(8) follows from (5) and (7), that seems clear to me. There is not a possible world in which God exists alone if (5) and (7) are true, right?

(8) follows from (5) and (7), that seems clear to me. There is not a possible world in which God exists alone if (5) and (7) are true, right?

You state that there is “a disanalogy given the intelligence of the beings we are speaking of in the Anthropic argument” however, I don't think intelligence here matters at all. The man can be well aware of the fact that he could have bred dolphins or have sex with a woman to produce other persons, nevertheless, it is still not obvious by choosing to not breed dolphins or to not have sex with a woman, that the man is doing something morally wrong by breeding goldfish, instead.

You then respond by saying “At least, I'm inclined to say that while I may not share such a prima facie position of wrongness with regard to the Goldfish breeder, I do with regard to God” but, if my analogy works, then this would apply to God too. The only differences between God and the breeder is that God is; omnipotent, omniscient and God is morally perfect, and the breeder is not. However both God and the breeder have strength, knowledge, and are capable of acting morally. However, we may ask, “what immoral action did the man do by breeding goldfish as opposed to breeding dolphins or having sex with a woman?” It seems that he has not done anything wrong according to contemporary normative ethics. So Q is false because there is a counter example to it, and since it is false, God can not be blamed for not bringing S into existence (assuming that creating S is feasible for God). We would not expect a morally perfect person nor a non-perfect person to be obligated to follow a moral principle that is false.

You then state, “(8) isn't false if it is true that creating members of S is the best action. If you'd want to argue that not creating any beings at all is the best action, you are welcome to do so, but I would think this antithetical to your position.”

This is not the point I was trying to make at all. I’m not concerned with morality with this point. All I am concerned with is the consequent of the conditional statement of 8, which states, “every world in which God exists is a member of S.” This is patently false. There is a possible world where God is the only being that exist sans time, sans space, and sans any creatures. Think of God’s state logically prior to the creation of time. This is the type of world I am talking about. So it is false that in “every world in which God exists is a member of S” because there is a possible world where only God exist, and this shows that premise 8 is false.

–PhilosopherP8819

You state that there is “a disanalogy given the intelligence of the beings we are speaking of in the Anthropic argument” however, I don't think intelligence here matters at all. The man can be well aware of the fact that he could have bred dolphins or have sex with a woman to produce other persons, nevertheless, it is still not obvious by choosing to not breed dolphins or to not have sex with a woman, that the man is doing something morally wrong by breeding goldfish, instead.

You then respond by saying “At least, I'm inclined to say that while I may not share such a prima facie position of wrongness with regard to the Goldfish breeder, I do with regard to God” but, if my analogy works, then this would apply to God too. The only differences between God and the breeder is that God is; omnipotent, omniscient and God is morally perfect, and the breeder is not. However both God and the breeder have strength, knowledge, and are capable of acting morally. However, we may ask, “what immoral action did the man do by breeding goldfish as opposed to breeding dolphins or having sex with a woman?” It seems that he has not done anything wrong according to contemporary normative ethics. So Q is false because there is a counter example to it, and since it is false, God can not be blamed for not bringing S into existence (assuming that creating S is feasible for God). We would not expect a morally perfect person nor a non-perfect person to be obligated to follow a moral principle that is false.

You then state, “(8) isn't false if it is true that creating members of S is the best action. If you'd want to argue that not creating any beings at all is the best action, you are welcome to do so, but I would think this antithetical to your position.”

This is not the point I was trying to make at all. I’m not concerned with morality with this point. All I am concerned with is the consequent of the conditional statement of 8, which states, “every world in which God exists is a member of S.” This is patently false. There is a possible world where God is the only being that exist sans time, sans space, and sans any creatures. Think of God’s state logically prior to the creation of time. This is the type of world I am talking about. So it is false that in “every world in which God exists is a member of S” because there is a possible world where only God exist, and this shows that premise 8 is false.

–PhilosopherP8819

You state that there is “a disanalogy given the intelligence of the beings we are speaking of in the Anthropic argument” however, I don't think intelligence here matters at all. The man can be well aware of the fact that he could have bred dolphins or have sex with a woman to produce other persons, nevertheless, it is still not obvious by choosing to not breed dolphins or to not have sex with a woman, that the man is doing something morally wrong by breeding goldfish, instead.

You then respond by saying “At least, I'm inclined to say that while I may not share such a prima facie position of wrongness with regard to the Goldfish breeder, I do with regard to God” but, if my analogy works, then this would apply to God too. The only differences between God and the breeder is that God is; omnipotent, omniscient and God is morally perfect, and the breeder is not. However both God and the breeder have strength, knowledge, and are capable of acting morally. However, we may ask, “what immoral action did the man do by breeding goldfish as opposed to breeding dolphins or having sex with a woman?” It seems that he has not done anything wrong according to contemporary normative ethics. So Q is false because there is a counter example to it, and since it is false, God can not be blamed for not bringing S into existence (assuming that creating S is feasible for God). We would not expect a morally perfect person nor a non-perfect person to be obligated to follow a moral principle that is false.

You then state, “(8) isn't false if it is true that creating members of S is the best action. If you'd want to argue that not creating any beings at all is the best action, you are welcome to do so, but I would think this antithetical to your position.”

This is not the point I was trying to make at all. I’m not concerned with morality with this point. All I am concerned with is the consequent of the conditional statement of 8, which states, “every world in which God exists is a member of S.” This is patently false. There is a possible world where God is the only being that exist sans time, sans space, and sans any creatures. Think of God’s state logically prior to the creation of time. This is the type of world I am talking about. So it is false that in “every world in which God exists is a member of S” because there is a possible world where only God exist, and this shows that premise 8 is false.

–PhilosopherP8819

You state that there is “a disanalogy given the intelligence of the beings we are speaking of in the Anthropic argument” however, I don't think intelligence here matters at all. The man can be well aware of the fact that he could have bred dolphins or have sex with a woman to produce other persons, nevertheless, it is still not obvious by choosing to not breed dolphins or to not have sex with a woman, that the man is doing something morally wrong by breeding goldfish, instead.

You then respond by saying “At least, I'm inclined to say that while I may not share such a prima facie position of wrongness with regard to the Goldfish breeder, I do with regard to God” but, if my analogy works, then this would apply to God too. The only differences between God and the breeder is that God is; omnipotent, omniscient and God is morally perfect, and the breeder is not. However both God and the breeder have strength, knowledge, and are capable of acting morally. However, we may ask, “what immoral action did the man do by breeding goldfish as opposed to breeding dolphins or having sex with a woman?” It seems that he has not done anything wrong according to contemporary normative ethics. So Q is false because there is a counter example to it, and since it is false, God can not be blamed for not bringing S into existence (assuming that creating S is feasible for God). We would not expect a morally perfect person nor a non-perfect person to be obligated to follow a moral principle that is false.

You then state, “(8) isn't false if it is true that creating members of S is the best action. If you'd want to argue that not creating any beings at all is the best action, you are welcome to do so, but I would think this antithetical to your position.”

This is not the point I was trying to make at all. I’m not concerned with morality with this point. All I am concerned with is the consequent of the conditional statement of 8, which states, “every world in which God exists is a member of S.” This is patently false. There is a possible world where God is the only being that exist sans time, sans space, and sans any creatures. Think of God’s state logically prior to the creation of time. This is the type of world I am talking about. So it is false that in “every world in which God exists is a member of S” because there is a possible world where only God exist, and this shows that premise 8 is false.

–PhilosopherP8819