I fully agree with the subjectivity of evaluating the worth of living. Which is why I used the word “perhaps”. In fact in everything I wrote I was explicitly not expressing any personal beliefs or values. I was just offering some hypotheticals that could possibly invalidate/weaken the original argument (“procreation is immoral”)

Didn’t claim pre-life choice is real - just a hypothetical possibility.

About trading my life: that’s not what I said. I would not trade my life against a miserable one, of course.

What I said was: perhaps having a bad life is better than never living at all.

Your proposal hinges on the assumption that a “miserable life” is worse than no life at all. I’m not convinced that is true.

Also since we don’t remember anything from before we were born it’s possible we were all given a choice, but forget as we incarnate. Not arguing that is the case - just saying that would also be a way out of the dilemma.

Seconded

Regardless of my own personal beliefs I think it’s important to recognize that this question of the primacy of mind or matter is in fact a question of belief as there is no way (as of yet) to conclusively dismiss either theory.

This “problem” stands in reproach to the staunch materialist atheists who take such pride in being so purely logical and scientific (and by implication smarter & better). The simple fact is that their outlook is based on belief too.

I understand that’s what you meant but that is a reductive way of filtering what you consider “true” events.

Say you and me both are sitting in a couch. Suddenly you have a full on vision of Krishna radiant with power and love. You break down crying. Your life is transformed. All the suffering you’ve endured suddenly has meaning. You have regained your will to carry on. You feel a new purpose to help the less fortunate around you.

… and I’m like: “nah, didn’t happen because I couldn’t see it”

For you it was obviously a very real experience. That doesn’t mean you literally had a visit from Krishna, or that Krishna is even real or any othe God for that matter. There are all sorts of interpretations of what happened. Neither of us will ever know objectively what exactly went down. But it doesn’t matter because something real happened to you.

You said “… that doesn’t mean it truly happened”. I’m saying if someone has an experience they had an experience. They may not interpret the event according to objective truth but objective truth is elusive anyway.

But that’s not quite analogous. The argument as I read it is more along the lines: “We might as well consider God real, because when we act as God is real, it produces effects as if God is real”

The same cannot be said of Santa Claus. I can’t wait up on Christmas Eve by the fireplace and expect to have a close encounter.

Since acting like Santa Claus is real is pointless, it is also pointless to think of Santa Claus as real, and pointless to discuss Santa Claus as if he were real.

If a person experiences something, it happened. You may disagree on the precise nature of what it was, but something happened.