Hi RLK.

I don't frequent here much anymore, but happened to pull up this thread and read the first couple of posts. Yours intrigued me, particularly the bolded part...

What meaning do you think your life will hold in 100, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000, or 10 to the 100th power years from now? Do you really think you'll still be sitting on a cloud somewhere after the last star in the universe has long gone cold?

Personally, I think it is much more likely theists, who cannot fathom their own non-existence and therefore ignore the alternative and supplant it with hopes of eternal existence.

I do pity theists in that the magic land they think they'll be going to when they die doesn't exist. But then, the good news is that they'll never know the difference. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm in deep trouble! So you have every reason under the sun to pity me. Again, I'm not going to read this whole thread, but I'll check back, because I'm interested in your answer. Hope your holidays are good if I don't hear from you. Good luck.

Hello Lestat.

My point was exactly what I said. I was discussing the implications of a materialistic view of consciousness. You are apparently not disagreeing with that, so there is no dispute over what I said.

Why the bold statement? If you want to discuss my views that is fine, but we both know that you could sift through all of my 2000 posts and you would not find a single one that said anything like that.

Concerning your first question, I do not know but I do know that your question is not well posed. You talk about time. But what is time? I am addressing the possibility that our consciousness is not an artifact of our material universe. But time most definitely is an artifact of our material universe. So what will be the status of my consciousness in that scenario under conditions when time no longer has any meaning? I have no idea.

What I do know is this: under the materialistic consciousness scenario the significance of my life is strictly and identically zero. I have reasoned that through and I have no doubt. In the scenario where something else is involved, it may not be zero. I am not saying it is not zero. I am not saying that I can tell you how or why it is not zero. I am not telling you that I can show you what the value is.

When posters on here try to talk down to me or tell me how they pity me, I just shrug. If there is a flaw in my reasoning then point it out. But address what I have said, not some fairy tale you heard when you were young and now take as synonymous with theism to simplify your debates.


Think what you like about theists, but if you think you are dealing with that when you are debating me, you will always fail to understand my points. All you have to do to eliminate my discussion of an afterlife is to prove that it does not exist.

Neither will you of course. Or anyone. Which is my point.

I cannot say that. I would say that you will have made an error in judgment which could have consequences. Our choices can always have consequences and those are our responsibility when they result from our choices. And it is a choice. Assuming that you actually understand everything you wrote here, you have all of the elements needed to understand that there is no conclusive inescapable conclusion about our eventual fate. You have to make a choice as to how to deal with an uncertainty. Yet under this scenario you would have failed to do that correctly.

Let me put this another way. You are living your life under assumptions that can only ultimately be wrong.

Not really. You are making your own choices and will have to accept whatever consequences those choices entail. I do not feel pity in those circumstances.


Have a great Thanksgiving (I think you are US).

I am an agnostic. i was raised catholic but now I don't know what to believe. But I do know that being an atheist/agnostic is depressing...Mainly because it means that there will be absolute nothingness after I die. I would rather not be nonexistent and believe in something like heaven...but it's a struggle for me

Maybe when I'm closer to death I'll be able to become religious because I'll need some comfort about the afterlife

Which religion do you think you'll choose? Buddhism offers the belief that you will be reincarnated, that's pretty cool.

Alternatively, perhaps not believing in an afterlife will cause you to be more fulfilled in and more appreciative of this life, assuming of course that there's room for improvement in those areas

Under either scenario, can we agree that at least your time on earth will be identical to zero? I assume that you imagine you will exist in some capacity long after the last atom has froze. Even if this is true, do you think that your time spent on earth will still hold the slightest shred of value in some 100 BILLION earth years from now?

The main flaw in your reasoning (the way I see it) is in thinking that you'll somehow survive your own death despite the fact there is no way you can know this. Nobody possibly can.

I look to simplify such debates, because it really is quite simple. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that anything is able to survive death. Period. Why does it have to be complicated?

C'mon RLK! You know this is ridiculous and I no more prove an afterlife doesn't exist than you can prove it does. This does not strengthen you argument one bit. You are making a claim that an afterlife exists. The onus is on you then to show that it does.

Huh? If you are right then we will all know in time. It is only if I'm right that no one can know.

I've never understood this... If I thought for a minute that over half the population was destined for eternal hell (maybe you don't believe that?), I would spend every waking moment trying to prevent their fate. I think it is the epitome of cold-hearted arrogance to sincerely believe there is eternal torture awaiting people, to think you will avoid it, and then to say, "well, it's your choice. There's nothing else I can do!!" Maybe you don't really believe in hell. I can't remember.

Thanks.

Well, no. I cannot agree that in the scenario where my consciousness survives my death, that my time on earth has no value. The nature of my existence after death could be dependent on this life. I cannot know whether that is true or not.

I disagree. Since I have no physical framework to connect my consciousness to the physical chemical processes occurring in my brain, I cannot know that it will cease when those processes cease. My reasoning does not depend on a belief that my consciousness will survive my death, only that it is possible.



If you simplify incorrectly then you have made an error. It does not have to be more complicated. But until you can do an experiment that rules out complication, disregarding it completely is an error, plain and simple.


I know you cannot prove it. But it seemed important to state that because it is an important point in my worldview. If you could prove it, then my entire premise is false. But if you cannot prove it, then it becomes valid. Not correct, because I cannot prove it either. But it is a valid construct that does not require irrationality.

I was speaking under the assumption that you were right. That was my point. Sorry if that was not clear, but it seemed clear.



I did not say anything about hell. I have a hard time believing that eternal torment is the judgment of a loving God. I cannot prove anything either way, but that seems a little over the top to me.


Honestly, even if I thought it was true, what could I do? I cannot force you to change your view even if I had the right and means to compell you to obey rules that I felt were important. You would still have the same desire to "sin" so how could I have done anything that would change your fate?

So much this. As a Christian I found this idea to be thoroughly incompatible with an all-loving god and concluded that only the worst people (Hitler, Stalin etc) would go to hell. I appreciate this will be dismissed as an emotive appeal, but it seems like anyone who believes that unbelievers or good people of other faiths are tortured forever and aren't driven insane by that thought must have some deeply sociopathic tendencies.

Why would they? They're complete amateurs by the standard of the Christian god who is responsible hundreds of millions of violent, ugly and painful deaths. If Hitler should go to hell, so should god, especially as god made Hitler in the first place.

Assuming that hell exists of course, the Devil has convinced me that he doesn't exist. No wait, if he convinced me then he must exist. Dammit.

God is love. I don't know why you would set such strict parameters on God's judgments. Christians trust that God will do what is fair, and what is good, and righteous.

As for "good people of other faiths"...

RLK, I still dont get how this isnt a version of pascals wager.

you say


So you are basically gambling on there being something other than materialistic consciousness, you are saying, there MAY be some value, I have no idea what the value might be, or even if there is some, but because the potential repercussions of there being value, is high, I am going to act as if its true.

Slight tangent... but you aren't, it seems, a Divine Command Theorist?

Slight tangent... but you aren't, it seems, a Divine Command Theorist?

I think I have acknowledged that there is a similarity. I just do not like the use of the term because it can mean different things to different people. I would rather discuss my specific points rather than debate "Pascal's Wager" when I am not exactly sure what another person thinks that means.

I may have called it a generalization of PW since I do not direct one towards a specific religion.

Okay. So if you're saying that this microcosmic slice of of time your consciousness spends on earth has allowed you the opportunity to determine your eternal fate, then I understand its importance. But I don't get how every other aspect of your existence; your children, deeds, actions, books you've read, walks in the park, etc., will hold much relevance in the scope of everything else your consciousness experiences over 100 billion years time. In this regard, you are really no different than an atheist who makes the best due of the precious little time he has here without regard to what lies ahead.

Right, and neither can I know this or anyone else for that matter. I do not disagree that it's possible. Only that there is any reason to think this is the case. I hate to dredge up the teapot analogy, but that's possible too. The question is: What good reason is there to think so?

Obviously, I disagree. See above.

I'm glad you don't believe in hell for otherwise good people. I wonder why though? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect it has to do with logic and that your secular morality won't allow it. You realize how unjust it would be and wish to distance yourself from it. However, I would make the point that even if there is no hell, you should be just as concerned for your fellow man if you feel he will be deprived of some eternal glory. Again, if I really believed this, I would spend my life holding signs on the side of the road to get the message out.

The bottom line is I don't think you are arrogant, but a good person who is logical and intelligent about every other subject save for religion. I honestly don't know how you can believe some of the stuff that you do, which is why I'm intrigued by how you arrive at these beliefs. I'm just trying to understand is all.

What I don't get about Pascal's Wager is that it seems to assume that god existing (presumably the christian one given that was his environmental influence but presumably we can substitute any god?) is preferable to god not existing.

I'm not in that camp. I would be disappointed to discover that the awful and vindictive being described in the bible actually existed, not to mention somewhat terrified to be at the mercy of said being plus the whole idea of a god or gods somehow offends me. I much prefer the idea of a universe without any gods.

Since I prefer a universe without gods, why should I gamble on god existing? I'm better off without them.

This does not make any sense. What you prefer is irrelevant. There either is or is not a God and your choices do not change that. This is like saying that I prefer a world without house fires so why should I buy home owners insurance and gamble that my house will burn down.

The real question is: what assumption should you make?

I am going to call up an analogy I have used before from the game of bridge. You are trying to make a contract and you realize that only if your left hand opponent has two specific cards can you make the contract (the set-up for a squeeze is an example if you play bridge). There is no good reason to believe that it is true. In fact, the odds are against it. The correct play is to play the hand as if the cards are set favorably. If they are not, you go down. But you would go down no matter how you play the hand. But if they are favorable, you make the contract.

Note that you choice of play does not require you to prove that the cards are favorable. Only that it is possible that the cards are favorable. The analogy is simple. To live my life as if there is a God I do not have to show that there is a God. Only that it is possible that there is a God. If there isn't as you have noted, I will never know. But if there is, then I will have made the right move.

Still dont get how you live your life as if there is a God when you have no idea what God wants of you. imposable.

Should i pray? God might or might not want that.

Should i search for him? God might or might not want that.

Should i only have sex inside of marriage? God might or might not want that.

Should i...

If you actually are thinking about this question then I can honestly say I have done everything I hoped to accomplish in my participation on this forum.

How does thinking about this question help in any way. No answer you think up can have any validity. You have no way of knowing what a god or gods want you to do.

The bold is incorrect. I have already explained the answer several different ways in other threads and I am weary of repeating it so look for yourself or just disregard me. It does not matter to me.

Isn't this pretty much Pascal's Wager? I mean, if it works for you, fine. But it has been refuted to death.

This is why I like to keep things simple. I could have rolled my eyes and given up a lot sooner if you had just answered, "Pascal's Wager" first. <--- That's supposed to be funny, not insulting. But it's also why I'm not as into religious discussions anymore. Cheers!

So are you saying that the bridge logic is flawed. Can you spell that out?

How is it Pascal's wager exactly and if it is how is it refuted?

I have read some of the arguments against Pascal's wager, but I do not believe they actually refute the concept that I have proposed. Either I am not proposing Pascal's wager, or the arguments I have seen are false. The entire discussion around Pascal's wager is so convoluted that I am not really sure I know what people are talking about.

As an exercise, could you state Pascal's wager for me, in your own words?

Almost every time you present this argument somebody claims that it is just a version of Pascal's Wager and that since the Wager has been refuted, we know that your argument has also been refuted. However, I agree with you that standard refutations of Pascal's Wager don't actually apply to your argument and so I don't think this is just another version of the Wager. I tried to reconstruct what I thought your argument was and it's relation to Pascal's Wager here and here. Is my reconstruction accurate?

The wagerThe philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1."God is, or He is not"

2.A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3.According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.

4.You must wager. (It's not optional.)

5.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

6.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

If we have learned anything at RGT it is that wikepedia is a trusted source and is always correct.

As discussed above Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with what we prefer or find palatable. The wager has to do with potential gains/losses based on the assumptions we make. I think RLK's bridge analogy does communicate a similar message.