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.
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:
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.
Correct.
--
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.
Also correct.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
<banmilk@hotmail.com>:
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:
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.
Correct.
Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
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.
Also correct.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
<banmilk@hotmail.com>:
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
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.
Correct.
and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
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.
Also correct.
I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.
It's been 14 years since this "discussion"
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:12:08 +0100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1>:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
<banmilk@hotmail.com>:
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
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.
Correct.
and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
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.
Also correct.
I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.
It's been 14 years since this "discussion"
"David"? I only see Ron and T. Howard.
That aside, I didn't notice the age; thanks for the
heads-up.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:55:54 -0700
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:12:08 +0100, the following appearedHe was a constant poster back then, with this very bee (about existence) in >his bonnet, Vegetarians were denying animals the right to be born and >experience life before being eaten.
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1>:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700"David"? I only see Ron and T. Howard.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
<banmilk@hotmail.com>:
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
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.
Correct.
and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
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.
Also correct.
I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.
It's been 14 years since this "discussion"
--That aside, I didn't notice the age; thanks for theOK.
heads-up.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
<banmilk@hotmail.com>:
On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
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.
Correct.
and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 159:45:17 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,491 |