Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:12:08 +0100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]>:

>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]>:
>> 
>> >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.
>
>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.
>
-- 

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