I think I'm using 'freeroll' in a confusing way. The idea that you are necessarily 'no worse off' for making decisions based on the assumption that an involved, benevolent deity exists is the 'freeroll' I'm talking about.

This is the idea you first brought up in the "Pascals wager with a twist" tread?

The first problem is, that when you are willing to accept that any possible God could exist, there will be one who punishes whatever principles you live by, in honor of the benevolent God you believe in.

The second problem I see, is actually problem and solution rolled into one.
If we get to make up any God we like, why not make God a campaign trail politician, except he keeps his promises. Essentially you get to behave however you like and still get full benefits.
Why create a God we have to appease, when we decide his character traits?

The first problem doesn't create a problem. That is the malevolent God scenario in which your choice doesn't matter. I never said I knew your choice mattered. I simply said that you should play your hand as if it did, as you are no worse off if it doesn't.

In the second point, you are not making up a God, you are trying to find the best possible path given the uncertainty that is inescapable. If any behavior gives full benefits, then you are fine no matter what you do, but your contemplating that God does not make Him exist.

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that in one specific scenario, ie. a benevolent involved God, a sincere search for the right path in life must succeed as He would not leave you without the guidance you require. I cannot say what that path will be. I would not even presume that it will necessarily be the same for everyone. That is not a requirement.

A benevolent God might not want you to search for him without sufficient evidence. And he might not give any. Just saying he does give guidance doesn't make it so.

Also what do you say about people who searched for decades? Are the doing it wrong, are they on the wrong path. Should they keep searching for decades more. meh...

I never said He does. I said that if He does then your search will have positive value. If He doesn't then you are no better or worse off for trying.

Also, I cannot comment on anyone else. If they search and find nothing then so be it. That might be right for them.

Your choices can matter, and we still do not know what angers and pleases God. I think your benevolent/malevolent distinction gets too simple.
My biggest problem with your approach is, that you are operating with an unknowable God, yet refuse to take the consequence of that.


You advocate worshiping the God you want to exist; to me that is the same as trying to will God into existence.

What I was getting at in my first post was, that since we are picking the character traits of the God based on our personal preference, why not simply desire a God who demands nothing?

Not once have you restated my position accurately. That makes it impossible to discuss.

And I would say you refuse to see the problems inherent to your position.
I guess you are right though, not much progress to be made from here.

I understand your point now, but I do not understand how you are worse off, at least in a sufficiently long view.

If there is a benevolent God and that God wants you to search for him (i dont even really know what that means other then im doing it wrong) then yes it could have positive value. It might not if you dont find God or you find a messed up interpretation of the benevolent God.

You can't say this. Its not hard to envision someone searching in vain for God their entire lives even at a cost to themselves, close family and friends.
If they search in vain and that search leads them to leaving their family to join a heaven gates like cult where they kill themselves for God. It might be right in your eyes but they would of been better off just not searching.

If you assume a benevolent God, then you will find what He wants you to find. You may not be doing it wrong. You may be doing exactly what you should be doing.

This can be hard to judge.

I do not understand the process that ends people in cults like the Heaven's Gate crowd. I am a theist and practice an organized religion, but that does not get me anywhere near the Jonestown or Heaven's Gate position. To say that what I am talking about is captured by those extremes is no more fair than for me to say that Pol Pot or Stalin are examples of the atheist position.

If i search for God and i join a extreme group that kills themselves is this what God wanted me to find? I mean this happens.

My point is you cant say no harm can come from a search for God when there are thousands of examples of harm coming from that search.

The search for God isn't perfect. Not only positive affects come from it.



I search for a possible God by living in and learning about his possible universe. This is the wrong way because according to many, even theists, God cant be found in the material universe. I be wrong.

Not always, thats why i gave an extreme example.

Its fair. You never say which way people should search for God only that they should search because nothing bad can happen. My point is sometimes something bad happens from searching and following that advice.

You wouldn't consider making choices you would not have made had you been properly informed suboptimal?

If I assume a benevolent God I don't have to do anything - he won't discriminate against me on a basis of my belief.

Not in a long enough view. Consider Albert Einstein and Albert Schweitzer in a scenario where there is no God and no afterlife. Postulate that Einstein would have devoted his life to helping the unfortunate if he were a theist and Schweitzer would have devoted his life to science if he were an atheist.

From their point of view, at this point in time and for all eternity to come their choices make absolutely no difference at all. Thus, all choices are neutral.

The error you are making is that your choices matter to you in the scenario where death is an absolute end. In fact, they do not. All choices are neutral.

I'm saying you're neither necessarily worse off nor necessarily no worse off. A case in point would be people who allow illnesses to go untreated because they believe a benevolent god will heal them - they are worse off in the short term for sure (and if we assume a godless universe, there presumably is no long term).

The key is in what conception of 'involved and benevolent' the individual believer has. I just don't think it's possible to say that such a belief is either uniformly positive or negative in impact.

I agree with much of this, I think.

I cannot say that you are better off in all scenarios by assuming the existence of a benevolent God. I am only saying that making that assumption and acting accordingly ultimately makes you no worse off. Personally I would have to add some caveats, at least for me. For example, people die of disease and I am not in a hurry to die. Not going to a doctor does not seem to me to be an intelligent choice under my assumption.

I would word this differently. One has to specify a point of view. From any individuals point of view in the Godless universe, there is not only no long term, the short term ceases to exist at death.

But only in the sense that, per

... nothing 'makes you worse off'. Which is fine and dandy as long as we're applying the long-term view in a short-term-only universe. If we apply only the short-term view, we're moved to become significantly less blase about what happens in the short term.