It would make just as much sense to say, "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible." — Terrapin Station

They can't be upset because they don't exist.

Or you could go further afield and talk in a similar way about apples, dogs, or lampposts, as I have done. — Sapientia

You insulted dogs? I'll legit beat you up if we ever meet irl.

Not an offence but thinking of memes as a cultural phenomenon is about as normie as opinion about memes can get. What next, they are creations of human mind? Nothing but jokes? Well, enough of the metaphysics of memes, they'd be a subject for another thread.

Of course the theories don't apply exactly, because memes are something far greater than we simple piles of carbon based molecyles, but the behaviour of memes doesn't differ from that of those beings that possess an organic and physical body, and the point is that some basic principles can be applied to both. The lack of physical and organic body, which would be far too simple for memes which can reproduce both asexually and sexually, and on top of that clone themselves in the shape of reposting, does limit our capability to apply these theories on individual level, but on the scale of ecosystems the theories function with no problems.

Now what is W A S P — Rosalina

Looks like a bee but is evil. They can sting multiple times and are more aggressive than bees. They're also predators.

I know my classifications of bees, doggos and other animals so if you have an assignment for biology, don't be afraid to ask for help.

You are not alone in this. Many people have found evil quite attractive at times. — Bitter Crank

I think that's more the social status and role of evil than actual evilness.

First option is that only a single plane exists at any given moment. This'd make it trivial to say where the plane would be, had the whole space not stopped existing.

Second option is that all the planes exist simultaneously, and there are no moments after the space's end. That means there is no moment after the time has ended where to ask how long has it been since the world and time ended. If something was to exist, which would be impossible, it could still refer to the time when some moment existed.

Third option is that the whole space stops existing after some amount of time - and the time represents the 4th+ dimension of our universe. No idea how this would work.

The second option I believe is what the current physics claim to be correct, but as I believe that human consciousness moves through time, the time could be measured according to the first option based on where consciousness would be.

Let's visualize the question. The universe is a space, where our physical universe is a plane moving through space. 2 spatial dimensions, and the 3rd one is time. Maybe human consciousness moves through the space, maybe it just observes single plane at the time, who knows.

What happens after the plane reaches the end of that space?

I don't know where I'm getting at. Maybe I'll write another answer later.

What? I'm not really following you. What argument (or comment) specifically are you referring to? I didn't actually say anything about "mattering," so I'm not sure what you have in mind there. — Terrapin Station

Well basically every argument of yours other than feelings, but especially the a-b-c-d list that was on page 3 if I remember correctly. What I don't just get is how to fit both emotivism and other arguments into same opinion on morals.

I have no idea what you're asking there. — Terrapin Station

If nothing has intrinsic value because the value is based on persons' feelings about those things, doesn't the feeling about that thing that defines the value have intrinsic value?

No, they refer to an impossible situation, which is different from no situation. Since the situation was described the thought of it exists.

That's what makes the situation fully hypothetical. Yet you talked about the situation and described it and imagined it.

So basically you now throw away all the arguments you have said in this thread, for example whether the person exists and has opinions prior to the harm being caused matters, and instead go for the "I just feel that way"? Ok.

And by the way, on my view, nothing has intrinsic value period. Value is always simply how an individual feels about the thing in question — Terrapin Station

Just out of curiosity, how about that feeling about the thing in question?

then there is no difference between imagining and not imagining. — litewave

You're imagining a scenario where imagining and not being capable of imagining something are the same thing. That is impossible, just like a triangular circle. By imagining that situation you're proving me right.

Your hypothetical situation is:
1) I can imagine the concept
2) I can not imagine the concept
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other

Two conditions that we know for sure do contradict each other, but in the hypothetical situation do not.

Now let's see the triangular circle:
1) The shape is round, has no corners and all of it's points are the same distance from its centre.
2) The shape has three corners
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other

The same thing.

Which is wrong why? The exact act of mutilation is wrong for no reason because it has intrinsic moral value? No, it's wrong because it's harmful and causes pain (mainly mental) to the object.

A triangular circle is a circle that is not a circle, so a circle and a non-circle are the same thing: there is no difference between a circle and a non-circle. — litewave

You're assuming that triangular circle exists (as in exists physically). It doesn't and can't exist in our universe.

Once you assume the existence of a circle that is a non-circle you abandon the principle of non-contradiction. From that moment, all your arguments automatically refute themselves. — litewave

Within where a circle that is not a circle exists, yes. The concept of a circle that is not a circle exists within my imagination, not physically (because it's logically impossible for such a thing to physically exist). That means I can abandon the principle of non-contradiction within my imagination, not within physical reality. That means I can imagine my arguments refuting themselves, but in reality they don't.

Secondly, if I could abandon the principle of non-contradiction within our physical reality that'd mean my arguments would also automatically not refute themselves.

Thirdly, you yourself have shown to be capable of imagining the abandoning of the principle of non-contradiction

How in the world are you figuring that mutilation and "physical effect of them physically existing" would be at all the same thing in my view? — Terrapin Station

How are they not? You yourself said you don't consider the baby to be a person yet, so within the premise of OP that life is suffering and pain the situations are very similar. Of course the premise is wrong but my objective is showing that your arguments don't prove the OP wrong without directly attacking the premise instead.

In the case of something like an infant, (a), (b) and (c) do not obtain. However, I wouldn't object to a prohibition on something like physically mutilating an infant, where we do not kill them, so that the physical effects would last well into the point of their life where (a), (b) and (c) do obtain. — Terrapin Station

But if you make someone exist, it's basically the same thing. (a), (b) and (c) do not apply but you're causing the physical effect of them physically existing which lasts into the point where they do apply.

if there is no difference between a circle and a non-circle — litewave

But there is.

there is no difference between imagining and not imagining. — litewave

Non sequitur. That "if-then" is incorrect, you can't conclude that. What you can conclude from that I can imagine a circle being non-circle, is that I can imagine imagining equaling not imagining.

Law is a word if human language that refers to multiple different things. Now if you want a definition of law, you first have to give a definition. That would be absurd of course, but let's say a bad definition that lets us know which meaning you mean at least.

If we assume that you mean law as in related to court system, I'd like to give the trivial answer and try to end your interesting philosophical debate (not that that'd be my intention, just that it's a very likey cause). A law is a rule of society set by authority responsible for making laws, when that authority proclaims that rule to be a law.

Ok, so we rephrase that so that people's subjective opinion of their own life quality and its worth is negative. If the question is how we compare these subjective experiences, we can just take the premise that everyone believes their own life to be a negative thing.

But we're getting side tracked, this isn't even my opinion on subject. The reason I'm arguing against you is just that I disagree with your arguments and opinions leading to the conclusion that being born and making someone exist is a good thing.

What our disagreement is that whether what makes an action morally wrong is the lack of consent or the person not giving consent. I'd like to get back to this situation:

So it's morally right to do a person in coma or sleeping anything as long as they haven't specifically forbid that? No, as long as the consequences of an action are expected to be negative or have a high risk of being that, those actions are needed a consent for to be done and without consent those things are by default not done. — BlueBanana

Here the person exists, which imo proves the argument that whether the person exists prior to the action is relevant to be incorrect, as the situation is similar to creating a person in the sense that the person is incapable of giving the consent.

If birth has "negative value" to whom? — Terrapin Station

Doesn't antinatalism believe the birth to be negative to the person who is born because the life of the person who is born is suffering and mainly negative? Idk, that isn't my opinion, we just got side tracked because you compared an idea I though was antinatalist to antinatalism as if it wasn't.

I can imagine the concept, not the shape. I can imagine a triangular circle physically existing within this universe, but I don't believe that to be possible. I can imagine myself imagining something I can't imagine but that's still not actually possible.

Btw if someone knows how to subscribe to a thread in these frums instead of only seeing notifications about responses to your personal comments, let me know.

Not unless you have a really unusual definition of antinatalism. Maybe you do. I can't know unless you tell me. — Terrapin Station

If birth has negative value, wouldn't killing the baby immediately prevent that negative value of potential suffering?

Again, I'm not really against the idea of allowing infanticide, so . . . — Terrapin Station

Ok...

No, I said against because I mean against. — Terrapin Station

So it's morally right to do a person in coma or sleeping anything as long as they haven't specifically forbid that? No, as long as the consequences of an action are expected to be negative or have a high risk of being that, those actions are needed a consent for to be done and without consent those things are by default not done.

Certain assumptions of what opinions the person is going to have once they exist can be made.

You'd have a much easier time persuading me that we should be able to outright euthanize infants than you'd have of persuading me of antinatalist nonsense. — Terrapin Station

Isn't that an antinatalist opinion?

I agree with the consensus that it's okay to do things like operations on them and then wake them up, yes. — Terrapin Station

I didn't mention operations, I'm talking of pain for the sake of it, just to cause them both physical and emotional pain. Hypothetical scenario, of course.

MY concern with consent is when something is done against someone's consenst — Terrapin Station

I suppose you mean without, not against?

The issue we are discussing is whether you can harm someone or behave immorally if the person is unable to consent. — Andrew4Handel

Of course that's possible. That's not the question, the question is whether the specific case of being created is an example of such an action.

There are people who don't like living, sure. But it's about expected value. There are by far more people who enjoy life. There's the possibility of causing suffering by creating a person, but there's also the possibility of creating happiness, and on average the latter is what happens.

But there's even more. The happiness and misery are not equal because of the capability of people to change their situation. A person can end their misery with a suicide, or even get happy in the best case scenario, but a person who doesn't exist can't decide to exist and be happy.

Existing isn't something a person is forced to. It's a choice. It's both the choice and the opportunity to make the choice.

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it? — Hanover

This is something I can completely get behind of and almost exactly what I would've originally posted, had you not been faster. There is always an option, and a person who makes a free choice shouldn't complain about the choice they made, having known the possible consequences of the decision.

That matters because they were a person with opinions about what they'd like done to them prior to being asleep or in a coma. — Terrapin Station

Ok so if a person is born in coma it's okay to cause them pain and then wake them up.

There is no person to grant or not grant consent prior to conception, and in fact, there is no person to grant or not grant consent at conception either. It takes development of a fetus for there then be a person there, and arguably it takes development of the baby once it's born for there to be a person there. — Terrapin Station

Whether the person exists prior or after is irrelevant. There is no consent and the are potentially detrimental consequences for the person who is to exist.

That the person doesn't exist even immediately after being born is irrelevant as well. The person will exist at some point after their existence is caused.

An unconscious person cannot consent to sex but that does not make rape alright. — Andrew4Handel

It's reasonable to expect that there are no positive consequences for the person raped. Saving the life of a person in coma would be far more accurate.

the burden of proof would be on you — T Clark

Of that we agree then, but you still wouldn't have the certain knowledge that what I claimed wasn't true.

While writing this reply I clicked the "reply" button using my left hand. I just made a claim. So the burden of proof is on me then? Well, I can't prove it. Does this prove I did not use the mouse with my left hand? No. You simply have no knowledge of whether I used my right or left hand or maybe my leg to click the "reply" button.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Sapientia

This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia

Innocent until proven otherwise, right? Unless there is an specific reason to doubt person's honesty, what they're telling should from objective point of view assumed to be true. I wouldn't believe a person if they told me they were abducted by aliens, but I would recognise that as my subjective opinion.

Well this is impressive, surprising that there were no replies.

Likewise, if the pure presence of Reality Itself were ABSOLUTELY absent, the 'irreducible absolute absence' that would therefore remain would be just as PURE, PRESENT and REAL as the pure presence of Reality Itself. — Relinquish

This looks like a logical fallacy to me. Firstly, just because the absence would be present and real, wouldn't make it reality, just because it simply is a different thing. Secondly, before this, you seem to take the premise that what is present and real is reality. Making a logical reasoning seems illogical considering that logic only applies within our reality (assuming otherwise is not logical), and this reality does not exist in the scenario described.

This basic fact indicates — Relinquish

How? To be honest, you lost me there. Some of the living things are conscious. Non-living things aren't. Therefore the universe is a living organism. Sorry, can't see how this works.

Nothing can mean at least the following:

[1] Nothing within a specified context (for example, there is nothing in the jar on my shelf (to be exact, there's air and dust in there))
[2] Practically nothing
[3] No matter nor energy
[4] The absence of even space where the aforementioned matter or energy could exist

I believe 1) is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway, nothing is not an exactly defined thing and what it means always depends on what context it's used in. Sometimes it means the same thing from physics and philosophy point of view, sometimes not.

To the first question, in my opinion the answer is yes. Not physically but you can say/think nothing and end up with more thoughts or words exchanged than what was started with.

I disagree with that. I can't imagine what the shape of triangular circle is like, but I can imagine the concept. And that is the case for imaginary things as well, isn't it? They don't and can't exist, but we can imagine the concept. Therefore triangular circles exist as well in similar way.

Another thing to consider would be whether it's possible for triangular circle to physically exist (yes) but that's completely another topic of discussion, and might deserve its own thread.

Faced the same trouble.

I got humanism as my result from the quiz, but I'm not quite sure of that. I suppose the poll asked for the test result instead of the answerer's own opinion?

@OP: I'm not sure at this point whether you're talking about forcing people to live or forcing them to work and function as parts of our societies, but I assume the latter. Well, no one is forced to do that. Run away, burn everything you own, go live in a forest. But since you have seemed to kind of dismiss this solution, maybe you're talking of forcing people into this decision, not only forcing them to choose the option we do. But this isn't forced upon anyone either: the state of unexistence is reachable and available as an option. You're talking of procreation and thus beginning of existence, but in my opinion what is relevant is existence itself. I.e. for the subject of these actions, there is no difference between never existing and existing until they kill themself.

What I'm interested in is why do people take the interesting topic of theism vs atheism (vs agnosticism) and then limit the discussion to the Christian God?

If the goal is to have an intellectual and philosophically minded discussion on the topic, I feel like the supporters of God's existence still have to start with theism, unless the argument is having felt a direct connection to the God. In this thread the interesting thought that people feeling that way can be dismissed as crazy was brought up, similarly to those who believe to have seen UFOs or ghosts, but isn't that rather irrational? When a person is diagnosed to be mentally ill based on nothing but what they say seeming irrational, isn't the doctor the crazy one?