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.

It is easy to prove God exists. — Bartricks

I'm waiting for it.

Why do you think that has anything to do with it? — Bartricks

For the most simple reason. If god does exist and continues to look favorably on antinatalism, then the the two are compatible or god would be using his superpowers he would make the whole thing disappear.
If god continues to accept antinatalism until there are no more humans then he should continue to exist without us. If he does not continue then god never existed anyway and was just a figment of your imagination.

So all you have to do is prove that god would still be around after we are extinct.

If you cannot do that, then all I can think of to say is that the idea is a load of shit.

And what is your 'yes' an answer to?? — Bartricks

If god exists without mankind, then yes, god is compatible with antinatalism.

Have fun proving he would exist.

First, the compatibility of God (understood as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being) and antinatalism (understood to be the thesis that it is immoral to procreate, other things being equal). — Bartricks

Would god still exist if mankind stopped procreating?

If you can prove that he would, then the answer would be yes.

So I am not the only one that could not think of anything to say.

Maybe he has it right then?

it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it. — javi2541997

Even if the person is telling me the truth, why should I carry the burden of imaging what is true about it?

Isn't the burden of proof on the teller?

It also brings up the question of whether, when not the truth, is it deliberately untruthful or because of ignorance.

It would seem that we often define God — Sam Aldridge

That is the whole problem with gods, it is the humans that define them.
If there were such a being, would it not define itself.

Furthermore, if a thing has no meaning apart from God, yet gives God His very essence, — Sam Aldridge

A thing such as?

quote="Sam Aldridge;d10627"]how then do we avoid utter relativism?[/quote]

What do mean by this?

There is a bit of difference between finding the fountain of youth and faux immortality.
And you obviously have not nor will ever find the pot of gold. But keep on dreaming, it is good for the soul.

I've come here to find true love, a pot of gold, and the elixir of eternal youth.
Well, guess what. I'm still here.

Two out of three ain't bad, but I'm going for broke. — god must be atheist

Which 2 did you find here?
Could one of them be the love of wisdom?
But I ain't never seen no gold around here and as far as I knows ain't none around these parts gonna be here forever.

Not sure where I saw this but it makes one think.

" The man thought that he was the luckiest guy in the world when he married his high school sweetheart. They had 20 years of marriage as they both got chubby.

Then he went to the school's 25 reunion and found out that the girl that had a crush on him but he had rejected because she came from a poor family. She had become a multi-millionaire and looked as though she had only aged a couple of years.
And she had stayed single waiting for mister right to come along"

I think I agree with everything you said, but what of the question of the relationship between laws and peace? — Pinprick

In most places around the world I think it is simply a matter of "If you don't break the law, we will leave you in peace".

Every time some thinks up or does something that others thinks is a bad idea they want to make up a rule about it.
Most of the time, but not all of it, laws are made against people doing things that might hurt or cause some sort of problem for other people in the society. Usually these acts are carried out by people that are too stupid to realize that someone else might get hurt, people that know what they are doing is going to hurt someone and do not care, or people that actually get some sort benefit from doing harm to others.
So basically laws are made with the intention of keeping the peace. But not all laws do benefit the whole population, and not all laws are made because of the whole population.

Most people have more than enough problems and loads of their own. Even if it was possible to save stupid people from themselves is anyone obliged to do so?

I think the question needs to be changed.

Is it possible to save non-stupid people from those that are stupid?