Discussion:
Existence - not "better" than never existing
(too old to reply)
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-21 18:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.

In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Steve O
2011-01-21 18:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
Dutch
2011-01-21 20:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No, *YOU* didn't.
dorayme
2011-01-21 23:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
--
dorayme
Sylvia Else
2011-01-22 12:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.

Sylvia.
dorayme
2011-01-22 13:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
That is exactly what you did not do. <g>
--
dorayme
Sylvia Else
2011-01-22 13:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
That is exactly what you did not do.<g>
Why not?

Sylvia.
George Plimpton
2011-01-22 17:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
That is exactly what you did not do.<g>
Why not?
Maybe you should clarify what it is you think you appreciated.
--
...and that's just how it is.
Sylvia Else
2011-01-23 01:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
That is exactly what you did not do.<g>
Why not?
Maybe you should clarify what it is you think you appreciated.
Dorayme used the word "it" in sentence to which I was replying. That was
the "it" that I appreciated.

Sylvia.
John Baker
2011-01-24 21:12:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:08:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
That is exactly what you did not do.<g>
Why not?
Because 'dorayme' said so, and anyone who disagrees with him on even
the most minor point is an idiot. Just ask him. <G>
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Steve O
2011-01-24 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
Sylvia.
Thank you , Sylvia.
What I was trying to demonstrate is exactly why it doesn't bother me
that life is so brief.
Many people are concerned about oblivion after they die without
realising they have already spent billions of years in it without too
much trouble
As Dawkins pointed out, the spotlight of existence moves swiftly along
the ruler of time.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
Dutch
2011-01-24 21:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
Sylvia.
Thank you , Sylvia.
What I was trying to demonstrate is exactly why it doesn't bother me that
life is so brief.
Many people are concerned about oblivion after they die without realising
they have already spent billions of years in it without too much trouble
But THEY didn't. There was no THEM. That is *sort of* clever rhetorically
speaking, but not strictly correct.

The primary issue of mortality and death is about the cessation of our
existence, our death, not ongoing non-existence.
Post by Steve O
As Dawkins pointed out, the spotlight of existence moves swiftly along the
ruler of time.
That's all well and good, but I think you're skating around the core issue.
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:21:21 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Steve O
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
Thank you , Sylvia.
What I was trying to demonstrate is exactly why it doesn't bother me
that life is so brief.
But you did not thereby demonstrate this.
Post by Steve O
Many people are concerned about oblivion after they die without
realising they have already spent billions of years in it without too
much trouble
This is just to repeat your mistake.
Post by Steve O
As Dawkins pointed out, the spotlight of existence moves swiftly along
the ruler of time.
Poetry might be useful.
--
dorayme
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 21:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I appreciated it.
Sylvia.
Thank you , Sylvia.
What I was trying to demonstrate is exactly why it doesn't bother me
that life is so brief.
Many people are concerned about oblivion after they die without
realising they have already spent billions of years in it without too
much trouble
But they did not such thing. "They" were not in oblivion prior to
existing. There was no "they" during all that time - "they" weren't
anywhere.
Bob Casanova
2011-01-22 21:03:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Apostate
2011-01-22 22:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
Apparently he does.

He just does so without authorization or warrant.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
George Plimpton
2011-01-22 22:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
--
...and that's just how it is.
Smiler
2011-01-23 03:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
Clue for you, moron: Non-existence = No "he".
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Bob Casanova
2011-01-23 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-23 18:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
They mean the same thing. One is linguistically precise, the other isn't.
--
...and that's just how it is.
Dutch
2011-01-24 07:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
They mean the same thing. One is linguistically precise, the other isn't.
And in this case linguistic imprecision leads to cognitive imprecision which
leads to failure to grasp the essence of the issue.
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 18:08:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:19:17 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
They mean the same thing. One is linguistically precise, the other isn't.
And in this case linguistic imprecision leads to cognitive imprecision which
leads to failure to grasp the essence of the issue.
Well said.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Dutch
And in this case linguistic imprecision leads to cognitive imprecision which
leads to failure to grasp the essence of the issue.
Well said.
It is a pity then that you did not grasp this earlier on.
--
dorayme
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 17:57:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:03:04 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
They mean the same thing. One is linguistically precise, the other isn't.
Agreed, so we agree that dorayme was wrong.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:03:04 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
They mean the same thing. One is linguistically precise, the other isn't.
Agreed, so we agree that dorayme was wrong.
No, we don't agree on that, because he was right. He critiqued Steve's
wisecrack by saying Steve didn't "do" what he claimed to have done, and
in that, dorayme was correct.
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
Agreed, so we agree that dorayme was wrong.
But what about exactly, is the question!
--
dorayme
Dutch
2011-01-24 07:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 18:12:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:50:59 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
True, but anyone reading it should know what he meant. As
you pointed out elsethread it's imprecise, but much casual
conversation is imprecise, and of all the groups included in
the crosspost I'd guess that only those who subscribe to a.p
would have any problem with it. People aren't computers, and
can (usually) be expected to tease out the meaning of such
statements. I certainly had no trouble doing so.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:50:59 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
True, but anyone reading it should know what he meant.
Not based on what he's said since.

Besides, it [non-existence] isn't something I do, it's something I
used to do.

I no longer do it.
Post by Bob Casanova
As you pointed out elsethread it's imprecise,
As he's now putting it, it's just wrong. He's now claiming, whether
jokingly or not, that non-existence is something he formerly did. But
that isn't true.
Steve O
2011-01-24 20:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:50:59 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to
have
a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence
and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be
made. It
is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
True, but anyone reading it should know what he meant.
Not based on what he's said since.
Besides, it [non-existence] isn't something I do, it's something I
used to do.
I no longer do it.
Post by Bob Casanova
As you pointed out elsethread it's imprecise,
As he's now putting it, it's just wrong. He's now claiming, whether
jokingly or not, that non-existence is something he formerly did. But
that isn't true.
No, you're right- I've existed forever.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 20:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:50:59 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the
same
reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to
have
a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence
and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be
made. It
is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
True, but anyone reading it should know what he meant.
Not based on what he's said since.
Besides, it [non-existence] isn't something I do, it's something I
used to do.
I no longer do it.
Post by Bob Casanova
As you pointed out elsethread it's imprecise,
As he's now putting it, it's just wrong. He's now claiming, whether
jokingly or not, that non-existence is something he formerly did. But
that isn't true.
No, you're right- I've existed forever.
You haven't.
Apostate
2011-01-24 21:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:50:59 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Dutch
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:49 -0800, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same
reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to
have
a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence
and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be
made. It
is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
How could he have done? Do you ever think before you speak? He said
that he managed not to exist for billions of years. But he didn't -
there was no "he" to do it.
In your estimation, what part of "he didn't exist"
(paraphrased) differs from "there was no 'he' to do it"?
He didn't say, "I didn't exist", that would have been correct, his words
were "I_managed_to not exist", that wording implies that it is something *he
did*, or was present for. It may seem to a fine point, but it goes to the
heart of the issue. There was no him to "manage" anything.
True, but anyone reading it should know what he meant.
Not based on what he's said since.
Besides, it [non-existence] isn't something I do, it's something I
used to do.
I no longer do it.
Post by Bob Casanova
As you pointed out elsethread it's imprecise,
As he's now putting it, it's just wrong. He's now claiming, whether
jokingly or not, that non-existence is something he formerly did. But
that isn't true.
No, you're right- I've existed forever.
Not yet.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
much casual
conversation is imprecise, and of all the groups included in
the crosspost I'd guess that only those who subscribe to a.p
would have any problem with it.
Existential statements have always been interesting to
philosophers and quite a few details are worth discussing. But
with who always "know what they mean" and with no real curiosity,
any such discussion will be too uninteresting. I gave you a
little taste of some of the issues involved in a reply to DonH at
some stage.
--
dorayme
dorayme
2011-01-22 23:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems. But from long
experience with you, Bob, there is nothing reasonable that can be
expected from our conversing. I note my new computer has you back
on my books!
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
I'm sure too, Bob! It was a joke. I know, Bob, it was not very
funny!
--
dorayme
Bob Casanova
2011-01-23 17:48:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around? And how could non-existence result in other than a
lack of problems? Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
Post by dorayme
But from long
experience with you, Bob, there is nothing reasonable that can be
expected from our conversing. I note my new computer has you back
on my books!
Yes, I've noticed that I can't expect reasonable discourse
from you, only authoritative pronouncements and decrees. But
please at least try to answer the questions.
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm sure you don't speak for everyone.
I'm sure too, Bob! It was a joke. I know, Bob, it was not very
funny!
Y'know, based on prior experience with you I think that's
what's commonly referred to as damage control; I've yet to
any sign that you have a sense of humor.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-23 18:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around?
He said that "he", over billions of years, didn't have a problem.
That's false.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
But from long
experience with you, Bob, there is nothing reasonable that can be
expected from our conversing. I note my new computer has you back
on my books!
Yes, I've noticed that I can't expect reasonable discourse
Because you're a shabbily dishonest sophist.
--
...and that's just how it is.
Smiler
2011-01-23 23:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around?
He said that "he", over billions of years, didn't have a problem.
That's false.
So what problem did he have?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Steve O
2011-01-24 16:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around?
He said that "he", over billions of years, didn't have a problem.
That's false.
So what problem did he have?
I didn't have any problem with it at all.
Why he keeps insisting that I did, I have no idea.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 17:58:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:04:32 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around?
He said that "he", over billions of years, didn't have a problem.
That's false.
I believe we covered this in another post in this thread.
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
But from long
experience with you, Bob, there is nothing reasonable that can be
expected from our conversing. I note my new computer has you back
on my books!
Yes, I've noticed that I can't expect reasonable discourse
Because you're a shabbily dishonest sophist.
And you're apparently a sock puppet.
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:04:32 -0800, the following appeared
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around?
He said that "he", over billions of years, didn't have a problem.
That's false.
I believe we covered this in another post in this thread.
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
But from long
experience with you, Bob, there is nothing reasonable that can be
expected from our conversing. I note my new computer has you back
on my books!
Yes, I've noticed that I can't expect reasonable discourse
Because you're a shabbily dishonest sophist.
And you're apparently a sock puppet.
No.
dorayme
2011-01-24 01:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
...
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
... Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
Is a sense of perspective and humour a very last sense of yours?
--
dorayme
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:04:56 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
...
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
[unmarked context snippage]
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
... Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
Is a sense of perspective and humour a very last sense of yours?
Apparently English is *not* your first language. OK.

Is an tendency to quote-mine and an inability to actually
address issues one of your greatest strengths?
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:04:56 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
...
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
[unmarked context snippage]
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
... Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
Is a sense of perspective and humour a very last sense of yours?
Apparently English is *not* your first language.
No, that's not apparent at all, and probably is false.
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
Apparently English is *not* your first language. OK.
You should talk, the man who does not understand English
synonymy! It is not just apparent that your sense of humour is
the last sense you have, if you have one at all.
--
dorayme
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-24 01:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around? And how could non-existence result in other than a
lack of problems? Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
What does it mean for him to say that "he" managed not to do something
for billions of years? Is it just a gag?
Bob Casanova
2011-01-24 18:07:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:21:39 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around? And how could non-existence result in other than a
lack of problems? Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
What does it mean for him to say that "he" managed not to do something
for billions of years? Is it just a gag?
Of course not; it's colloquial, a non-rigorous statement of
effect. What part of my question about "...zeroing in on the
'I managed to do it' part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing?" didn't address this?
--
Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:21:39 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around? And how could non-existence result in other than a
lack of problems? Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
What does it mean for him to say that "he" managed not to do something
for billions of years? Is it just a gag?
Of course not; it's colloquial, a non-rigorous statement of
effect. What part of my question about "...zeroing in on the
'I managed to do it' part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing?" didn't address this?
All of it failed to address it.
Dutch
2011-01-24 21:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:21:39 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:51:25 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:57:50 +1100, the following appeared
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't.
How so?
Because he was not around to have no problems.
...exactly as he stated. Or does his statement that he
didn't exist mean something to you other than he was not
around? And how could non-existence result in other than a
lack of problems? Or are you (foolishly) zeroing in on the
"I managed to do it" part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing? If so, I'm curious; is English
your first language?
What does it mean for him to say that "he" managed not to do something
for billions of years? Is it just a gag?
Of course not; it's colloquial, a non-rigorous statement of
effect. What part of my question about "...zeroing in on the
'I managed to do it' part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing?" didn't address this?
The issue involves a rigorous examination of certain ways of thinking. So he
made a statement that invoked an example of that incorrect (non-rigorous)way
of thinking, and it was pointed out, that's all. Was there a smiley? Maybe
addressing the issue itself would be appropriate.
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
What does it mean for him to say that "he" managed not to do something
for billions of years? Is it just a gag?
Of course not; it's colloquial, a non-rigorous statement of
effect. What part of my question about "...zeroing in on the
'I managed to do it' part of his statement, and interpreting
this to mean that he claimed to actively do something while
simultaneously not existing?" didn't address this?
Have you not got something better to do, Bob, than this?
--
dorayme
Steve O
2011-01-24 16:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 17:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
Steve O
2011-01-24 18:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
I no longer do it.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
No, that's false. It's not anything that you ever did, nor is it
anything that you ever will do.
Post by Steve O
I no longer do it.
You never did it.
Steve O
2011-01-24 20:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
No, that's false. It's not anything that you ever did, nor is it
anything that you ever will do.
Post by Steve O
I no longer do it.
You never did it.
I didn't exist 49 years ago.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 20:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
No, that's false. It's not anything that you ever did, nor is it
anything that you ever will do.
Post by Steve O
I no longer do it.
You never did it.
I didn't exist 49 years ago.
Okay; that's nice. It doesn't change the fact that not existing is
something you used to do. Not existing isn't an activity; it doesn't
describe a state or attribute of "you"; you can't "do" it.
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 21:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence
and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
No, that's false. It's not anything that you ever did, nor is it
anything that you ever will do.
Post by Steve O
I no longer do it.
You never did it.
I didn't exist 49 years ago.
Okay; that's nice. It doesn't change the fact that not existing is
something you used to do.
Sorry - not existing is *NOT* something he used to do.
Not existing isn't an activity; it doesn't
describe a state or attribute of "you"; you can't "do" it.
Apostate
2011-01-24 21:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same
reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between
existence
and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
No, that's false. It's not anything that you ever did, nor is it
anything that you ever will do.
Post by Steve O
I no longer do it.
You never did it.
I didn't exist 49 years ago.
Okay; that's nice. It doesn't change the fact that not existing is
something you used to do.
Sorry - not existing is *NOT* something he used to do.
Right. It's exactly something he didn't used to do.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
dorayme
2011-01-24 21:31:23 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Steve O
You said you managed not to exist for billions of years. That's false.
"Not existing" isn't something that any entity does.
If it's false, then what are you implying?
Nothing.
Post by Steve O
That I've existed for billions of years?
No.
Post by Steve O
Besides, it isn't something I do, it's something I used to do.
I no longer do it.
Not true.
--
dorayme
Dutch
2011-01-24 21:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by dorayme
Post by Steve O
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is
absurd.
I don't have any problem with non-existence at all.
I managed to do it for billions of years without any real problems.
No you didn't. You are just trying to be funny and it is not
appreciated around here.
I'm not trying to be funny at all.
If you think I am, then perhaps you could explain exactly what problems
you think I had before I came into existence.
That question contains an internal contradiction. There was no *you* to have
problems or not. You are confusing rhetorical speech with precise speech.
John Baker
2011-01-21 20:45:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
Dutch
2011-01-21 20:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
John Baker
2011-01-21 21:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
A mere technicality, since I don't remember any of it. <G>
Dutch
2011-01-22 00:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
A mere technicality, since I don't remember any of it. <G>
A technicality in this context indeed, not in others.

But the point is that non-existence does not apply *to you* at all, to say
it was not an inconvenience is flippant, which is fine, but it does not
address the real issue.
John Baker
2011-01-24 16:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
A mere technicality, since I don't remember any of it. <G>
A technicality in this context indeed, not in others.
But the point is that non-existence does not apply *to you* at all, to say
it was not an inconvenience is flippant, which is fine, but it does not
address the real issue.
Well, take that up with Mark Twain, Sport. It's his quote.
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 18:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
A mere technicality, since I don't remember any of it.<G>
A technicality in this context indeed, not in others.
But the point is that non-existence does not apply *to you* at all, to say
it was not an inconvenience is flippant, which is fine, but it does not
address the real issue.
Well, take that up with Mark Twain, Sport. It's his quote.
It's not Twain, it's Dawkins, and it's still nonsense.
Dutch
2011-01-24 21:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
A mere technicality, since I don't remember any of it. <G>
A technicality in this context indeed, not in others.
But the point is that non-existence does not apply *to you* at all, to say
it was not an inconvenience is flippant, which is fine, but it does not
address the real issue.
Well, take that up with Mark Twain, Sport. It's his quote.
Fine, "Pal", Twain was a humorist, the statement is rhetorical and meant to
be amusing, not literally correct.
troll
2011-01-24 21:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by Dutch
But the point is that non-existence does not apply *to you* at all, to say
it was not an inconvenience is flippant, which is fine, but it does not
address the real issue.
Well, take that up with Mark Twain, Sport. It's his quote.
If someone does not exist, how can they
read 'Mark Twain'?

Is it a reasonable expectation that an
actual reader would exist if they had
the ability to read something that
was written?

Samuel Clemens lived about 150 years ago.

Supposedly his pen name was originally
used by someone who wrote for the
New Orleans Picayune that regularly
reported on navigational conditions on
the Mississippi River.
Richo
2011-01-24 00:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made.  Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same
reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity.  But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being.  Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made.  It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
But thats not really "you".
It is a tiny being with the same DNA.

Mark.
Dutch
2011-01-24 07:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richo
Post by Dutch
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You existed before you were born, as a fetus.
But thats not really "you".
It is a tiny being with the same DNA.
What does it's size have to do with anything? It was the human organism
which matured into the adult it is now. It was me.
Steve O
2011-01-24 17:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You say it so much better than me, John. :-)
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
John Baker
2011-01-24 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You say it so much better than me, John. :-)
Mark Twain said it first. <G>
Dutch
2011-01-24 21:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve O
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born, and was not
inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
You say it so much better than me, John. :-)
The sentence has literary value, but its purely rhetorical. It's kind of
like saying that I don't dislike holidays in Mexico because I've never taken
one.
dorayme
2011-01-21 23:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Quite right, Howard, and this is the reason one can criticise A
famous form of an argument for the existence of God, propogated
first, or at least made famous, by St Anselm.
--
dorayme
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-22 00:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by dorayme
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state or well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Quite right, Howard, and this is the reason one can criticise A
famous form of an argument for the existence of God, propogated
first, or at least made famous, by St Anselm.
Wasn't familiar with it, so had to do a quick look-up. It almost seems
as if there is an equivocation, or perhaps could be, on the idea of
"nothing" in the hypothetical statement, "Existence is better than
nothing." On the one hand, one could mean that existence is not better
than anything at all, meaning it's the worst possible outcome. On the
other hand, one might mean that if one at least has existence, it's
better than not having anything at all.

I'm reminded of LIAR, or the Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous
References. It's about a way for someone asked to write a letter of
recommendation might actually write a letter disparaging the candidate
instead, without being seen to do so. Several of the entries work on
exactly the sort of ambiguity I describe above:

* To describe a person who is totally inept:
I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no
qualifications whatsoever.

* To describe an ex-employee who had problems getting along with
fellow workers:
I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of
mine.

* To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the job
would be better left unfilled:
I can assure you that no person would be better for the job.

* To describe a job applicant who is not worth further
consideration:
I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an
offer of employment.

* To describe a person with lackluster credentials:
All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate
or recommend him too highly.
dorayme
2011-01-22 06:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Post by dorayme
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state or well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Quite right, Howard, and this is the reason one can criticise A
famous form of an argument for the existence of God, propogated
first, or at least made famous, by St Anselm.
Wasn't familiar with it, so had to do a quick look-up. It almost seems
as if there is an equivocation, or perhaps could be, on the idea of
"nothing" in the hypothetical statement, "Existence is better than
nothing." On the one hand, one could mean that existence is not better
than anything at all, meaning it's the worst possible outcome. On the
other hand, one might mean that if one at least has existence, it's
better than not having anything at all.
Yes, you are right that there is an equivocation of sorts that
can attend various statements where existence is denied of some
name or description. The main one is thinking of existence or
non-existence as qualities or properties of things.

Here is an argument that seems to reveal why not:

Many assertions of existence are not necessary statements. "There
is an elephant within 20 miles of here" might or might not be
true. It is a contingent statement, it is an empirical statement.
It is unlike "Bachelors are unmarried men" or even "There is a
prime number between 9 and 11".

Let us suppose the elephant statement is false. How can it be
false? There is a thing asserted to have a quality of existence,
but if it lacks this alleged quality, it necessarily has the one
of being non-existent. If a ball is round, it has the quality of
being round. If it is not round, it has the quality of being not
round.

But now think of what it could mean for something to have the
quality of non-existence. It would need to exist to have it. So,
the argument goes, if any ordinary *logically unnecessary*
existence statement is false, then it must be true. Or put it
another way: if any are true, they are necessarily true (as
against our assumption that they can be false)

The fact is that the various words that seem to *attribute*
existence to something are less confusedly cast as assumptions or
efforts to refer to something.
--
dorayme
Giga2
2011-01-22 12:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by dorayme
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state or well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Quite right, Howard, and this is the reason one can criticise A
famous form of an argument for the existence of God, propogated
first, or at least made famous, by St Anselm.
Wasn't familiar with it, so had to do a quick look-up. It almost seems as
if there is an equivocation, or perhaps could be, on the idea of "nothing"
in the hypothetical statement, "Existence is better than nothing." On the
one hand, one could mean that existence is not better than anything at
all, meaning it's the worst possible outcome. On the other hand, one
might mean that if one at least has existence, it's better than not having
anything at all.
I'm reminded of LIAR, or the Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous
References. It's about a way for someone asked to write a letter of
recommendation might actually write a letter disparaging the candidate
instead, without being seen to do so. Several of the entries work on
I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no
qualifications whatsoever.
* To describe an ex-employee who had problems getting along with
I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of
mine.
* To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the job
I can assure you that no person would be better for the job.
* To describe a job applicant who is not worth further
I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an
offer of employment.
All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate
or recommend him too highly.
Hahha. BTW I think you are right about there being no comparision possible.
raven1
2011-01-22 18:08:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:18:50 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
Pass the dutchie, dude!
Immortalist
2011-01-23 00:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made.  Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity.  But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being.  Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made.  It
is absurd.
- Existence is not a property

A bachelor can be defined as an unmarried man. Being unmarried is the
essential defining property of a bachelor. Now, if I were to say
'bachelors exist', I would not be giving a further property of
bachelors. Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
though the concept of a bachelor remains the same whether or not any
bachelors do happen to exist.

If we apply the same thinking to the Ontological Argument, we see that
the mistake it makes is to treat the existence of God as if it were
simply another property, like omniscience, or omnipotence. But God
could not be omniscient or omnipotent without existing, so by giving a
definition of God at all we are already assuming that he or she
exists. Listing existence as a further essential property of a perfect
being is making the mistake of treating existence as a property rather
than as the precondition of anything having any properties at all.

But what about fictional beings, such as unicorns? Surely we can talk
about the properties of a unicorn, such as having one horn and four
legs, without unicorns actually having to exist. The answer is that
what a sentence like 'Unicorns have one horn' really means is 'If
unicorns were to exist, they would have one horn'. In other words,
'Unicorns have one horn' is really a hypothetical statement. So the
non-existence of unicorns is not a problem for the view that existence
is not a property.

PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-23 03:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
--
Hillbilly Cookin'

Pickled Warthog Chitlins with Moonshine Biscuits

Tin Can Blackbird Taters with Gin Stinging Nettles

Potted Deer Heart Pie with Coca Cola Hogweed
Immortalist
2011-01-24 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Pickled Warthog Chitlins with Moonshine Biscuits
Tin Can Blackbird Taters with Gin Stinging Nettles
Potted Deer Heart Pie with Coca Cola Hogweed
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-24 00:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.

Let the lesson begin.

"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.

If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.

Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
--
Hillbilly Cookin'

Orange Nehi Pig Feet Grits with Beer Can Skunk Vine

Sugar-Fried Horse Testicle Taters with Tossed Pinto Bean Cake

Cold-Smoked Raccoon Gumbo with Tossed Sorghum
Immortalist
2011-01-24 00:59:01 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all by the way
you argue.

Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor. Now,
if I were to say 'bachelors exist', I would not be giving a further
property of bachelors.

Predication is the essential defining property of a subject. Now, if I
were to say 'subjects exist', it would not be giving a further
property of any subject.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Orange Nehi Pig Feet Grits with Beer Can Skunk Vine
Sugar-Fried Horse Testicle Taters with Tossed Pinto Bean Cake
Cold-Smoked Raccoon Gumbo with Tossed Sorghum
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-24 01:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.

Strike one.
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.

There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.

Strike two.
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
Strike three. You're out. You have now witlessly allowed unmarried women
to be bachelors.
Now<BITCHSLAP>
No, later. First you need to deal with your previous fuckups.

Thanks for trying.
--
jang : n. Dong.
Immortalist
2011-01-24 01:50:03 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 23, 5:20 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
You have not presented any evidence for your failed theories about me.
It easy to see that you know very little logic idiot.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Whenever you "propose" something you create arguments.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
Strike three. You're out. You have now witlessly allowed unmarried women
to be bachelors.
The example was about bachelors not unmarried women stupid.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
 > Now<BITCHSLAP>
No, later. First you need to deal with your previous fuckups.
You have not present any evidence that I had any previous fuckups.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Thanks for trying.
Straw man argument. Please learn some logic weakling.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
--
jang : n. Dong.
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 02:14:31 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 23, 5:20 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
You have not presented any evidence for your failed theories about me.
It easy to see that you know very little logic idiot.
To date, I don't see much evidence that either of you knows fuck-all
about logic. He at least is succinct; you are a tedious windbag.

He does at least appear to know it better than you, but that's not
saying much.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Whenever you "propose" something you create arguments.
False. I propose that I like liver and onions. Where's the argument?
--
...and that's just how it is.
Apostate
2011-01-24 04:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
On Jan 23, 5:20 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
You have not presented any evidence for your failed theories about me.
It easy to see that you know very little logic idiot.
To date, I don't see much evidence that either of you knows fuck-all
about logic. He at least is succinct; you are a tedious windbag.
He does at least appear to know it better than you, but that's not
saying much.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Whenever you "propose" something you create arguments.
False. I propose that I like liver and onions. Where's the argument?
You'll get none from me, but that wasn't a proposition.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-24 05:30:59 UTC
Permalink
George Plimpton, degenerate and base art thou. Ye begrimed puppet,
Post by George Plimpton
On Jan 23, 5:20 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
You have not presented any evidence for your failed theories about me.
It easy to see that you know very little logic idiot.
He does at least appear to know it better than you, but that's not
saying much.
I eagerly await your denial that your ocean needs a set of essential
properties instead of one 'essential defining property'.

I could have run you flat with your idiotic acceptance of the bullshit
notion of 'essential defining property', but chose not to.

Modal logic, which you and the OP are flailing around with and
spectacularly failing at, deals with essential properties. There is no
such thing as an 'essential defining property' in modal logic except as
an abstraction with foregoing assumptions to underpin it. Nobody skilled
in modal logic would ever use the phrase.

Essential properties define essence, and essence is what makes X what X
is. Essential properties are necessary properties. Vastness is not an
essential property of an ocean, it is an accidental property at best. At
worst it is an unnecessary superlative. Vasteness is both vague and
relative. For example, if one supposes a planet exactly like earth but
twenty times bigger then your "vast" ocean becomes a mere pond,
therefore vastness cannot be a valid essential property of an ocean.

ocean: a continuous body of water that is customarily divided into
several principal oceans and smaller seas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

Thus, the essential properties of an ocean, according to the reference, are:

A continuous body of water.
Divided into several principal oceans.
Divided into several smaller seas.

The definition of the essence of an ocean is still inadequate because
there now exists the possibility of freshwater bodies meeting the
criteria for an ocean. Therefore salt must also be an essential property
of an ocean if we are to define ocean in the common meaning of the term.
A more suitable set of defining properties for an ocean is:

A continuous body of salt water.
Divided into several principal oceans.
Divided into several smaller seas.

Now, back to this:

"Being vast is the essential defining property of X."

X can be an ocean, but X can also be the universe, or a crowd of people,
a school of fish, or the gap between your ears... therefore vast does
not essentially define an ocean because vast may be a defining property
of any number of other entities.

I suppose you don't see at all why any self-respecting logician would
use the bullshit phrase 'the essential defining property' in any logical
proof; the phrase is nothing more and nothing less than mere metaphor.
Post by George Plimpton
To date, I don't see much evidence that either of you knows fuck-all
about logic. He at least is succinct; you are a tedious windbag.
You can stop puffing your sunken chest up now, you supercilious,
know-nothing little fuckbag.
--
chocolate fountain : n. A spectacular, anal, upside down firework
ignited in the lavatory to celebrate having a belly full of beer and a
dodgy curry the night before.
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-24 02:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Immortalist, ye have such a february face, so full of frost, of storm
and cloudiness. Ye roguish revolted tapster, thou would answer very
On Jan 23, 5:20 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
You have not presented any evidence for your failed theories about me.
Round two.

Strike one. It's not my problem if you refuse to accept your very own
words as evidence against you.
It easy to see that you know very little logic idiot.
Strike two. Unsubstantiated claim. Claim fails.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Whenever you "propose" something you create arguments.
Suppose and propose are not the same thing. Nice try at moving the
goalposts though.

Strike one.

I don't like using wiki links but this needs to be kept down at your
level of misunderstanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

Despite the statement in question being a supposition, not a
proposition, nothing in the text at the link indicates that arguments
are created by the proposer when proposing anything at all. Please post
a verifiable reference to support your outrageous, illogical claim that
when one proposes something one also creates arguments. Thank you.

PS: You may find this link helpful:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=theory+of+propositions

Strike two.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
Strike three. You're out. You have now witlessly allowed unmarried women
to be bachelors.
The example was about bachelors not unmarried women stupid.
There is no argument from you on the point that you have witlessly
allowed unmarried women to be bachelors, only bald assertion about your
unstated assumptions. I'll call it a no ball, just to be magnanimous.

Of course, you claim it's me who knows nothing about logic, yet it's you
who committed the logical fallacy of audiatur et altera pars and got
himself into the terrible bind I have you in right now.

PS: When you google for the meaning of that fallacy, don't confuse the
definition you really need with the legal definition.

HTH

[QUOTE]
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
[/QUOTE]

Your 'essential defining property of a bachelor' allows for any entity
that is not married to be a bachelor. The logically extrapolation of
your 'essential defining property' allows for the utterly absurd and
nonsensical idea that your pet goldfish might be a bachelor.

Utterly absurd and irrational implications of your claims are your
problem entirely, not anyone else's. You need to deal with it, not me.

Strike three. You're out. Again.

Oh, and just so I can have a go at spinning you off on yet another mad,
illogical tangent, going back to your original claim:

[QUOTE]
for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist
[/QUOTE]

"must first" indicates an 'essential defining property', in this case,
that of existence. So which claim is correct? Existence is the essential
defining property of a bachelor or being unmarried is the essential
defining property of a bachelor?
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Now<BITCHSLAP>
No, later. First you need to deal with your previous fuckups.
You<BITCHSLAP>
No. You. Your fuckups still haven't been rectified and round three is up
next. Please attend to your fuckups.
--
sleeping beast : n. Flaccid cock; marshmallowed main pipe (qv).
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 02:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
Strike three. You're out. You have now witlessly allowed unmarried women
to be bachelors.
No, he didn't. What the fuck is wrong with you?

"Being vast is the essential defining property of the ocean." Did I now
allow the sky to be the ocean?

You dope. Being unmarried *is* the essential defining property of a
bachelor. It *also* is the essential defining property of a spinster.

I don't think you're ready for this.
--
...and that's just how it is.
Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-24 02:55:11 UTC
Permalink
George Plimpton, bless me, what a nauseating bag of guts is at the
door. Ye are a pragging fusty nut with no kernel, a puke-stockinged
oxbeef, a spider-legged despised substance of divinest show, a
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it
will strike. Ye are a hell-hated thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n,
a no-chinned quartered slave, a scab-laden hereditary hangman, a
On Jan 23, 4:40 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye
On Jan 22, 7:42 pm, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Immortalist, slave, wanton fancy-monger, white-livered and red-faced
slug! O rarely base. Ye raw-boned wicked varlet, base awful feeble
Post by Immortalist
Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
<aside>
Not content with tossing fully half the scientific method out the
window, the alt.atheism atheist fuckwit just threw out the world's
entire collection of fictional literature right behind it.
All that noise and spinning wheels just because "existence" cannot be
predicated? You need to learn some basic logic joker.
I know more about logic than everything you know about everything in
your tiny atheistic little universe put together. It's about time you
were made to shut the fuck up once and for all with your idiotic
cat-calls about logic when the sheer logical absurdity of your
unthinking pronouncements are rightly called into question.
Let the lesson begin.
"for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist" is ontologically
false and epistemiologically false. It is provably not even
existentially true in the strict sense of trueness.
If I say to you, "Joe exists", it is highly likely that you take it to
mean that Joe is real, where real is a predicate used to remove the
possibility that Joe is imaginary.
Yes? No? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?
I disagree and you don't appear to know much logic at all
There's the first proof that you're a fuckwit. The word 'if' introduces
a supposition, not a logical point.
Strike one.
by the way you argue.
There's the second proof that you're an unthinking fuckwit. I wasn't
arguing. I was putting forward a proposition for possible argument and
seeking to find out if you agreed with it or not.
There is not a single word of argument in anything I wrote. If you
believe otherwise, quote it and substantiate your claim.
Strike two.
Being unmarried is the essential defining property of a bachelor.
Strike three. You're out. You have now witlessly allowed unmarried women
to be bachelors.
No, he didn't. What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Being vast is the essential defining property of the ocean." Did I now
allow the sky to be the ocean?
Yes, and not to mention you have allowed your sky to become the universe
and the gap between your ears.
You dope.
You fucking stupid cunt.
Being unmarried *is* the essential defining property of a
bachelor. It *also* is the essential defining property of a spinster.
No. Being unmarried is an essential property.

Essential property <> essential defining property.

A set of attributes is required to define a bachelor. Without its full
set of attributes your sky lost its identity and became the gap between
your ears.

HTH
I don't think
True.
--
hawick (hoy-k) : v. echoism To puke. After the Scottish border town;
as in 'I think I'm going to Hawick'.
Richo
2011-01-24 00:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made.  Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity.  But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being.  Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made.  It
is absurd.
OK.
So what are the implications?

Mark.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-24 01:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richo
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
OK.
So what are the implications?
The implication is for an issue of so-called "animal rights". People
who believe in "AR" (I don't) think livestock animals shouldn't exist.
They're troubled by the fact the animals are raised only to be killed to
furnish humans with products. They think the killing is immoral, and as
the animals only exist to be killed and consumed, they think the animals
shouldn't exist.

There is a peculiar and baseless argument offered to counter that,
called the "Logic of the larder". It says that mere existence is a
"benefit" to living entities, and that preventing entities - such as
livestock animals - from existing "deprives" them of this benefit.

It's an illogical argument. It's illogical because, prior to existing
(as farm animals), there is no "them" to deprive of anything. Even if
the animals would exist, absent an effort to prevent their existence,
they don't exist today, and if it comes to pass that livestock husbandry
is halted, any "future farm animals" at that moment are merely an
abstraction, and cannot suffer any "loss" due to never coming into
existence.

I rather expect someone to come in with a shopworn utilitarian argument
about now.
Dutch
2011-01-24 07:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richo
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
OK.
So what are the implications?
Mark.
The implication is that certain ideas and speech are incorrect, invalid,
specifically anything that states, implies or assumes that it is better to
be born than not to be born, or anything of that nature.
troll
2011-01-24 15:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made.  Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity.  But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being.  Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made.  It
is absurd.
The being can make the comparison.

A non-being, however, cannot make the comparison.

Your conception of absurdity is disconnected
from the being's reality.
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 15:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
The being can make the comparison.
It can't. The being or entity had no welfare or state of well being
prior to existing, to serve as a basis of comparison.
--
...and that's just how it is.
troll
2011-01-24 15:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made.  Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity.  But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being.  Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made.  It
is absurd.
The being can make the comparison.
It can't.  The being or entity had no welfare or state of well being
prior to existing, to serve as a basis of comparison.
--
...and that's just how it is.
No it isn't. The being exists.

Prior to its existence, the being did
not exist. The state of time being
considered is while the being exists.

Before the being existed it could
not make the comparison, but
while it does exist, it can.

You can totally destroy the
being if you want to, but that
will not destroy the capability
for it to make the comparison
during that time period in
which it once existed.

(...and just how it isn't, is how it is.)
George Plimpton
2011-01-24 17:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
Post by George Plimpton
Post by troll
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
The being can make the comparison.
It can't. The being or entity had no welfare or state of well being
prior to existing, to serve as a basis of comparison.
--
...and that's just how it is.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
Post by troll
The being exists.
Not in dispute.
Post by troll
Prior to its existence, the being did
not exist. The state of time being
considered is while the being exists.
In order to say it is "better" for the entity to exist, you necessarily
are comparing to states of the entity's welfare. But there is only one
state of its welfare available in the comparison you're attempting to
make. Therefore, there can be no comparison.
troll
2011-01-24 21:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
In order to say it is "better" for the entity to exist, you necessarily
are comparing to states of the entity's welfare.  But there is only one
state of its welfare available in the comparison you're attempting to
make.  Therefore, there can be no comparison.
While it exists, the being can potentially die.

Reasonably, the being could die in the near
future, however while the being exists
it is not both in the state of existence and
non-existence at the same time.

These are possible states but not necessarily
actual states.

Reasonably, in the strictest sense of the word,
'better' or 'worse' might solely be based upon
solipsism.

I could theorize that the other being might think
that it was better for it if it were alive in comparison
with if it were dead. It is feasible that the being
might want to commit suicide. It is only a guess
that it would not.

Dutch
2011-01-24 21:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be
made. Nor can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or
well-being for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a
welfare state of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and
non-existence, from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It
is absurd.
The being can make the comparison.
As a totally abstract construct with no meaning in reality. Existing is just
great, but it is not "better than never existing", *for you* because for
something to be better *for you*, you must exist and it must affect you
somehow. Within the concept of "never existing" there is no you. Anyone who
makes this comparison is speaking purely rhetorically, and is making an
error if they they believe otherwise.
Post by troll
A non-being, however, cannot make the comparison.
There is no such thing as a non-being, you just illustrated the absurdity of
using the concept as if it were real..
Post by troll
Your conception of absurdity is disconnected
from the being's reality.
See above. With respect, don't get locked into that position.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
2011-01-24 21:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better than
never existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be made. Nor
can existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one
necessarily is talking about two different states of welfare or well-being
for the entity. But an entity must exist in order to have a welfare state
of well-being. Thus, the comparison between existence and non-existence,
from the perspective of the entity, cannot be made. It is absurd.
An excellent work of Da Da. Were you influenced by Pierre Pinoncelli?

--Tedward
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...