Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing
Borax Man <[email protected]> Fri, 18 Apr 2025 02:16:14 -0000 (UTC)
| Newsgroups | alt.philosophy,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.environment |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.philosophy.] On 2025-04-14, 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. Does it not follow then we could only ever experience the state of existing? If this is the case, then any possible state of the unverse, where we can exist, will be what we experience. That is to say, we can never 'not exist' as long as thier is even the remotest possibility of a universe, any universe, where we exist in it.