Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
| Newsgroups | alt.philosophy,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.environment |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton <[email protected]>: >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. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov