XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
   XPost: sci.environment   
   From: rotflol2@hotmail.com   
      
   ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.philosophy.]   
   On 2025-04-14, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)