<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:59:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> You claim that our own
>>> pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from our current
>>> existence
>>
>>That's not even remotely close to a reasonable interpretation of his
>>claim.
>
> Do you really want people to believe you hadn't noticed
> that your own argument is completely dependant on considering
> the possibility that something to do with pre-existence is preventing
> us from benefitting from our existence now?

Our argument has nothing to do with pre-existence, because we are not
calling coming into existence a benefit, you are.

>I seriously doubt you'll
> find someone who believes you really are that stupid, considering
> the fact that pre-existence is ALWAYS the MOST significant
> part of your supposed argument.

The only reason we mention it is because you are calling coming into
existence a benefit, which implies that it is *better_than* something, it
*improves_on* some something.

>>The claim is this.. We can assume that either there is a "pre-existent
>>state" or that there is not,
>
> Regardless of which all evidence suggests that many beings
> benefit from lives of positive mavlue

That means it's *better_than* "lives of negative value" which is something
definable. Not existing is not definable.

>>most probably the latter.
>
> It makes no difference either way since all evidence suggest
> many beings benefit from lives of positive value. That fact is
> very very significant, yet appears to be something else that's
> beyond your ability to comprehend.

I comprehend that a life of positive value is much better than a life of
negative value *for a being that exists*. That is completely different than
saying that life (regrardless of value) is better than no life, because no
life, never existing, has no meaning.

>
>>If there is no such thing, then coming into existence, while it might be
>>"a
>>good thing", which I believe is actually your claim, it cannot be a
>>"benefit" because the meaning of the word benefit implies an improvement
>>to
>>an existing state.
>
> A benefit is a benefit, which a life of positive value certainly
> appears to be REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state
> of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with
> pre-existence.

See above.

>
>>If there is such a thing as a "pre-existent state", it is of unknown
>>quality, therefore existence as we know it cannot be concluded to be an
>>improvement over it and thus a benefit.
>
> All evidence suggests that many beings benefit from lives of
> positive value REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state
> of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with
> pre-existence.

See above
>
>>Referring to what you said above, in order for something to be called a
>>benefit you must know the quality of both before and after states.
>
> All evidence suggests that many beings benefit from lives of
> positive value REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state
> of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with
> pre-existence.

See above

>>If I said
>>a man became a millionaire, is that a benefit? Not if he was a billionaire
>>before and lost most of his fortune.
>
> He would still benefit from the millions in the ways he benefitted
> from the millions regardless of how much or little he benefitted from
> other things.

I didn't ask if having millions was a benefit, answer this question, was the
act of BECOMING A MILLIONAIRE a "benefit" to this person or not?

> You can't say you don't benefit from a rice cake simply
> because you benefitted more from a big bowl of tofu and a steaming
> pile of beets, or whatever you kooks eat.

I didn't say that you benefit or don't benefit from *having* anything, I
asked if "*BECOMING** A MILLIONAIRE was a benefit or a harm to the person.
Answer the question, yes or no. Correct prediction; you will not even
attempt it.

You also can't say how
> anything to do with pre-existence--or anything AT ALL for that matter--
> is preventing billions of beings from benefitting from lives of positive
> value.

You're not dealing with the arguments against you, you never do. Nobody is
suggesting that life isn't good and that beings don't benefit from good
conditions. Your fundamental position is that it's better to come into
existence than to never exist at all. As much as your devotion to the Logic
of the Larder makes that statement appealing to you, it is a logically
unsupportable statement, because "never existing at all" has no meaning.

>We know you wish very very badly that you could, and we
> know WHY you wish you could, LOL, but you can't...you can't even
> pretend to try in fact. I challenge you to try. Go:
>
> (Correct prediction: He can't even make an attempt.)