big place and overpopulation will not be a problem, once our species colonises outside of this nest planet. We are relative newcomers in the Universe. Perhaps if you study the cosmic calendar, you will be less concerned. Try to face your primal fears and you will find life and living has a lot of joyous times available to you and you can leave a legacy that adds to the fantastic achievements that the human race has already left to you.

Perhaps even Sunak attacks, endorsed by the Rishi rich!
Got to be part of a few future newspaper headlines.

I would like to start things off, by predicting that future tory attacks on the poor will be called Sunak attacks!

The problem of evil is a problem for theists. Use it as anecdotal evidence for the non-existence of the omnis and gods then the problem of evil becomes a problem of behaviour when sentients interrelate.
It has no connection to the issue of reproduction, which is an evolved natural means to combat the threat of extinction. We should all have pity for the anti-life people, just be thankful that such is not part of your daily life.
Anti-natalism has as much chance of becoming the accepted way forward as the square wheel!

Damn your own parents for YOUR existence and you damn all natural events, as it was those events that are the historical source of all life in the universe.
It's illogical to crave nothingness for everyone, because your own awareness frightens you.
Imo, we need to see living creatures who are anti-living as just scared wretches who are not coping very well.

It's not one's fault than you don't spoke right England.

Fanks fur yir impudent advices, ah try ma best tae type in proper England by ra way and get all ra words pure right but It always good to get advices fae Americans who are known everywhere as better typers of ra England than even the Englander peoples!

you have brought forth the terrible injustices that white folks have to put up with. So where do we go from there? — unenlightened

We all hopefully move towards a better realisation that the race/cultural competition amongst the poor regarding which culture/colour is the most criminal is EXACTLY what the nefarious rich want.
Whilst they run away with the cream, the poor are mostly at war with each other over mostly scraps from the tables of the rich and powerful, very low-level opportunity and resource. In most 3rd world countries, it's at the level of basic sustenance.

I mean, if you can provide a little bit of evidence that there are confounding factors that make it merely appear that people of color commit more crime, I'm totally open to amending my position. — ToothyMaw

How much of what someone like Donald Trump or Elon Musk or The King and Queen dynastic families do, would be considered criminal, if we even got to know about even some of the truth of it?
How many corrupt police and military personnel exist RIGHT NOW? Globally?
How many corrupt civil servants in positions of significant authority?
How many corrupt politicians RIGHT NOW?
Who gives a shit what colour they are or what culture they were born into or whatever creed drives them etc. These are the criminals we should be really worried about, not the small fry amongst the poor.

White people rule most of the world imo, so the biggest, nastiest criminals are probably white but who cares?
Is a Chinese dictator any better or worse than a Russian one or an African one or the one called Trump who was president of America?
Bad behaviour has no colour, creed or cultural imperative.

So, firstly, you accept the premise that 'evil' is a problem, 'outside' of the concept that it is a purely human concept and has no existence outside of sentient life. Evil is a labelled projection or manifestation of what most humans may judge certain human behaviours be categorised as. Killing for no reason or a reason which is not justified enough, is evil, killing in self-defence is not. Only other humans, given judicial authority, can judge on an incident-by-incident basis.

Secondly you accept the premise that god must exist based on a BS argument that if it did, it would not suffer innocents to live in a dangerous world.
Why is the premise that if god exists then it is the source and origin of ALL EVIL any less 'feasible?' and therefore god would allow innocents to suffer, as they do, so an existent god is fully responsible for all evil. Many theists turn atheist because they think if god exists then it allows evil. This is in fact more akin to the term 'the problem of evil.'

If you consider this 'syllogism' to have any value, then I do think you are easily impressed because it is based on two premises which have not been DEMONSTRATED as true.

Innocence, like evil is another human concept and again is purely based on human judgement on a case-by-case basis, often further informed by the outcome of previous cases or precedent/legal principle.

The only avenues of attack were to claim that God is unjust — ToothyMaw

Not true, you can also make the equally unprovable claim that god does not exist, therefore the question is moot.

I'm pretty certain 180 simultaneously craps his pants and has an aneurysm every time Bartricks posts an OP. — ToothyMaw

Imo, @180proof has a far more impressive knowledge of philosophy than bar tricks and is quite capable of defending his own positions.
I personally thought bartricks was female not male but perhaps I am wrong.

I will. Just give me like 20 minutes. — ToothyMaw

Take all the time you need!

*surprisingly well-thought-out arguments. — ToothyMaw

Offer your best example of such and demonstrate that you are not just easily impressed.

Constants from @Bartricks

You seem to have missed my point entirely. — Bartricks

I have no idea how anything you are saying connects with anything I have said. — Bartricks

Etc.

I think it's obvious who is doing the imagining here:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person. — Bartricks

There is no dialogue here, all we have is 'The delusional commandments of bar tricks!'

Depends on what you have done/caused to happen to others in your life Mr Smith, not what you have posted on TPF.

Do you consider yourself evil?

Just in case Mr Smith! Is all ok?

Yeah, and the right doesn't seem to care what you do at all so long as you toe the line. — ToothyMaw

I agree but they get scared when the masses start to sharpen their proverbial pitchforks.

If the citizens of the US, be they left or right, actually cared about our government not ruining lives, they would have voted out the neoliberals and fascists for the many atrocities committed against people in other countries. Selling weapons to Saudi-Arabia so they can blow up brown people halfway across the world? No noise. — ToothyMaw

Such people must then accept their lot and suffer in silence or find their voice, find courage and fight for a better world against the nefarious rich and powerful. Them's the choices!

Honestly, I have little forgiveness for them myself, but I at least try to understand, some of the time, why they do what they do. — ToothyMaw

Sounds fair minded to me. I think some seek wealth and power because they find the world quite a scary and unpredictable place, so they try to protect themselves and their nearest and dearest by becoming wealthy enough to place them in gated, secured communities, where they can enjoy privileged lives. Some inherit status and wealth due to dynastic nefarious ancestors, who were very good at playing money trick game and they came to believe that proved they were chosen because they were superior to most and deserved much more than anyone from the 'masses.'

Telepathy?

What? You need to be less cryptic.

It's very difficult to treat your enemies absolutely fairly and to apply the golden rule towards them every time, regardless of how atrocious and nasty their actions have been. To forgive them totally for all the actions they performed which resulted in friends and fellows that had their lives severely damaged or totally destroyed. I think it's incredible when people can be so forgiving towards the nefarious rich and to right wing extremists, but I also understand those who cannot be so forgiving.