Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
> <[email protected]>:
>=20
> >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=20
> >> existing.=A0 It can't be, because no such comparison can be made.=A0 N=
or can=20
> >> 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.
> >>=20
> >> In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one ne=
cessarily=20
> >> is talking about two different states of welfare or well-being for the=
 entity. =20
> >> But an entity must exist in order to have a welfare state of well-bein=
g.=A0 Thus,=20
> >> the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the perspecti=
ve of the=20
> >> entity, cannot be made.=A0 It is absurd.
> >
> >Also correct.

I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.

It's been 14 years since this "discussion"

--=20
Bah, and indeed Humbug.