Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence — Sir2u

I don't know what a noun is or an adjective.

But what are you on about?

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny. — Sir2u

It make good laughings in any accent.

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind. — Sir2u

It is irrelevant to the argument. I never said it wasn't. You are clearly reasoning that if you say something irrelevant enough times - and I lower myself to respond to the irrelevant point in question (for I find stupid reasoning almost intolerable and believe I am doing you a favour in pointing it out to you) - then I am acknowledging its relevance. That is itself, of course, an example of incredibly poor reasoning.

What I was hoping to achieve by this - and it really was just a hope, for I don't believe for a moment that it will actually happen - was that you might then realize how unbelievably bad at thinking you are and either slink away in shame or re-read the OP with an eye to understanding it.

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry. — Sir2u

What? What you have just said reminded me of something Peter Singer once said. I think it was Peter Singer, anyway. That when he started out as a philosopher he sincerely believed that anyone possessed of reason could, if they put enough effort in, understand anything. But then after trying to teach people he gradually came to the conclusion that some people are just stupid and there's really no helping them.

I live in hope though. So, read the OP and try and make sense of my argument. I have done all I can to make it clear to you. It is now down to you. Then - and only then - should you start trying to criticize it.

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

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?

Would you like me to tell you what a disjunctive syllogism is?

It is an argument that has this form:

1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Now see if you can detect that argument form in the OP. You have 1 minute.

Are you still saying stuff?

Ah, you didn't know. What a surprise.

What is a disjunctive syllogism? You have 30 seconds.

Start another thread in which, in your OP, you just make some random assertions (lots of the threads here are like that).

Then anyone who wants to discuss your random assertions can do so.

But this is my thread and I made an argument. If you are not interested in engaging with that argument, or can't even recognize that it is one, then you need to go away. That is what decency demands

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

that's not an argument.

Make an argument.

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

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

It's no, right? So, moving on....

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

Make an argument.

And did you understand the point about the problem of evil? Did you understand that if you can show that it is impossible for an omnipotent omniscient person to exist, then you don't need to run the problem of evil? Did that make sense to you? I need to know what I am dealing with here. Are you someone who can't understand that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks God 'can' exist - or at least, tacitly they are acknowledging this - they just think their existence is incompatible with the world as it is.

No, you can change the world, many historical people have and your desire to pass on your legacy to your children to continue your work is valid. — universeness

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

Impossible, illogical, no such entity exists. — universeness

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

Note too that the proponent of the problem of evil thinks that what is impossible is God existing and this sensible world (with us in it) existing (and even then, that's only those who are running the logical problem of evil). They do not think that it is impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient person to exist, for if they thought that then they would not need to raise the problem of evil as God's non-existence would be established already.

There is nothing impossible about such a person and if you think otherwise you owe an argument and, more importantly, those I am addressing will agree with me, not you (note, I am not addressing you, as you are too confused to be worth addressing - I am addressing those who run the problem of evil against God).

Try again. Try arguing something. Note: if you think something, that isn't evidence it is true. Eat that piece of humble pie and let it digest for a bit. Then try again.

Or, alternatively, throw your arms up, say illogical and perhaps bollocks and word salad a bit, and then go away. I would recommend that last one.

Isolate a claim I made in the OP and say why it is false. If you can't do that - if you can't actually address anything I have said, but can only blurt things - then have the decency to go away.

Again, how the F does that engage with the OP?

When someone creates a thread, there is an obligation on those who contribute to it to address the OP.

If you think the OP is bollocks, don't just say that. Explain why it is bollocks.

Don't just say things on topics vaguely related to the OP. Don't just express your view about something.

Address the argument. Look at what I said and address something I said. Christ.

You are just saying things. You are not providing evidence that the argument is 'illogical'. You are just saying it is. Which is what you would say about any argument I made about anything, yes? So you are a troll. And unfunny. So go away. You are adding nothing.

There's an argument in the OP. It shows how the problem of evil implies antinatalism.
Now, you are psychologically incapable of accepting that as you are convinced already that I am wrong and you are right. So there is really no point in you continuing to contribute to this thread, is there? Unless you plan on engaging with the OP, go away.

The real problem here is not that he has made up a word, but that he doesn't know an argument from his elbow and has presented nothing remotely resembling one in his op. It's just a collection of random assertions. No philosophical problem is raised. God. Devil. God created the devil. Free will. Therefore God created donuts. But the devil is not a donut. Discuss.

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

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. The important point is that, as proponents of the problem of evil must agree, such a person ought not satisfy both their desire not to alter the operations of the sensible world and their desire to introduce life into it. And once that is conceded, it should also be conceded that our inability to change how the sensible world operates now implies we ought not to introduce new life into it either (as my dinner invite cases show).

And yes, an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc as she makes it true. But that's irrelevant for two reasons. First, the lnc is nevertheless true and I am assuming it to be here. Second, even though she has the ability to make it false, we do not. And my whole point is that if we are unable to do something that, were God not to do it would make procreation wrong for her, then it is wrong for us too.

Squiggle squoggles. That's what I have no time for. Ps and Qs are fine.

What are you on about?

P's and Q's? Not your cuppa, you said. — Banno

No I didn't.

The argument:
1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil.
2. The devil (Satan) is god-made. Humans can't create angels. Satan is a transformed angel.
3. Angels are not humans; they have no free will.
4. The devil has never had free will.
5. Therefore the devil's existence can only be explained by its creation by god. (Via a transfromation of it from regular angel status.)
QED evil (some evil) has been created by god directily. — god must be atheist

How the bloody hell does that even begin to be an argument? No wonder you find my arguments confusing if you think that is one! It's just a series of random claims with a therefore bunged in.

An argument extracts the implications of its premises. Here are some argument forms that you can use:

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3.Therefore Q

1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P

1. If P, then Q
2. If Q, then T
3. Therefore, if P then T.

1. P
2. Q
3.Therefore P and Q

1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Can you express your point using those argument forms?

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well. — Sir2u

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children.

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims. — Sir2u

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes?

If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours. — god must be atheist

No, I said imagine a sensible world exactly like this one. Minds are not sensible objects.

Anyway, as you'd know if you were able to recognize what is and isn't relevant, it makes no difference to my case for if necessary I could simply ask one to imagine a sensible world devoid of life (if, that is, minds turn out to be sensible things in a guise). The important point is that if the omnipotent, omniscient person is not going to make any changes to the sensible world, then she ought to refrain from investing it with life. And so if we ourselves are unable to make changes to how the sensible world operates, we too should refrain from creating new life.

So, do try and focus on what is and isn't relevant to the case.

The curry case might be easier for you, although one imagines that you might start asking questions about the precise ingredients of the curry or insisting that curry is a social construct.

If Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner, but also wants to cook a hot curry (a dish James dislikes), then Jennifer ought to do one or the other, not both - yes? (Again, note that my question is not about curries. So, insisting that curries are not possible, or that no one called Jennifer is capable of cooking a curry, or that no one dislikes curries - these are all irrelevant, as well as obviously false).

The answer is obvious: yes. She ought either to invite James over and cook something other than a hot curry, or she ought to cook a hot curry but not invite James over to eat it.

Now imagine that you want to invite James over for dinner, but you are incapable of cooking anything other than a very hot curry. (Do not say 'but that is not possible - I am capable of cooking other things'....that would miss the point once more.....resist the temptation). Well, clearly you ought not to invite James over.

I know --- all of that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what you were saying. Carry on!) — Vera Mont

Correct.

Not nearly as interesting as you seem to think. — Vera Mont

Incorrect. The problem of evil is taken to be the most powerful objection to theism. So if it implies that procreation is wrong, that's extremely significant, for very few think antinatalism is true.

I do sympathize with your students! Mine were able to arrive at many clever and correct answers, given a little encouragement. — Vera Mont

Yes, but your students are in your imagination. Mine are real.

How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry?
Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument.

I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail.

Who cares? — Cobra

You can't answer a question with a question. Jeez. You're fired.

It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"

Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL. — Cobra

Er, what? I am arguing that we ought not procreate. And I am showing how that is implied by the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient person who does not want to change how the world is operating ought to thwart their desire to invest the world with life. You understand that, right?

You agree that hte omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the world with life. So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone on a philosophy thread who is otherwise making comments that seem a little random.

There we go. That's more like it. Little pictures. Them's funny.

Again, you would fail a philosophy course with answers like that.

An answer worthy of 180 Proof. Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. See if you can.

You don't have an argument, do you? You would fail a philosophy course.

Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then?

That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the sensible world with life if, that is, they are not going to change how it operates, then we ought not either, given we are unable to change how it operates?

I do not follow you.

Do you agree that the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate one of their desires? That is, do you agree that they ought either to frustrate their desire not to interfere with how the sensible world operates, or they ought to frustrate their desire to invest it with sentient life?

That's question begging. The OP contains a highly original argument for antinatalism (or conversely, a highly original way of dealing with the problem of evil). May I suggest you reply with an emoticon. Perhaps a yawning one.
You know what would really rile me? A refutation.

o explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from? — Sir2u

Focus! This thread is not about metaethics.

Here's how our exchange is going:

Me "which way to the centre of town?"
You: "the centre of a town is the centre of a clump of trees
Me: "er, no it isn't. But anyway, my question is about the centre of town's location, not its composition"
You: "If the centre of a town is not a clump of trees, then what is it? Where does it come from? And what is composition? Explain what a composition is"

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one". — Sir2u

No it doesn't. I am not a rookie. Yet I can tell a rookie. See? I know that the object to my left is a loaf of bread. Does that mean I am a loaf of bread?

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else?

Apparently, no response does. — Vera Mont

No, responses that don't don't.

I mark lots of essays. And a common mistake - by far the most common - is not to address the question but simply to blurt all that one knows about the subject instead.

That's what is happening here.

So, do you agree that if Susan wants to invite James over, but also wants to cook a meal James dislikes, then she ought to satisfy one or other of her desires, not both. That is, she should not invite James over and cook him the meal he dislikes (but that she wants to cook)?

And if you agree - and surely you will - do you also agree that if you only have the ability to cook James a meal he dislikes, then you shouldn't invite him over to dinner?

That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it? — Vera Mont

Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting.