XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
   XPost: sci.environment   
   From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared   
   in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton   
   :   
      
   >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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)