Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:48:10 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[..]
>>    All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>>alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something 
>>that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>>
>1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born

    Wrong to start with. If you were right, then if a free new car is a
benefit, we experience a loss prior to getting a free new car...and 
that would apply to every other benefit possible. 

>2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>therefore
>3) life is not a benefit
>or in contradiction to (3)
>4) life is a benefit
>
>If (1) and (4) are true, 

    (1) is nothing like true. We can safely say that it is completely
false, and need be given no consideration. In fact, the best 
thing would be to delete it totally from your formula.
    (4) is true. At least, so far no one has been able to show that
life is not the benefit which makes all others possible. All evidence
shows that it is, and we have as yet seen no evidence to show
that it is not. We would need to see at least one example of how
something that is not alive can benefit. By now my oppinion is that
no such example can be given.

>we experienced a loss prior to 
>being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we 
>cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2), 
>and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot 
>all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false, 
>meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original 
>conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid 
>conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3) 
>you must also find a fault in one of the premises.