You don't understand how combining lots of little things can make a big thing? I assume you have velcro shoes and not lace ups. Bloody hell. I do wonder sometimes why I bother posting criticisms and arguments. I'm serving Michelin-starred food to dogs. The point is that the principle in the OP is false. There's just no reason to think it is true, and plenty to think it is false.

I have said nothing about the emergence of life, I simply pointed out that one does not need to invoke God to explain the origins of the universe. Plus, as I keep saying, if one does posit God as the cause of everything, then you face the problem of evil: why on earth would God create a universe like this one and people like us? It makes no sense.

You haven't addressed anything I said. The principle you mentioned in your OP is demonstrably false. God is not 'needed' to explain the universe and we have prima facie reason to believe God did not create it, as it is rather crappy, a point you've said nothing whatever to challenge. You seem to be just another standard dogma-loaded Christian who isn't interested in following reason save to the extent that reason can be used to support the dogmas.

Note, virtually everyone accepts that the first-cause argument for God is not, actually, an argument for God at all, but rather for the existence of some uncaused things. That is, it is an argument that shows that if anything exists, some things must exist uncaused. But it does not show that there must be just one such thing and that the thing in question is God. That's a gigantic leap and one that generates problems - and thus a leap it is quite irrational to make.

Oh, I see. That makes a bit more sense. You've spoken a good deal of horse shit, hard to sift through. Yes, this is true. — Garrett Travers

It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to be false.

This is not his argument. You'll find his argument here — Garrett Travers

Seems you don't understand Epicurus either.

No, it's a first good start for something the vast majority of the population still doesn't understand nearly 2000 years later. And, it's a perfectly good argument because no rational human would create a world with evil in it, and where as god would have to be beyond rational capabilities of any man, then it's not possible for there to be a god. And no, god cannot exist, he will have to be demonstrated to exist, thus both of your arguments are shit, but yours is shittier as it has been 2000 years. — Garrett Travers

Er, how did any of that address my point? Do you think that it is impossible for God to exist and for an evilly disposed person to exist? If so, why? Don't tell me God wouldn't create such a person, for I have not suggested he would.

These aren't arguments against Epicurus' positions, they're angry tantrums at his superiority over the philosophers you worship that plagiarised him. Again, his societies are the most successful ever. There's no arguing with the record. — Garrett Travers

I explicitly said that they weren't even philosophical points he was making, but therapeutic ones. But again, understanding is not strong with this one.

But I am.
— Bartricks

That remains to be seen. — Garrett Travers

No. I am.

I'm in the Academy. I know exactly what is going on. — Garrett Travers

Well, there are kitchens in the Academy and burgers won't flip themselves. Anyway, you clearly don't a clue. You've just been watching too much Jordan Peterson or something. The rest was just silly.

That is specifically why he isn't a philosopher. — Garrett Travers

But I am.

The Academy is overrun with social-constructionists, Marxists, relativists, Kantians, Cartesians, Nietzscheans and all other manner of plagiarised, deformed, Christian-Mysticism adapted bullshit used by the controllers to ensure a faith in a non-reality. Which is why I started this thread, to provide an example of a real philosopher, and the most important in the history of the tradition. — Garrett Travers

Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needless to say, they should all be shut down.

I am quite a fan of Descartes and think he was quite right about the immateriality of the mind and the existence of God. But most analytic philosophers would reject immaterialism about the mind and don't believe in God and don't generally have much time for Descartes. So you clearly don't know much about the academy, at least not the philosophy end of it.

Be honest, all you've done is read some popular science books by people talking outside their areas of expertise and some of them have mentioned Epicurus in approving terms (even though that's a bit odd, given his materialism comes from Democritus) and you've thereby decided that Epicurus is the bee's knees, even though no serious philosopher in their right mind would declare him the most influential of all. I mean, have you heard of Plato? What did he do again? Oh, started the first university and provided the metaphysical foundations of Christianity and said so much that someone - Whitehead, I think - said that it would be no exaggeration to characterize the rest of philosophy as just a serious of footnotes to Plato. Whatever happened to universities? Did they take off?

Not replying to anyone but what's up with the philosophical hero worship? Who has the time!? — SkyLeach

Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most influenced by and thus he is the most influential philosopher of all, even though he obviously isn't.

And yes, the philosophers themselves are utterly unimportant. It is their arguments that matter.

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death

That's a shit argument because its conclusion is manifestly false - it is contradicted by what our reason tells us - and so at least one premise is false.
And in fact, in this case they both are - premise 1 is false, for there are lots of harms that have no experiential aspect,k and premise 2 is just an assumption - it just assumes that death is the cessation of one's existence.

Here's another:

1. To be harmed by something, you have to exist at the time
2. You do not exist when you die
3. Therefore, your death will not harm you

That's a shit argument because it too has a manifestly false conclusion that contradicts what our reason tells us and thus at least one premise is false. And in this case it is premise 2 as premise 1 does have support from reason, whereas 2 is just an assumption. And thus a devotee of reason will reject 2 on the grounds that 3 is false and 1 is true.

Here's another:

1. If God exists, no evil will exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

That's a shit argument because premise 1 is false. There is nothing inconsistent in God existing and evil existing. For example, there is no logical inconsistency in God existing and a person with an evil disposition existing. God would not have created such a person, but nothing in the definition of God entails that he created anyone. And thus God can exist and another person can exist that God did not create and that person can have an evil disposition. And thus evil can exist consistent with God existing.

Here's another:

1. If we have free will indeterminism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore indeterminism is true.

That's the best argument he made. For 1 is plausible and 2 is even more so. So that one is quite good.

But the rest are shit.

The rest of what Epicurus had to teach was really more to do with how best to make oneself happy, and as such it is not really philosopher proper, but therapy. Don't fear death (for the bad reasons given above). Recognize that there is no God or divine retribution (partly for the bad reason given above). Recognize that most pain is either intense but short lived, or dull and easy to cope with. And don't cultivate expensive tastes or hard to satisfy desires. And don't fall in love or have sex.

Batricks, you're attempting to reason about God without doing the work it takes to do it well. — Joe Mello

Oh, I've done the work. I'm the most qualified person here, I assure you.

God does exist out of necessity, for nothing could exist without God. — Joe Mello

If God exists of necessity, then he can't not exist. And if he can't not exist, then he's not God, for there's something he can't do.

And you have just asserted that nothing could exist without God. You've made no case. Take you, for example. You are ignorant, are you not? Why would God create someone like you? If he created you, that'd be to his discredit. Yet you exist. So you did not need God in order to exist. Indeed, God would be insulted to have you credit yourself to him.

We exist because he exists. We think because he thinks. We love because he loves. Etc. — Joe Mello

Bollocks. Provide an argument. (Are we cruel because he's cruel? Do some of us rape because he rapes?).

What good would it be for us to have been given, without any effort or growth or achievement on our part, a perfect life from birth? — Joe Mello

Is God good? If you think being perfect without effort or growth is bad, then God is bad, no? Or less than perfect - becoming increasingly apparent that you don't really believe in God, but some imperfect hobbled creature who can't not exist.

We don't exist to exist, but exist to become like God, our father. And he receives his greatest glory through his children who become fully alive, just like any father does. — Joe Mello

The monks did a number on you, didn't they? Again, total bollocks. We exist with aseity, just as God does. Again, you think God would create you?? When you see a shitty doodle do you think 'ah, another Leonardo da vinci"? You're living in a world filled with imperfect people and you think God created them?!? Absurd and insulting to God. What have you done today God? Well, I've created some rapists and liars and murderers. And i have also created a universe and I am going to put the rapists and liars and murderers and all manner of other bungled and botched people into a world within it and furnish them with next to no knowledge of that world at all and let them flounder about it in it raping and lying and murdering each other. "Er, why?" I dunno - maybe some of them will learn love me or something.

Very silly, isn't it?

That's true, arguments not propositions. But no, you're still wrong: — Garrett Travers

I'm not.

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. — Garrett Travers

What you said was that it is impossible for a deductively valid argument to have a false conclusion. That's false - they can obviously have false conclusions. Here's a valid argument with a false conclusion:

1. If today is thursday, then the world is flat
2. Today is thursday
3. Therefore the world is flat.

What I said is that if a deductively valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise is false.

In the above argument, for instance, premise 2 is true and so premise 1 is false.

So you clearly do not know what you're talking about. Confident, yet ignorant - the standard combo.

If an argument is deductively valid, then if its premises are true, so too is its conclusion.

Thus, if the conclusion is false, at least one premise is false.

It reflects poorly on your intelligence if you can't see this.

A deductively valid argument that has true premises is called a 'sound' argument.

I'm not remotely confused.

You agree, then, that God does not exist of necessity? God exists, but has the ability not to? And you agree, do you, that God can create something less great than God? That is, you agree, do you, that God can turn himself into something less great than God? And you agree, do you, that God can turn himself into something less great than God, but with the ability to become God again? And you agree, do you, that this lesser being could then turn itself into God, and thus that the lesser can create the greater, contrary to what you claimed?

God isn't necessary for the universe to exist. The universe can exist and God can exist and God can not have created the universe. And indeed, given the rather crappy nature of the universe it stands to reason that God did not create it, or us.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

This principle seems false. Lots of little things can be combined to make a greater thing. A house of cards has greater complexity than any one of the cards composing it.

I do not find cheese by itself to be particularly nice, or tomato by itself, or bread by itself, or basil leaves by themselves. But combined as a pizza they become great. That greatness is nowhere to be found in the ingredients, but only in their combination.

If the word 'greater' is being used in a moral sense, as in 'morally better' then it also seems false, as immoral behaviour can sometimes create a morally good outcome. Imagine, for instance, that Dave believes substance x will poison and kill Jennifer and so he puts it in her drink out of a sadistic desire to kill her. That was immoral. Yet substance x is in fact the cure to a disease that Jennifer has and so Jennifer's life is prolonged and improved by what Dave did to her. Well, that's good - great! Dave's immoral action produced a morally good outcome. Out of some evil, some goodness has come.

And then there's God himself. God is omnipotent and so can do anything, which means that God has the power to make himself 'not God' - that is, the power to divest himself of some of his power, or knowledge, or goodness - yet at the same time give himself the ability to become God again. Well, if he exercises that ability, then there would exist a person who is less than God, yet is able to become God. And were that person then to exercise that power, we would have a combination of lesser things - a person who is less than God combined with an ability to become God - creating a greater thing: God.

I believe in God as firmly as can be, but I would counsel against any and all attempts to show that God's existence is mandated by the universe or by some principle, for that is to think that there is something above God that dictates to him. God does not exist of necessity. Exists, yes. But not 'of necessity', for that would be no God at all, but a creature who lacks the power not to exist. The creature who authors those principles - the ones that dictate God exists - would be the real power, and yet it is a manifest contradiction to suppose that there could exist a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. Therefore, God is the author of the laws of Reason and is not subject to them.

Good floor in there was there?

It's literally the basic principle of validity: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. — Garrett Travers

Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions.

And a valid argument can have a false conclusion. You're confusing validity with soundness.

If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then we have discovered by it that at least one premise is false.

Now, I have a book to write and I am behind so I will have to reply to the rest of your squawkings later.

In the above argument you assume both that you exist at the time of your death and that you are harmed by the event of your death. — Janus

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. Jesus.

Make an argument or fuck off. — Janus

Charming, Hugh. I did make an argument. I make nothing but arguments. Now, address them or sexually intercourse yourself away from here.

Only because they are reasoning from their fears. That is the point you are failing to get. — Janus

Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours.

Now, answer my question: do you think death is not a harm? Coz that's really silly if you do.

Well of course his logic seems valid to you! You can't reason well either. And none of my arguments assume their conclusions. For my arguments to appear good to you they'd have to be appalling. If you really want to upset me, agree with me.

People are afraid of death (apart from the being afraid of the suffering that dying might entail) because it is the unknown. — Janus

I didn't talk about fear of death. I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm. That doesn't mean the same as 'virtually everyone fears death'. It is a very good explanation of why virtually everyone fears death - our reason tells us it is worth fearing. But my claim is that our reason represents death to be a great harm. That's why we use it to punish people. That's why we think killing people is very wrong (unless the person deserves to die, or their existence here has become agony for them).

To be clear then: you are claiming that death is not harmful? Coz that's silly.

So, just to be clear, do you think you exist at the time of your death, or not? That is, do you think death marks the cessation of your existence - in which case you do not exist at the time of your death - or not? Be clear.

Yes, and the Mona Lisa has quite a nice frame.

Just because you ought to do something does not mean there's a moral obligation. For example, if I want to be a champion chess player, then I ought to practice chess, but I'm under no moral obligation to practice chess. — RogueAI

Yes, normative oughts can be generated by any kind of normative reason, not just moral ones. In the chess case the 'ought' is the ought of instrumental rationality, not morality. That is, you have instrumental reason - rather than moral reason - to practice chess.

We can distinguish, then, between instrumental imperatives of Reason and moral imperatives of Reason. But my argument applies to them both. Moral imperatives and instrumental imperatives are imperatives of Reason. They have a different character in that instrumental imperatives tell you what to do to further your own ends, whereas moral imperatives tell you to regulate that instrumental project in ways that respect others (and typically if you do not abide by a moral imperative you deserve to come to harm, whereas if you do not abide by an instrumental imperative you do not deserve to come to harm). But they're all imperatives and they have the same source: Reason. And as they're imperatives they need an imperator. And as only a mind can be an imperator, Reason - the source of all the imperatives of Reason, is a mind.

In other words, it is normativity that is doing the work of getting me to my conclusion. Morality is just a very clear case of something that is essentially normative.

That's why the argument constitutes a proof of God. For though it is possible, coherently, to deny the reality of moral imperatives, it does not seem coherently possible to deny the reality of all imperatives of Reason, for one's basis for doing so would, of necessity, be non-rational and thus count for nothing, or else would confirm what one was seeking to deny.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence
— Bartricks

P>Q
P
_____
R

This is your argument in terms of logic. The ending of existence is not a conclusion that follows logically from this proposition. Properly written in modus ponens, the proposition would look thus:

P(harm at t1)>Q(t1 existence)
P(harmed at t1)
_____
Q(existed at t1)

not R (existed at t2) — Garrett Travers

What total and utter junk. You really can't reason.

Because you're a parrot and don't seem to understand the meaning of a sentence and how it can be differently expressed, note that premise 1 of my argument means the same as this:

1. If I am harmed by an event at time t1, then I exist at time t1

And the meaning of 2 can be expressed thusly:

2. I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs.

From which it follows that:

3. Therefore, I exist at the time of my death. Durr. Which means my death cannot be the cessation of my existence. I can't exist and not exist at the time of my death. It's one or the other. And it is 'exist'.

Not hard. Here's my advice: stop trying to learn logic and just try and recognize what follows from what.

Yes, all true and valid propositions are tautological by definition, both logically and inductively. A=A. — Garrett Travers

You don't really know what you're talking about. Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And yes, this argument - your argument -

1. Materialism is true
2. Therefore materialism is true

is valid. It's just shit, that's all. And it's all you've got.

No, it didn't, or Q would have been repeated instead of modified. Plain and simple. Your conclusion was R, not Q. — Garrett Travers

Yes it did, it's just you don't understand the meaning of the sentences I used in the original. Anyway, like so many others here, what you've done is read about argument form without actually being able to recognize a valid argument intuitively. You are the equivalent of a parrot who says 'hello' without at all understanding what 'hello' means.

A harm as in an injury to my body. — Garrett Travers

Say it and it is so. The Garrett Travers school of philosophy. So if my body is annihilated, that won't harm me, yes? That's dumb. If you're about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by totally annihilating your body, then that's what's best for you. Dumb, yes? Obviously false, yes?

Shall i refute materialism for you? What's that? Squawk? I'll take that to be a yes.

1. If materialism is true, then the total annihilation of my body would not harm me.
2. The total annihilation of my body will harm me
3. Therefore materialism is false

And here's another:

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object.

And another:

1. The sensible world is the place that some of our sensations resemble
2. Sensations can only resemble sensations
3. Therefore, the sensible world is made of sensations (not mind external extended objects)

Here's another:

1. Materialism is the view that everything is material
2. My mind is not material
3. Therefore materialism is false.

You think 2 is false, becuase 'science'. But provide evidence that 2 is false. Bet you can't. I can give you stacks that it is true. Just give me one piece of evidence that 2 is false (I already know what you're going to provide - ooo, but science has shown that doing this to the brain causes this conscious state....therefore the mind is the brain....squawk)

Of course thoughts exist. They exist as certainly as anything can.Any argument against their existence would have at least one premise less plausible than the reality of thoughts and thus is doomed to fail.

And someo who thinks thoughts don't exist has, of course, demonstrated their own view to be false.

So, your argument that materialism is true, is that it is true. Good stuff!! A+

The argument I presented was deductively valid. It had this form:

1. If p, then q
2. P
3. Therefore q

Or you could just use your reason and see that the conclusion follows.

You accept that death is a harm. Well then you are rationally obliged to accept the conclusion if you accept the existence condition.

Then you said some patently false things about deductively valid arguments. Again, if the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise is false.

Incidentally, how do you know an argument is valid? Do you look at it down a microscope? Can you weigh validity or touch it? Is it made of molecules?

For the record: you seem to have a very poor understanding of Epicurus and of his influence. The idea that he is the 'most' influential philosopher is absurd. But it reflects your approach. He is, no doubt, the philosopher you have most been influenced by and thus he must be the most influential ever.

Epicurus's most influential argument was this one:

1. If God exists, evil wouldn't exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

But it is not very good because premise 1 is false.

Epicurus, like so many others subsequently, thought 1 was true because he reasoned that a good person would want to eliminate evil, and an omniscient person would know when evil was going to occur, and an omnipotent person would be able to eliminate it. As God has all three properties, no evil should occur if God exists.

But a good person would not eliminate evil by doing evil themselves, for that would not be elimination at all. So assume that God exists and some evil people exist too. God did not create them, they just exist alongside God. What would God do? Eliminate those people? But that would be evil. So no, he would not do that.

Would he know that they were going to do evil? No, not unless he peered into their minds and read their thoughts. But that would be an evil thing to do, as evil as setting up a camera in their bathroom. So he wouldn't know they were evilly disposed until or unless they acted in an evil manner.

And would he prevent them from doing evil? Well how, if he doesn't know they're going to do it?

The existence of evil is, then, entirely compatible with the existence of God and Epicurus once more reveals himself to be a bit of an idiot.

"But science! Science has shown that God does not exist. And Epicurus thought that too. So he's right. And you're wrong. And microscopes and Hadron colliders show you are. So there. Science rules."

So you reason like this: materialism is true because science. Epicurus was a materialist. Therefore Epicurus is correct. Epicurus is a good philosopher because science. Epicurus says some things I agree with because they sound sciencey and, er, science! My argument is science.

Now, put down your microscope and turn on your reason and try - try - and do some philosophy.

This is Epicurus's argument (one of them):

1. To be harmed at a time t1, you need to exist at time t1.
2. When our death occurs we no longer exist
3. Therefore, our death will not harm us.

That's valid but unsound, as its conclusion is manifestly false.

If you think its conclusion is true, then you think killing someone does not harm them. So punching you would be a more harmful thing to do to you than killing you. If you are about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by killing you, then that would bein your best interests. That is stupider than a stupid thing on stupid day, is it not?

If the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise of that argument is false. If it helps, read that via a microscope, as then it would be scientific as you observed it using an instrument of science.

Which one is false? Epicurus's claim that harm requires an existent harmee? No, that one seems self evidently true. So, the other one then.

Again, look down the microscope at this: if 1 or 2 is false, and 1 is true, then 2 is false.

But how can 2 be false if some scientists who don't understand the boundaries of their own discipline or expertise think it is true? How can that be? How could Garret be wrong. It doesn't make sense, does it? How could you be wrong? How could Epicurus be? If one has a worldview held on faith, then it's true and if careful reasoning suggests otherwise then so much the worse for careful reasoning.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence

That you cannot reconcile the conclusion with your worldview is 'your' problem, not evidence the conclusion is false.

No, best not discuss Epicurus with someone who knows about him and is able to show him to be a poor reasoner, albeit an ingenious one.
But arguments, it seems, do not interest you.

I present a proof that divine command theory is true, and your concern is over whether Paul McCartney has a PhD in music. You think that is the issue of pressing philosophical importance that needs discussing. Presumably when you visit the sistine chapel you stare at the floor.

Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condition worse, then it is a harm and we have reason to avoid it - and that is clearly the case, for the reason of virtually everyone confirms that death is a great harm. So great we use it as the most severe punishment. So great it is only if you are in agony with no prospect of it ending that you have reason to opt for death. We can reasonably conclude then that life after death is worse than life before it by some margin.

I already said to keep your fuckin arguments to yourself, it seems you didn't get the point. Let me be more clear: If you stand to deny a vast body of scientific data, then you are a god damn quack and you need to go somewhere that is accepting of quacks and holy-fools. — Garrett Travers

"Keep your fuckin arguments to yourself", hmm, sounds a little rude to me. Also somewhat against the spirit of philosophy, which is all about making arguments. I think you need to find a science forum where you can exchange scientific pronouncements and not argue for anything at all. I don't think Epicurus would like you very much - he made arguments. And it is those arguments that philosophers discuss to this day, such as his argument for the harmlessness of death, his 'problem of evil' challenge to theism, and his argument for indeterminism. But you're not interested in arguments, are you? Science! THere are people using metal detectors to find metal, and they're really good at finding metal with them, therefore everything is made of metal. Everything. And until or unless you can show me that something not made of metal is detectable by the metal detector, I will not believe that anything other than metal exists! And anything detectable by the metal detector is metal. So everything is metal.

That which does not exist leaves no evidence behind to analyze except the absence of evidence itself. — Garrett Travers

Well, I am printing that on a t-shirt right away! That's not the Epicurean paradox, but meh. The Epicurean paradox is also known as the problem of evil. It's not a very good argument, but he was the first to make it. And it is not an appeal to absence of evidence. Far from it, it is an attempt to show that God's existence is positively incompatible with the existence of evil. Although it too comes in two forms: the evidential and the logical.

I wasn't asking. I kept conflating, and you kept asserting no distinction was made by Epicurus, which is elemental. — Garrett Travers

He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence condition.

No, it would be precisely correct and in accord with modern neuroscience. — Garrett Travers

Er, what? The experience condition is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But i imagine that this is going to be your response to all the arguments i make. Oh, but, but, but, science!! Your argument is wrong, because science. Even though science isn't philosophy and I don't really know what I am talking about.....science! Science has shown us that the mind is the brain. I don't know how. And I don't even realize that science isn't investigating what the mind is, as that's a topic in metaphysics, not phsyics or biology, but science. i have read popular books in which scientists with no expertise in philosophy make philosophical pronouncements, and on this basis 'science' refutes you, Dr Bartricks. Science!!!

Any evidence at all will do. — Garrett Travers

By 'evidence' I mean 'science!' I don't really understand what philosophy is or how there could be anything more to reality than what science reveals, because I think that if you spend your entire life looking in a sock drawer, then everything must be a sock. And that which isn't a sock, doesn't really exist. Science! Is that an argument Dr Bartricks? Well, that's not evidence unless science. Even though I don't know what science is and science has to appeal to reason and you're appealing to reason, nevertheless, 'science!' Scientists know what's what and philosophy is a big waste of time except insofar as I can locate philosophers from the past who said things that sound vaguely like things scientists say today. Wooohooo, go Epicurus. No matter that your arguments are rubbish, you believed in atoms and believed that everything is made of atoms, even though loads of things obviously aren't and atoms themselves would need to be made of something, but let's leave that to scientists. Science!!

I don't know what this means, either. — Garrett Travers

Yes, I am sure you don't. This isn't going well is it? Would it help if you imagined I'm a scientist? I think you must be one of those people that those deodorant and facial cream adverts are designed for - you know, the ones that show little red or white orbs travelling through our skin. "Oo, them's atoms - I want atom deodorant as it is used by science and I want to smell of science. This must be good deodorant - look at the atoms! I want some. i want to smell of science and atoms".

A valid argument. But, valid does not imply correct. — Garrett Travers

Yes, but it does mean that if its premises are true, then so too is its conclusion. And its premises are true.

You see? — Garrett Travers

I see something, certainly. Maybe we should move onto the Epicurean paradox and you can show me how science has shown God doesn't exist.

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.
— Bartricks

Yes, this is valid. But, is it true. — Garrett Travers

It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it seems self-evidently true (that which seems self-evidently true can, of course, be false, but an argument showing that its truth would conflict with even more apparently self-evidently true truths would be needed).

And 2 is manifest to reason, is it not? The conclusion follows. It follows, in other words, from two premises whose truth seems beyond reasonable doubt.

Is this your usage of harm:

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

If so, then death is the definition of harm in its final form individually. — Garrett Travers

No, I have no definition of harm. Most harm - not all by any means, but most - involves some kind of suffering. And so my working hypothesis is that our deaths alter our condition such that we are exposed to far, far greater risks of suffering after it than before. That's just a working hypothesis, however. It may be that the cessation of the functioning of our bodies results in us suffering from locked-in syndrome. That is, we are conscious, but lack sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. And are thus tormented in that way. This is just guesswork however. That our deaths harm us is, I think, beyond doubt; what form that harm takes is a matter of speculation.

I don't know what this means. Death is not the end of... what? And, how do you know? — Garrett Travers

Death is not the end of our existence. And I know because I listen to reason. Here, once more, is how I know:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks

Spare me the insults in favor of arguments. That's the only time I'm going to be polite about it. — Garrett Travers

Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions.

How do we know he didn't mean "harm" in the sense of pain? Especially considering he's been translated from an old, old language. — Garrett Travers

He may have done, but then his argument would be even weaker than it is.

The experience condition on harm is not very plausible. Why? It's exposed to loads of counterexamples and it is only plausible when harm is taken to be synonymous with pain. But the idea that all harms are pains is implausible. So no matter how you cut it, it is implausible.

The existence condition on harm is, by contrast, very plausible. Our reason represents it to be true - mine does and clearly Epicurus's does too and so too does the reason of countless others, for otherwise we would not still be debating Epicurus's argument - and it is not exposed to counterexamples.

If Epicurus drew a distinction himself, then you and I are in accord and I regard Epicurus' assertion as clearly, and demonstrably false. — Garrett Travers

He didn't explicitly draw it, rather two distinct lines of argument can be discerned in his writings on death, one that assumes the experience condition and one that assumes the existence condition.

I think you need to revisit his philosophy of mind. What he thought was that the thinking/experiencing element of was an organ located in the chest. If you transfer the ideas over 1 to 1, they're the same. He made no distinction between the mind, and the organ that was responsible for producing experience. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3f — Garrett Travers

If that's true, it is nevertheless beside the point for what's wrong about his philosophy of mind is not where he locates the mind in the sensible body, but his assumption that the mind is a sensible body. It's just an assumption. There's no evidence the mind is a sensible body - all the evidence is the other way. The reasoning, then as now, is just that 'sensible things are made of sensible things.....therefore the mind is too'. Or, more cautiously 'as sensible things are made of yet smaller sensible things, let's have as our working hypothesis that the mind is too', only at some point it ceases to be a working hypothesis and instead becomes an article of faith.

Again, we're talking about a philosopher from almost 3 millennia ago, let's keep that in mind. — Garrett Travers

I don't see the relevance. Materialism about the mind was just an assumption back then, and it is just an assumption now. There's no evidence the mind is material and plenty that it isn't. And Epicurus himself has given us some of that evidence, albeit unwittingly. For he has shown us that death would not be harmful if it ceased our existence. Thus as it clearly is harmful, it does not cease our existence. Yet it does mark the end of body's functioning. Thus, we - the minds who are harmed by dying - are not our sensible bodies.

What have you presented that is accurately characterized by "reason?" What you said was reason has no definition, and flies in the face of modern neuroscience and long-held logical validity, which I literally checked myself via truth-table to investigate. — Garrett Travers

I don't know what you mean here. I think you have faith in materialism and thus take any argument that implies materialism is false to be unsound on that basis alone.

If existence presupposes harm, then non-existence (death) is not harmful. Death most certainly is the end of our existence according to all gathered empirical evidence. Should I assume that you're talking some afterlife, religious stuff? — Garrett Travers

I did not say 'existence presupposes harm'. I said - following Epicurus - that harm presupposes existence. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1. That does not mean that if you exist, you are harmed. It's the opposite: if you are harmed, you exist.

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.

Death is not the end: listen to reason. It's the beginning of something - of something really bad.

Epicurus assumes that death is the end. That's precisely what his own principle implies is 'not' the case! He's not a good reasoner.

You do have exist and to experience pain to be in pain. What exactly are you highlighting is the issue. — Garrett Travers

You don't know your Epicurus.

It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience.

But not all harms are pains. And we can be harmed without experiencing the harm.

So, the 'experience' condition on harm is implausible. The 'existence' condition, by contrast, is highly plausible. It is why there is a debate over the harmfulness of death to this day. The experience condition, by contrast, is almost universally rejected as it is simply exposed to too many counterexamples. Hard, however, to come up with a counterexample to the existence condition that would not simply beg the question. So, Epicurus's lasting influence on the philosophy of death comes via his existence condition, not his experience condition.

Virtually no-one thinks Epicurus's argument is sound. The debate is over exactly what is wrong with it.

The mind is the brain and the brain is literally made of atoms. — Garrett Travers

Again, you don't know your Epicurus. He did not think the mind was the brain. He thought it was made of atoms. And he thought that brain was made of atoms. But he didn't think the mind was the brain. He thought our entire bodies are suffused with invisible soul atoms.

It's beside the point, however, for his atomism about the mind is simply false and has no support from reason. It's as stupid as thinking that as my spoon is made of metal, I am made of metal.

The rest is just you dogmatically insisting that materialism about everything is true in defiance of what our reason says. If you don't care to listen to Reason when Reason contradicts what you believe then you're fated never to learn that you're wrong. Reason tells us that there is more in existence than the sensible world. Our reason tells us in all manner of ways that the sensible does not exhaust what exists. We ourselves are clearly not sensible things. And moral norms and the norms of Reason more generally are not. And Reason tells us that our deaths will harm us and tells us that our deaths would 'not' harm us if they ceased our existence. So, what's Reason telling us? That we're our sensible bodies or that we're something else entirely? The latter. But you may be like most empiricists and will not accept that empiricism is false until empirical evidence is provided - which, of course, will never happen. (Psst, there's no empirical evidence that empiricism is true either! How could there be, given evidence is made of normative reasons and normative reasons are not empirically detectable?).

Death is harmful - our reason could not be clearer on the matter.
Harm requires existence. Thus death does not end us, but makes our existence worse. We're heading into hot water.

Yep, seems sound to me. There's no need to invoke Christianity, however. One can arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, as I have done.

An all powerful, all knowing, all good person would not create people like us, that is people who are evilly disposed. So he hasn't. We can, by rational reflection, discover this. (I mean, it makes no sense to think God created us - what possible good would be achieved by it that God, an omnipotent being, could not have achieved directly?).

Thus God exists and so too do a lot of evilly disposed people. God did not create them. God would not create anyone, for a good person does not impose on others without their prior consent. So, God would not create anyone, much less evilly disposed ignorant people like ourselves.

And God would also not let innocent people live in ignorance in a world like this one. So he hasn't. We aren't innocent, then.

We must have attempted to do something wrong and God dealt with us: thus here we are. We are not loved by God, but hated by him. If you love someone you don't make them ignorant and then exile them in a dangerous place. If, however, someone attempts to harm those God loves then God may well - and it seems has - made those folk (us) ignorant and exiled them to a dangerous place to languish in each other's horrible company.

And if we wonder what sort of thing one could have done to deserve to live here, one need only look to those who procreate for an answer. For those people knew exactly what kind of a place this was yet freely decided to subject what they took to be an innocent person to a life of ignorance in it. That is, they knew that this was a world in which every conceivable harm can befall anyone at any time, knew it was a world containing the like of Ted Bundy, and that this was a world in which chance distributes most harms and benefits, yet decided for their own self-indulgent reasons to bring an innocent person into it! They also knew that anyone they bring here would die, and so they committed manslaughter as well. They, by that act, show that they deserve to be here and that they are simply being done by as they did. They pat themselves on the back and tell themselves they're excellent and loving parents, blithely ignoring the fact they've sentenced what they think was an innocent person to life in a prison that ends in death - which is no loving act at all! And then they wonder why God allows bad things to happen to them. "Because God loathes you and doesn't care what happens to you, that's why!"
Needless to say, we can safely assume that procreators will be doing another life stretch for every one of the life stretches they freely subjected others to and then another just for good measure. Terrible people.

But, essentially, no, it isn't a pain. It's not as if you are around to experience your own death. Leading up to dying may be painful, but not death itself. Pain is a neurological phenomenon, and death is the end of neurological phenomena. — Garrett Travers

You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible.
One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' condition (that to be harmed, you need to experience the harm in question). The other appeals to the 'existence' condition (that to be harmed, you need to exist at the time). The experience condition is not plausible: you don't have to experience something to be harmed by it.

No, I don't think so. All you need is knowledge of the function of the brain. It's crazy to think that he was thinking on this level almost 3000 years ago. He really was right. — Garrett Travers

He just assumes the mind is the brain. Or rather, that the mind is made of soul atoms (he didn't believe our minds are our brains, but rather that they are nevertheless material entities composed of invisible soul atoms - the difference is moot, however).

He infers that sensible things are made of atoms. But the mind is not a sensible thing. We do not see, hear, smell, taste or touch it. Thus he simply assumes - on the basis of no positive evidence - that our minds are also made of atoms and that they cease to exist when the atoms disperse. That's just an assumption.

My point also was about arguments. If you have a deductively valid argument that leads to a highly counter-intuitive conclusion - that is, a conclusion that our reason tells us is false - then that's prima facie evidence that at least one of the premises is false. Unless, that is, denying either premise would be even more contrary to reason than affirming the conclusion. (Sometimes highly counter-intuitive conclusions are correct - or we have reason to believe them to be - but this is when denying them would commit one to affirming something even more counter-intuitive).

This is Epicurus's argument for the harmlessness of death (the strongest of the two he gives):

1. If you do not exist at time t1, then you cannot be harmed at time t1.
2. You do not exist at the time of your death
3. Therefore, you cannot be harmed by your death

The conclusion flies in the face of what our reason tells us: our reason tells us that death is a harm - the gravest of all harms. That's why we use it as a penalty for the most serious of wrongdoing, or at least consider it a candidate punishment. That's the main reason why killing others is wrong - it harms them. That's why suicide is irrational under most circumstances: it is not in your best interests unless you are in unending agony or something. And so on. Our reason really couldn't be more clear on the matter. Thus 3 is about as contrary to reason as the proposition that 2 + 3 = 8.

That means at least one of the premises is false, unless, that is, rejecting either would be even more contrary to reason than embracing the conclusion.

Well, what's more manifest to reason, that death is harmful or that you do not exist when you die? THe former, obviously. THe latter is just an assumption, not something we have any rational support for believing.

Premise 1 is self-evident to reason. It is to mine and it was to Epicurus's and it is to many people's. So, it does have some rational support and we should not reject it lightly. However, it does not have greater self-evidence than the proposition that death is a harm. And so if push comes to shove, one should reject 1 rather than embrace 3. It would be irrational to do otherwise. However, as 1 has some self-evidence and so should not be rejected arbitrarily, and 2 has no self-evidence whatsoever but just expresses an unjustified belief about what happens to us when we die, it is 2 that should be rejected. Someone who insists upon keeping 1 and 2 and drawing Epicurus's conclusion shows only that they are a dogmatist or irrational.

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying.

If there are blurts, there must be a blurter. The blurts of TheRiddler all have the same source: theRiddler. Only a mind can blurt. Therefore, TheRiddler is a blurting mind.

I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything?

What matters to a philosopher is what's true, not who or what influenced who.

Epicurus thought death was not a harm to the one who dies. That's obviously false, is it not?

Death is a very significant harm - surely the most significant of all?

He arrived at his highly counter-intuitive conclusion by combining a very plausible principle about harm -namely, that, to be harmed, you need to exist at the time of the harm - with the assumption that death marks the cessation of our existence, and in this way concluded that death was not a harm (he had another argument too, but it appeals to a far less plausible principle about a harm).

That's not a very good argument though, regardless of how influential it has been (indeed, the form the influence has taken as been to try and locate the fault in it). It's not a very good argument because the conclusion is so counter-intuitive that you need both premises to be extremely strong such that rejecting either would be more counter-intuitive than accepting the conclusion. That is simply not the case with either premise. Thus, a rational person will reject one or other of the premises rather than draw the conclusion. That is, the fact their combination leads to that conclusion is good evidence that at least one of them is false.

So he's quite a bad philosopher, however influential he might have been.

This thread has lost its focus and become about antinatalism rather than hypothetical consent. I simply pointed out that given hypothetical consent has to be about what a person would consent to 'prior' to the act and not after it, then it does not apply to procreative acts. That does not amount to an argument 'for' antinatalism. Rather, I was simply pointing out that a common defence against antinatalism does not work.

I have presented an argument that demonstrates that Reason is a person, God, and that moral commands are the commands of God. Get up to speed and then try and contribute an argument, don't just blurt.