Thus I post. — Bartricks

Finish the sentence "and abuse but never answer"

go away. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you seem humourless. — Bartricks

Wise words of wisdom, you should try taking your own advice.

God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know — khaled

I don't think it is where he lives, it appears to happen 365 days a year.

Well that's false. The arguments I have made show that God's existence implies antinatalism. — Bartricks

Only in your head does that argument make sense.

You're job is to derail discussions? — Bartricks

No one pays me to do it so I doubt it could be counted as a job.

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible. — Bartricks

No one really gives a flying f**k what you find plausible.

Glad to see you're acknowledging you're bad at your job. — Bartricks

I have never met anyone who is perfect, and even the best of any profession can have a bad day. But at least I know how to admit it.

But nobody taught me to teach. You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Nobody taught you to teach, does that mean that you do not know how to teach or that you learned all by yourself?

You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

Really, I would really love to know where those universities are.
https://www.teacher.org/career/college-professor/
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/further-education-lecturer

These qualifications seem to be pretty standard worldwide. Do you by any chance live on another planet?

They're called 'pupils' at your level, not 'students'. — Bartricks

No they are not and you have no idea at which level I teach. It would be good for your reputation if you stopped making these stupid unfounded statements.

Anyway, we're getting distracted by your pathetic attempts to insult me. — Bartricks

I have no need to try to insult you, you are doing a perfectly good job of that yourself.

One of my points was that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, I think that was your only and principle point.

So, you think that omnipotence is compatible with not having created everything. — Bartricks

Obviously, just because something has the power to create does not make it a given fact they it will create. It can just create beer and then sit around drinking for eternity.
But I still fail to see the reason you say this.

Yet you are now insisting that God's existence is not compatible with antinatalism. — Bartricks

No, again, Not now but since the beginning. I am not insisting that god's existence is incompatible with antinatalism. I only said it about 20 times, and that surely cannot count as being insistent, can it?

So on what basis do you believe that? — Bartricks

The basis that it is bloody stupid.

Do you think that the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence entails that the being possessed of such features will have created us? — Bartricks

So if you god did not create us, where did we come from? I am not sure about your use of the word WILL in that sentence but I would guess you meant MIGHT

How? — Bartricks

How should I know how a omnipotence and omnibenevolence being would be able to create us. I have never met one to ask about it. Must put that on my bucket list.

By hypothesis antinatalism is correct — Bartricks

By hypothesis shooting people is correct, but that does not prove a thing.

for the question is whether God's existence is compatible with it - and thus being omnibenevolent would involve 'not' creating people — Bartricks

Which brings us to what you claim should be its reasons for not creating us. The fucked up world and our ignorance about how to live in it. Exactly what parts of the world make it dangerous for humans to live in?

Let us go back to the beginning again and look at what you said about god creating us for a purpose. Do you have any knowledge of that purpose?
If you do not then you cannot say that it has placed humans on earth to suffer. Maybe its purpose is to create a race of super beings that can take over the running of the universe when it retires. And that can only evolve through the suffering of hardships he has placed before us. Just look at how many human institutions work on basically the same principle.
So unless you can actually state the reasons we are here your case for the ungodly behavior you accuse it of has little meaning.

That's why the only basis upon which one could maintain that antinatalism and God are incompatible is if one thought that omnipotence (or omniscience) required having created everything. — Bartricks

No, again again. I explained another reason why it is incompatible with antinatalism . And I can think of several others.


I knew you would be back, even though I lost the bet by a couple of posts. Like the song says, "you just can't get enough" of being shown your wrong.

Guess I lost the bet, he made it to 51 posts by my count.
I must be losing my touch.

Based on what?

Who decides where the line is drawn?

This is what happens when the sheep are lulled to sleep, more concerned with their TV shows, fast food, cheap crap from China, drugs and alcohol, and God knows what else. — synthesis

The Romans invent the circus, we have Football, TV and internet.

Corruption is nothing more than the human trait that everyone has to a certain degree. Greed, wanting more than you have or need.

Anyway, you're still not addressing anything in the OP. — Bartricks

I guess you did not read where I said there was nothing there worth addressing.

It seems you agree that God's existence is indeed compatible with antinatalism — Bartricks

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Not a bloody chance on agreeing to that either.

Yes, well people are very generous aren't they? — Bartricks

Funny you should mention that. My job is one of the reasons why I am bother to post here.

I am actually a teacher, I teach people to explain things to other people.

AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE ELSE FUCKED UP THEIR JOB WHEN THEY TAUGHT YOU.

Makes me feel good to know that, in all my years of teaching, I have never had a student as screwed up as you.
:rofl: :lol: :lol:

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. Obviously. — Bartricks

I then argued that God's existence, combined with the nature of the world we live in, positively implies the truth of antinatalism. — Bartricks

For fucks sake make up your mind, if you have one to make up.

Does this bloody god of yours exist or not.

Now, try and say something half-way sensible that addresses the OP. — Bartricks

Shumptrimshaft has super super powers. With his strength he can move the universe all by himself. He was around before the universe came into being, he has even claimed to have helped in the process. He has a system of information gathering that is capable of providing him with everything he needs or wants to know.

Because of this knowledge he decides that he will try to help a group of beings on one of the planets. He gives them guidance on how to behave and become better beings. All that he asks for in return is that the beings adore him, because no one else does.

A group of these beings decide that they do not want to continue breeding because they think it is wrong, that they should not have more off springs because they will only suffer in live. They try to spread their ideas to the other beings on the planet and convince them to join with them. Eventual, they succeed and all of them stop breeding.

Would Shumptrimshaft be compatible with the concept of not breeding?

So that you do not get confused, here is the definition of compatible that I am using. If this is incorrect, please advise me of the one that you are using.

Compatible = Able to exist and perform in harmonious or agreeable combination

No though. I'm well paid. — Bartricks

So, am I.

But you once again failed to confirm my presumption or tell me I was wrong.

Like I say, I explain things for a living, — Bartricks

So you live in poverty?

So let me presume then that you meant that

I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

is a lie.

Yeah, that's false. — Bartricks

Once again, what is. Please learn to explain.

The claim that God's existence is compatible with antinatalism does not assume that God exists. — Bartricks

Did I say anything about the existence of god? I merely stated that for there to be any compatibility there would need to be a god.

And thus presumably you would agree that God and antinatalism are compatible? — Bartricks

I do not, and you do little for your case presuming such things.

As I said from the beginning, your statement is based on the fact that there is a god.

Supposing that there was one, what would its purpose be?

Back to the OP: do you think omnipotence involves having created everything? — Bartricks

No.

Those aren't the same. — Bartricks

What are not the same? Bloody hell, learn to explain properly.

And it is 'too' much, not 'to' much. — Bartricks

That one was too easy for a bright boy like you. But you did not find the others I left for you.
Yes sir, next thing we know Barfricks will be joining the grammar nazis, or is that the spelling nazis. Whatever.

Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved.

You assume to much.

Question begging. — Bartricks

That's what you did when you said you could prove god existed.

so that would make you in your 70s today. — Bartricks

The only true thing you have said so far.

Er, no. That's valid. — Bartricks

Sorry I got my p's and q's mixed up.
Sorry again, that p's and r's

And that's invalid because it is invalid. — Bartricks

Absolutely fucking amazing. I never would have guessed that.

Yet you don't know it. Not a good student then. — Bartricks

Probably true, but I guess I have probably forgotten more than you know.

Anyway, do. you. have. anything. philosophical. to. say. about. anything. in. the. OP? — Bartricks

You have got to be freaking kiddin mate. No one I know would have anything philosophical to say about the load of bollocks you wrote.
How the hell did you ever come up with such bullshit anyway? That would most likely be a more interesting thing to talk about.

We did not mention their soundness. — Bartricks

Who are WE and why did WE not mention it?

The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up. — Bartricks

But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p

I see it as
p
q
therefore p and q

Why is that.

But do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes? — Bartricks

I probably studied this stuff before you were born. Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem, I have forgotten too much of it. No, that's not true.

You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises. — Bartricks

Did you not read what I said?

To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u

That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. — Bartricks

That's nice to know. But could you please explain why?
If god created humans and told them they have to worship him would that not prove he needs to be worshiped. So if he let humans become extinct he would not have anyone to worship him.

But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid.

So just don't engage with my threads. Easy, yes? Stay away and stop coming in and saying things designed to do no more than annoy. — Bartricks

I just love how you work for the cause. Still think no one is taking bets?

Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink: — DingoJones

Me, complain about him. No way. I want him to stay around for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:

What I don't get is, why haven't you been banned? Doubtless it will happen. — Banno

He is too much fun to ban him, let him stay for another 45 posts on this thread. :rofl:

Haha, nobody, but nobody, is going to take that bet....you have no idea what you're up against. — Bartricks

Yer think.....yer think. Little do you know. I could actually guarantee that you will not post again before the thread reaches another 50 posts.

Are not valid. Here is the first:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.

1. If P, then Q (you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then')
2. R
3. Therefore, either S or T — Bartricks

I think you need a little guidance here. All you have stated here are the patterns of arguments. P, Q and R are only shown to represent something, as in the argument I posted. By themselves they have no meaning at all.
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why?

Try these web pages to get some ideas. Or maybe that is where you copied them from without reading about how they are used.
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/terms.concepts/forms.of.argument.html
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbraun2/Teaching/244/args.htm

So just to be clear - you're claiming that the following arguments come from a 'respect person' in philosophy.
(you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then') — Bartricks

And another sign in the cracking appears. Picking on typos instead of answering with intelligent, well thought out ideas. You were not called Sappy in a previous incarnation were you? You have a lot in common with him.

why not address something I argued in the OP? — Bartricks

Another sign of cracking, whining will get you no where. The next thing we will see is you using nasty insulting language against the members of this sacred place.

Just so that you have something to bitch about in you next post, I have left 4 grammar or spelling mistakes for you to find.

Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away. — DingoJones

No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first.

Who wants to bet that he runs in the next 50 posts or less?

The clue to why lies in the conclusion of this valid argument:

1. If someone thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid, then that person is too dumb for fun
2. Sir2u thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid
3. Therefore.... — Bartricks

Oh dear, there you go again.

Do you even know why it is invalid? Can you just for once shut your frothing mouth and answer in a civilized manner a simple question?
What you wrote there is in no way considered an explanation, I doubt that it could even live up to the level of a 5 year old's ranting about why he hates to go to the bathroom.

Because I did not make it up. It comes from a very respect person in the area of philosophy and he thinks it is valid.

Go on, just for once indulge a person that is interested in learning and explain to me why the syllogisms are invalid. I have seen the explanations of why they are, now please oh great one show me how the other master is wrong.

If you are not willing to do that then I am sorry. I will nominate you as a candidate for The Wanker of the Year Award in the Category of Vocal Fluidless Vomiting.

Which way did he go, George?

He hasn't answered my questions? :smirk:

In for a penny, in for a pound. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

This has been going on for centuries, manipulation of the public's way of thinking by the ruling class.

It shows who rules the world now though, the mass communication medias. And industry is the directing force.

No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you? — Bartricks

Oh dear, could you possible explain why they are not valid? It seems to me that they are perfectly valid.


Or would that explanation be something else I will never get?

Once more you demonstrate your inability properly to understand the English language. — Bartricks

And you sir have once again proved you inability to use the English language to do something productive, like explain properly or give decent answers instead of abuse.

to be honest I don’t want to be right if it’s true than life sucks imagine being 17 and not able to do anything on your own(iykyk) — Aryan9007

A word of advice, you will get over the stressful period of your life as soon as you figure out that it is not worth worrying about. Whatever is going to happen, under your control or not, will happen.

Now breath deep and repeat the chant with me

"I don't give a fuck as long as I can have a beer whenever I want one"

Repeat as many times as necessary and feel free to substitute beer for anything that grabs your fancy.

Now, do you have anything at all philosophical to say about anything argued in the OP? — Bartricks

The rational intuitions of my philosophical mind leads me to the following conclusions but not necessarily beliefs:
1. god created mankind
2. god's guide to living says that mankind should worship him
3. therefore god needs mankind to worship him

1. if god needs mankind to worship him the mankind must reproduce to continue worshiping him
2. some people think that not reproducing is a morally correct thing to do
3. therefore either god does not decide what is moral and is not omnipotent OR some people are wrong about their ideas

Quick test for you, are these valid or not.

And I am still waiting for something.

You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" (incidentally, you don't know what bullshit is either - it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject). You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks

But this begs the question, did you ever read it?
I thought it was very entertaining. I can send you a copy if you tell me where to send it to. For free.

Oh, by the way. That was one of the things he actually calls bullshit. Adding extra useless to the topic information. So good job on telling us abut the book and providing an example for it.

Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat. — Bartricks

So I take it that not only are you not going to prove the existence of god, but you are also incapable of drawing the Venn diagram to prove your point with the little test.

Well actually, so that you do not get pissy about it, 6 is a valid conclusion from 1,2,3,4,5 but 8 does not need 7 as a premise to be valid and it really does seem that you have no idea what you are doing.

You want me to prove God? — Bartricks

Err, Have I not made that clear already?

Well, I don't think you're up to understanding it. — Bartricks

The feeling is mutual. But I have the advantage of not having to make up a lot of bullshit. Makes it easier for me.

So, a little test first before I waste finger-taps giving it to you. — Bartricks

Shit, it would have taken you longer than this post to do it. I thought you said it was easy.

1. All As are Bs Yes, all arse are butts
2. All Bs are Cs Yes, all bullshit is crap
3. Therefore all As are Cs No, all arses are not crap. Some are kind of nice actually
4. All As have a D No, not all arses have dicks. Some are female.
5. All As have an E No, not all arses have erections. Again some are female
6. Therefore all As are Cs that have a D and an E No, lots of arse can't get their dicks into erection.
7. Some As exist Ain't that the truth. Too bloody many really.
8. Therefore, some Cs that have a D and an E exist — Bartricks

If you say so.

Actually, I think that the correct way to right it would have been.
1. All A are B
2. All B are C

But maybe you took a skip day when they had that class.

Is this argument deductively valid: — Bartricks

About as deductively valid as my answer. Unless you want to draw the Venn diagram to prove it.

I have literally no idea why you think the compatibility of antinatalism and God should depend on whether God could exist absent us. — Bartricks

I am still waiting.