Yes. There could be an afterlife without theism. I never actually said anything that is inconsistent with this as a possibility. It does not represent a challenge to my point of view.

I still do not see your point. Take the bold. What does that mean? The universe is a concept of thought. Inherent characteristics are concepts of thought. My entire reasoning process is a concept of thought. I do not see how that has anything to do with my comments about significance or meaning.

My point is that meaning only exists in thought. And that any meaning you assign to things is arbitrary and chosen by you. And so assigning meaning to events is essentially meaningless.

The universe ( as an idea) is a concept of thought, yes. But as far as I can tell there is something that exists, that is pointed to by the word universe. there is nothing that exists that is pointed to by the word meaning. Its a made up, agreed upon concept.

So I am struggling to see how the fact that consciousness may be immortal assigns some meaning, other than as thoughts in that beings head about it having meaning. And the only reason it is meaningful for that being is because that being has accepted that it is meaningful.

I realise that this might not allow the discussion to go any further, although I am still interested to see how the possibility of meaning allows you to deduce specific actions and behaviours.

Taking the bold, it does not assign the meaning. It creates the possibility that there could be meaning. That there is never a point where your state is path independent. If your state depends on your path, then your path made a difference. Making a difference is a requirement of having meaning. If you have a choice that makes no difference, the colloquial phrase is "It does not matter". If you path makes a difference, "It can matter".

Maybe we should avoid the word "meaning" and instead talk about reward, or path dependence?

Ok, I will concede that if it is possible for consciousness to be immortal, and it is possible that there is a reward of immortality for following a certain path, and you value immortality ( as most people would) , then you would be interested in finding out what path gives you the reward. So, how do you find that out? How do you deduce what behaviours and actions lead you to your reward?

Okay, so then the conclusion to your argument isn't really that we should act on the assumption that god exists, but rather on the assumption that our consciousness is immortal (which doesn't imply that god exists). More pertinently, we should act on the assumption that our lives in fact do have ultimate significance.

I think this is a reasonable argument, one very characteristic of Existentialist philosophy (if you aren't already familiar with his works, I find your outlook on Christianity to be reminiscient of Kierkegaard in important ways). However, it then seems to me incorrect to claim that materialistic atheists should be depressed about their lives or think that their lives are without meaning. Like you, they certainly cannot prove that their lives have ultimate significance. But, like your theism, their non-theistic materialism is consistent with their lives having ultimate significance.

In that case, it seems to me that what is under issue here is not really what kind of worldview should be accepted as a means of allowing us to act as if our lives have ultimate significance. Rather, you are arguing against nihilism itself--you are saying that it would be a mistake to act as if our lives have no ultimate significance, because even the possibility of our lives having such significance should be enough to motivate our acting as if they do.

Not quite true. I have reached the point where we should act as if our consciousness is eternal. That is correct. If we agree that far, then we can start to consider what that means. It is after consideration of the implications of assuming eternal consciousness that the question of the existence of God becomes important.

Yes, recognizing that is conditional on eternal consciousness.

I have made some changes to what you posted and am not inclined to dig into this to see if it is still applicable.

I didn't quite say that. I said this:

I would still stand by that. I did go on about atheists avoiding depression by not thinking sufficiently to recognize the issue, but that was a reaction to Mightyboosh pronouncing my point of view to be a "crutch". Rather than retaliate with insults, my goal in the future will be to simply ignore insults by ignoring the entire post that contains them. That would probably work out better.

In general, I think that this is not an accurate restatement of the conclusions so far.

I do reject nihilism, but that rejection is contingent on the possibility of immortal consciousness. Somehow that connection seems to get lost in your restatements.

At this point, I would would agree that significance is contingent on immortal consciousness but not on theism necessarily.

Materialism as I have seen it has always rejected immortal consciousness. Therefore, your comments about non-materialistic atheism do not permit the arguments used to establish significance and are therefore not correct imo.

I'm not really sure what part of what I said is not true, but yeah, I'm willing to go with you this far at least, that we should act as if our consciousness is eternal. I'm also assuming we are agreed that it is possible that we have eternal consciousness even if there is no god. So you say the question of god becomes important at this point, how so?

Good. I think the main issues remaining are whether immortal consciousness is possible if materialism is true (I think yes) and what, if any, implications for actions result from the assumption that we have eternal consciousness (I think none).

Specific materialist philosophies tend to either reject or be agnostic about the immortality of our consciousness. However, as I pointed out, there is nothing inherent in materialism that implies that our consciousness isn't immortal. Again, I'll point to the simulation hypothesis as an example of our having an eternally existing consciousness even within an explicitly materialistic universe. Thus, it is at least possible, even on the materialist hypothesis, that we have an eternal consciousness.

Okay. I do not think consciousness is eternal. How do you imagine my actions differing from yours? Specifically, what types of actions should you be taking that I do not? Or I should be taking that you do not? Etc.

Did you not read my entire post?

Also, the issue isn't whether you think your consciousness isn't eternal, but whether you are certain that your consciousness isn't eternal.

Again nuances. I must be getting dumber and dumber because I cannot follow these conversations lately. Particularly, I cannot follow this:

[is] what, if any, implications for actions result?...


I did read it, but what the hell does it mean?

You said you are willing to go with acting as though our consciousness is eternal. I'm asking what would that look like? Two people are sitting in a restaurant. One thinks his consciousness is eternal and the other does not. What actions would the eternal guy perform during the course of the meal/day/week/year/lifetime that the non-eternal guy would not, or visa~versa?

My best effort to decipher this is that you reversed the words implications and actions. Actions can implicate. Implications do not precede actions (to the best of my knowledge), so I do not know what you meant by this. Or perhaps you meant: implications of actions?

He means that we should assume we have eternal consiousness. (I dont know if he is accepting this for the sake of the argument, but given what follows it doesnt really matter).

He then asks what does that assumption imply about our choice of actions?

He concludes that it implies nothing about what actions we should undertake.

In other words, he agrees with you that we cant distinguish the guys bolded above based on their actions. I think ultimately the point is that, even if one accepts that we should act as if our lives have eternal meaning, that "act as if" doesnt actually provide any guidance as to what we should do when it comes time to save the drowning child or choose between buying an Xbox and sending money to Africa.

Thanks.

I wouldnt be too quick. Typically when I paraphrase someone they come back with: "Kinda, but..." so I may well be off.

If anything believing your life is eternal would lead to more life risking behavior. Cholesterol, who cares im living forever give me the double cheese.

I think that one can find a course of action under the assumption of eternal life. I think the conclusion is that one should assume there is a God and pray and meditate for guidance on how to live this life.

Now the rationale:

There are admittedly many possibilities under which this course of action will not produce the desired effect.

-there is no God
-there is a God but He is deistic in that He does not provide any guidance
-our afterlife is independent of our choices in this life

In all of these cases the action will not improve our afterlife. It would not make it worse either, so it is neutral. It is actually a little better than neutral in reality because the course of action really reduces to "thinking about your choices in life" which I would take as a self-evident course to better choices.

There is one scenario that falls outside of this but is also neutral: there is a God and He decides your fate in the afterlife solely on your choice of this course of action. He could decide favorably or unfavorably with no way for us to detect a bias so this is net neutral.

Now we consider those remaining scenarios where the following are all true:

1. There is a God who will provide guidance.
2. Our afterlife does in some way depend on this life.

Under this assumption there is possible positive outcome in that He could lead us to actions that improve our eternal fate (a benevolent theistic God).

The converse of this is that God provides guidance that leads us to actions that damage our eternal fate. This is the one place in my argument where the "malevolent god" comes into consideration. If God is willing to respond to a sincere request for guidance with adverse guidance than that is malevolence. Under that case I would not expect a good outcome under any course of action. He is going to hurt you in the end.

I think that is a pretty complete argument for a course of action under the assumption of eternal consciousness.

No you were basically correct.

Ironically some of my friends actually refer to fast food as "Jesus burgers". The thinking is if you eat the burgers you will see Jesus sooner.

They actually think they're going to see Jesus?

Yes. The people who say this are Christians.
But it is supposed to be funny

He doesn't have a sense of humor about region, it serious business only. He is on a mission, but not form God.

I thought it was funny.

You'd think they'd eat more fast food to get there faster. Would that count as suicide or does the intent matter? I can see the tee-shirts now:

"Taste McDs and see that the Lord is good"

How do you get from "Eternal consciousness is possible and may lead to meaning" to "there is a god who will give you guidance?".


I mean as an assumption, why is that the assumption you chose? It seems like you are saying its because its + EV while everything else is neutral or negative.

I dunno, it seems very flimsy to me. Are you sure there are no other +EV assumptions, that are equally likely?

Read it again. I considered the effect of God and no God under the actions selected. If the actions selected are positive with God existing and neutral in all other cases, then the actions are a good choice. I do not believe there were negatives, which was the point of the argument I made.