I am saying atheism seems to lead to moral nihilism and other forms of nihilism. If someone is consistent about not believing things without evidence or not believing things involving supernatural claims. — Andrew4Handel

I have become agnostic based on my evaluations of theory, evidence, probability, limitations of knowledge etc. — Andrew4Handel

I'm still not understanding you. In your OP you identified yourself as agnostic. Does agnosticism also lead to moral nihilism? If not, could/would you please explain the difference.

I have become agnostic based on my evaluations of theory, evidence, probability, limitations of knowledge etc. — Andrew4Handel

I want to know that my actions are good or bad objectively and not speculatively, subjectively or arbitrarily. — Andrew4Handel

No one has discovered a truth value to moral claims or moral instructions. — Andrew4Handel

I've been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to understand what you're saying. You're agnostic and you want to know whether your actions are good or bad, but then you say that it can't be done.

So then what?

Are you including the philosophical arguments for God in this?

The cosmological argument.
The moral argument for God.
Aquinas's Five ways
The ontological argument
The argument from beauty
The argument from consciousness
The teleological argument — Andrew4Handel

This goes against the idea of a simple disbelief in gods if you have to write thousands of words in response to arguments for God. — Andrew4Handel

How many thousands of words are there in the arguments for God? Certainly the folks debunking these arguments are allowed to use the same number of words, yes?

Maybe. I generally agree with that gods are incoherent ideas. But it is easier to say one is atheist as it's a word people know. — Tom Storm

That makes sense if you're out and about. Maybe I'm being too generous in this assessment, but here in TPF I think we're all reasonably informed enough to understand the distinction.

You have my permission to call yourself an ignostic . . . :smile:

If you're not a theist, then you're an atheist. Don't be afraid of the word. If you are not a believer in any kind of deity then you're effectively an atheist. I think many people with 'spiritual beliefs' are atheists. — Tom Storm

I am an agnostic atheist - a standard definition amongst atheists I know. Agnostic in terms of knowledge, atheist in terms of belief. — Tom Storm

I also think the idea of god is incoherent and lacks any explanatory power, I really don't know what people mean by god except as a kind of vague, Tillich-like mystical metanarrative, or more frequently, a literalist mega-moron as per Islam or Christianity. — Tom Storm

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like you are closer to ignosticism - which (in essence) says that the very notion of a deity or deities is incoherent.

Is ignosticism a sub-category of atheism? The answer is still being debated, but my 2 cents is that ignosticism is a distinct category unto itself and not some sub-category of atheism and/or agnosticism.

Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, — Agent Smith

What you have described sounds to me more like ignosticism.

Per the wikipedia entry, there is an open debate whether ignosticism is a type of atheism or if it is a separate category unto itself.

the crime is the same in both cases: illegally possessing classified documents. — Merkwurdichliebe

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

In other words, merely possessing such material in of itself is not a crime - you have to prove knowledge and intent. Whether Trump and/or Biden will be charged with a crime remains to be seen.

On location reporting of the actual fighting on the front lines. Read it and weep for the ongoing tragedy.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/trapped-in-the-trenches-in-ukraine

Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no skin in this discussion, but am just pointing out that you have misinterpreted this article. Per your link:

Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable or we do not want to use.

In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form".

I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion.

Carry on.

I can't take any of his insults seriously (I'm assuming B is a he) - he's like a child at a playground.

But thanks for the support. :pray:

Awww. Now you're being cruel.

:grin: :joke: :rofl:

if you can't understand why a proponent of the problem of evil has to accept this principle — Bartricks

If you can't understand that without omnibenevolence there is no problem of evil, then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.

You can't begin to explain, can you, how the problem of evil requires omnibenevolence? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?

You have failed. Like I say, you're a bad faith interlocutor and then there's the IQ thing.

This is my last exchange to you on this topic. It's been most revealing.

Now, my claim is that a defender of the problem of evil - so, someone who thinks the evils of the world imply God's non-existence - has to endorse premise 1.

If you think they don't, explain why. — Bartricks

I cannot answer your question set until you explain how YOU define/explain the problem of evil (POE) and what it means to be a proponent of this problem.

Just to recap where we are in this discussion:-
- You have stated that omnibenevolence is not required for the POE.
- This does not even remotely correspond with any standard definition of the POE.

Now maybe there is some formulation of the problem within the writings of one of the medieval philosophers about which you are highly knowledgeable - or - maybe you have your own explanation.

But either way, you need to clarify your question before it can be answered.

1) How do you define/explain the POE without omnibenevolence?
2) What does it mean to be a proponent of this problem?
3) In what way does your definition require that a proponent of the POE must agree with AN?

In the course of our conversation I have asked you these same questions multiple times in a variety of different ways, but for some reason you choose not to answer them. This I do not understand, but I am still trying.

BTW - if you are realizing that you made a mistake and you now agree that the POE does require omnibenevolence, I will not hold it against you to change your mind.

Dear Professor B,

This week's homework assignment in Philosophy 101 was to explain the problem of evil. I went back to the primary sources and here is my understanding of the standard definition:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Please grade my homework. If I have gotten anything wrong, please correct me.

Your humble student,
EricH

In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us. — Moses

I've read Job, and I while I am not an expert in these matters I get the basics. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying.

If B had said that a person who believes in God in spite of the problem of evil (either via theodicy or some other explanation) should be an anti-natalist, then that would have made some sense.

In fact that was my initial assumption as to what he was saying, since simply denying God's existence due to the problem of evil does not oblige one to take any moral position about how an imaginary God/person aught to behave. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying. B is saying that by virtue being a proponent of the problem of evil (one who denies God's existence) it logically follows that such a person must also be an antinatalist.

However, as if that weren't illogical enough, B goes one step further and asserts that the problem of evil does not require omnibenevolence. I have asked B to explain this, but he keeps repeating that it's obvious and that I'm not getting it.

a) you are a bad faith interlocuter — Bartricks

I will repeat things I've said in the past. You're a smart person and you are obviously well educated in many aspects of philosophy. You are not a troll. I find your ideas bizarrely fantastical and illogical, but I keep trying to figure out what (if any) logic is underlying your posts. This is why I take this step by step approach to try to echo back to you what I think you're saying.

If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X — Bartricks

And here's where you are just not making any sense. In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. Your person is free to do whatever she pleases.

You have not given any explanation or description of (in the absence of omnibenevolence) what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in any circumstance.

I have given you an account of [url=http://an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X]my understanding[/url] of The Problem Of Evil and what it means to be a proponent of this problem. You have not done so.

I find it hard to believe that you can re-formulate The Problem of Evil without omnibenevolence, but I keep an open mind. Maybe you have some unique approach. But in the absence of any explanation your argument fails.

If there is no problem of evil then you never even get to your Ps and Qs.

If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X — Bartricks

So one last time, if your argument is to succeed you have to successfully resolve this issue.In the absence of omnibenevolence, how does an omnipotent, omniscient person decide what to do? What ought she do?

Please show us your reasoning.

Yes Master. Advice to give you not will I.

What? — Bartricks

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755502

It's a philosophical issue you.... — Bartricks

Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

I will correct my previous statement:

So go out to a Christian philosophy forum. — EricH

I am interested - as I keep saying - in 'justificatory' reasons (aka epistemic reasons) not motivational reasons or explanatory reasons. — Bartricks

Has anyone given a decent response to your question? I don't have the time/energy to review the entire thread, but a quick scan shows this:

Oh do read the OP. Stop just saying stuff. — Bartricks

Again, question begging. Read the OP. — Bartricks

The OP isn't about that, is it? I — Bartricks

OMG. Did you read the OP? It's true by definition. What did I say someone who quetsions that is? Focus on the issue. — Bartricks

Have you gotten even one satisfactory response to your OP? Perhaps I overlooked one, but I don't think so.

Well, in my view and experience Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

So go out to a Christian forum.

Meanwhile - you still haven't responded to my last post on the AN thread. I'm really curious to see how you re-frame the Problem of Evil when your person is not omnibenevolent.

I am not disagreeing with anything you said. We seem to be getting two issues mixed up.

Issue #1 Does the Bible account for the world as it is?

1. If Genesis is an account of the creation of this place, then this place is approx. 6,000 years old
2. This place is approximately 5.54 billion years old
3. Therefore, Genesis is not an account of the creation of this place — Bartricks

We agree.

Issue #2 How do Christians defend the belief that God created the world.

I am arguing that they are mistaken. I keep saying: I am not asking for an account of why Christians typically believe what they believe. I am asking for a defence of it. — Bartricks

But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

I'm not seeing much distinction between giving an account of something vs. defending it - in order to defend something you have to first give a clear explanation of what you're defending.

But either way, I'm agreeing with you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that you're highly unlikely to find anyone out here on TPF who will spend much time defending Christian beliefs. That's why I suggest that you go to a Christian forum - I'm sure you can find plenty of smart, informed, religious people who are willing to defend the belief that God created this place.

But perhaps I am wrong and there are passages in the bible that really do commit the Christian to believing that God created this place. — Bartricks

That was my reason for quoting the bible - I'm suggesting that there are such passages. But again - I'm not defending this. If you're looking for someone to explain/defend Christian beliefs you need to speak to people who actually believe this and are willing to defend their beliefs.

Just to repeat myself one more time - apart from your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person (which is not relevant to your main points) I agreed with pretty much everything in your OP.

↪EricH
Re: how the world got here. Why is any explanation owed? — Bartricks

It's not owed. I was merely curious if you had an alternate explanation

Not only did I read it, but I'm basically agreeing with you on one of your main points.

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

I agree.

Seems to me, then, that Christians are missing a trick: they are trying to square the genesis account of God's creation of a place with what we understand about how this place - the world - has come to be. But the Genesis account does not seem to be about this place at all. — Bartricks

Here I suggest that you go to a Christian forum to get a more definitive answer to how actual religious Christians resolve this apparent discrepancy.

Does the concept of God - defined as I defined God - entall that God created the world? No. — Bartricks

Agree - but then how did the world get here? Did God (per your definition) set up the conditions that allowed the world to come into existence? Did God permit some other powerful entity to create the world? Or perhaps there is some other explanation?

Does the bible commit a CHristian to believing that God created the world? So far as I can see, no. — Bartricks

I am not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that in the sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." the phrase "the earth" is referring to the planet Earth that we all live on.

But since I am not a biblical scholar I am not an authoritative source to answer this question. But given that your question is directed at religious Christians, I suggest that you go to the source and pose your question to a religious Christian group. This site seems as good a place as any to find an appropriate place: Top 10 Bible Forums, Discussions and Message Boards

I'm going to ignore my own advice and continue on here.

Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? — Bartricks

The standard definition of the Problem of Evil requires omnibenevolence. Here is from Wikipedia:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God

And here is from Stanford:
God must be a person who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good
Stanford is using "morally very good" instead of omnibenevolent, but this does not alter the definition of The Problem of Evil. So starting with this definition, Stanford continues thusly:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This is my understanding of what a proponent of The Problem of Evil believes. And as far as I can tell step #4 requires omnibenevolence (or some equivalent) - and step #4 is essential to the arguement.

But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent.

Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?

Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't. — Bartricks

I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.

So before going any further, you have to explain how The Problem of Evil works when your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. It would be helpful if you could supply any references or links.

If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. — Bartricks

And right here is where you are going astray. Here is your "p"

change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents — Bartricks

Mr. X is a proponent of the Problem of Evil. Mr X is a person who says that an OOO Being (God) does not exist. But there is nothing inherit in The Problem of Evil that states (or even implies) that Mr X should or must have certain moral beliefs. Mr. X has no opinion as to how this imaginary creature should behave.

Now this is not to say that Mr X is not an anti-natalist. He may or may not be. But his being a proponent of the Problem of Evil has no bearing on his decision.

In other words, your "p" above is false/wrong/incorrect before you even plug it into your equation. You are saying either p must be true or q must be true. And this is simply not the case. As several other people have already noted, both your p and your q are false.

Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.

And I also give you the last word in this particular discussion - should you want it.

I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things. — Bartricks

OK, maybe I made a false assumption there.

But without omnibenevolence there is no Problem of Evil. It could simply be that your your omniscient omnipotent person allows evil to exist for her own reasons which are beyond our powers of comprehension.

I am only saying these things to work within Bartrick's conceptual definitions. I don't take any of this seriously.

No, you don't seem to understand at all.

And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either. — Bartricks

You're right, I don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm trying, but there are many things which are not making sense to me.

Let's start with the definition of The Problem of Evil - I'm going to echo back to you in my own words what I think you're saying. You can tell me if I'm understanding you or not.

Here is your original:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, person.

and here is how I would phrase this:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. [OOO-Being]

Omnibenevolent was not in your original OP, I think we both agree that your argument requires this - otherwise the "person" could be evil. I also prefer using the word "being" to "person, your use of the word "person" is far afield of any other definition I know of. And I can't imagine any proponent of the problem of evil using the word "person" - they would use the word "God". I don't think this alters what you're saying, but if "person" is essential to your argument, then I need some more details to understand it.

Otherwise, for purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that the definition/concept of an OOP Being is well formed and makes sense.

Next we have this:
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
Well said, I'll go with that.

My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist. — Bartricks

A proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. — Bartricks

It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.

Otherwise, I agree with this definition of the Problem of Eveil and what a PPE believes. However I want to expand a bit on this, just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Let's convert this into Ps & Qs.

Let P be the statement "God (an OOP Being) exists."
For purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that this sentence makes sense and is either true or false.
Let Q be the sentence "The sensible world is free from all evil & violence"

So a PPE says this:
IF P THEN NECESSARILY Q.
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Here I'm assuming that P means the same thing as P IS TRUE

This could also be expressed as
IF NOT Q THEN NOT P
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P

Furthermore, there are countless numbers of religious people who acknowledge the evils of the world but still believe in God. These folks have numerous "hacks" to work around this contradiction, e.g., "We cannot understand the workings of God, what appears to be evil is just our mis-understanding the nature of God's goodness", etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Before I move on, have I so far described your thinking with reasonable accuracy?

You don't seem to understand the example. — 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.

Let me try once more to recap what I think you're saying (and what I'm trying to communicate). I'll do this in a conversation between you & Mr. X:

1. [Bartricks]: Imagine there's an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient entity.
2. [Mr. X]: That doesn't make any sense. An omnibenevolent entity would not allow evil & suffering to exist. Until you can resolve this inconsistency I have no reason to believe in such an entity. I might have other good reasons as well, but this is a sufficient reason in of itself.
3. [Bartricks]: Clearly your pointing out this inconsistency in my imaginary entity logically requires that you must have a certain moral position.
4. [Mr. X]: Huh? You're not making any sense. All I'm doing is simply pointing out that you are contradicting yourself back in #1. Why should your errors in basic logic have anything to do with how I live my life? I live by my own morality that has nothing to do with your imaginary entity.

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 - 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.

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.

That said . . .

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

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.

To illustrate, let's take a specific hypothetical example. Let's say there's a person - call him Mr. X - who is an atheist and Mr. X thinks that the problem of evil is proof that She does not exist and that "God" is an imaginary character in various religious books. So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN?

Not that I'm seeing.

Mr. X could be an AN - maybe he feels that there are too many people on the planet and we need to reduce the human population to keep a sustainable civilization.

Or maybe Mr. X is anti-AN. Mr. X loves children (he has 2 kids) and he is confident that humanity will eventually solve these problems.

Or maybe Mr. X has no opinion at all. He's a nihilist and thinks humanity is doomed no matter what happens.

Etc, etc.

- - - - - - - - - - -

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?"

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

I'm not following you here. By "proponent" do you mean a believer in God - and how they attempt to resolve the discrepancy between an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil? Or are you referring to a non-believer and how they use the discrepancy to dispute/refute the existence of God?

BTW - I acknowledge that this is a dramatically simplified description of a highly complex set of philosophical/religious beliefs/opinions.

I'm guessing that you're referring to believers - but perhaps I'm missing something?

Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.

Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.

And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it.

So, they have two desires: 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.

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.

Now turn your attention to yourself. You are not omnipotent, but you do have the power to introduce new sentient life into this sensible world. And you are not omniscient, but you know that this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.

If the omnipotent, omniscient person wants to keep the world as it is, then they ought to frustrate their desire it invest it with sentient life.

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

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. Agree?
- - - - - - - -

Now you say this (I boldfaced the most pertinent part):

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

And here is the point I am trying to convey: 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. And it is this foundation that doesn't make any sense to me. Just for example (and again from the OP):

So, that means that they [God] should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.

But as you have clearly stated, the sensible world is neither of these things. So clearly, since the OO-P has done neither of these things, then clearly the OO-P is fine with introducing sentient beings into a sensible world filled with pain & evil. And since the OO-P is fine with this, then (following your reasoning) so should we frail human beings be.

And this is begging the whole LNC thing I mentioned a while back.

So again, your OP has set the basis for this discussion, and I'm sticking with it.

But there is one other alternative. Perhaps the OO-P is not essential to your P & Qs (as you seem to be saying). Then perhaps (ironically at this point) you might open up a new discussion and leave out the OO-P - so the discussion can be focused on your Ps & Qs.

How the blood hell is this anything to do with 'life sucks'? — Bartricks

Agree. I sent a request to Mickie that (if possible) this action be reversed.

For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. — Bartricks

But that is exactly what you did in your OP. Right here:

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

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.

God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue — Bartricks

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. — universeness

Agree

If he intended P or Q = True, — universeness

To me, given the full context, it was clear that this was his intention.

Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires. — universeness

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

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:

EDIT EDIT:
Now that I'm thinking about it some more, B is not even asserting POR Q, it seems that he is asserting (sort of) P OR ~P

where P is "leave world as it is & do not introduce sentient beings" and ~P is "change world so it is safe & introduce sentient life". Yeah, yeah P is actually two propositions, but I think you get the basic idea.

I'm a big fan of B's rambling posts - albeit not in a way he appreciates. So I'm not defending his OP. But in this particular narrow case it looks to me your critique is misplaced.

P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. — universeness

If you were to set up a standard truth table of the 4 permutations then of course you are correct, but here 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

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

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.

Hey B - it's been a while so welcome back. I have two questions

- In the past you have included omnibenevolent as one of the properties your imaginary person could have. I'm curious why this was not included in this particular thought experiment.

- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in in the past your omniscient omnipotent person was not constrained by LNC. Is that the case for this particular conversation?