Atheist Version
A hand of bridge is dealt. I've never played before. I win the hand. While knowing that there are 54 billion billion billion other possible hands, that I was equally likely to have been dealt, I conclude that there seems not to be any absolute significance to this hand in comparison to any other that was possible. I don't know how many other winning hands there are in the deck.

Theist Version
A hand of bridge is dealt. I've never played before. I win the hand. While knowing that there are 54 billion billion billion other possible hands, that I was equally likely to have been dealt, I conclude that a God of Bridge exists - who favors me. God obviously arranged the cards in the deck with my victory foreordained.

So in regard to one's own existence, does one feel lucky and the other grateful?

Look, you sound as if it could happened another way. Like somehow you could have never existed, so we should feel lucky or grateful. This is not REALITY, bud. Face it, you exist and that is reality. Stop trying to imagine that there's a possibility that you could have never existed. Because that is just imagination, its NOT REAL. It is all in your head, buddy.

Do you think a kitten wastes time thinking about this kind of nonsense? NO, because the kitten is more wise than you. It knows that kind of thinking is like a snake eating its own tail. It leads to NOWHERE but the nuthouse.

Yeah, I tried that mindset for a bit. One road leads to the nuthouse, the other nihilism. Choose your poison; I did.

What? The majority of everybody, theist included, are going to favor what you have labeled the "atheist" explanation in an actual bridge scenario. So it's up to you to make a case for the non-obvious correctness of your categories in terms of analogy, which you fail to even attempt here.

Does feeling grateful provide a strong enough reason for you to believe God exists?

Who dealt? Did someone cut the cards ?

Well, we don't really feel gratitude towards inanimate things so I'd say it would give one some reason to believe in God.

I agree we don't feel gratitude to inanimate objects... but for it to be a reason to believe in God you're essentially saying your feelings (or subconscious or whatever) knows something about the universe that you don't. That sounds implausible to me...

I'm okay with an intuitive grasp of things without the dialectic. I think the latter has more to do with language than knowing, meaning that we'd still know things even if we lacked the words to put that knowledge in. So, while I wouldn't go as far as saying that intuition is rational, I wouldn't call it an implausible reason either.

God did obviusly. Don't tell me a one in a 56 million chance just magically appeared for no meaning. That would make playing bridge meaningless.

Fair enough. My view is that bare intuition has nothing to say on the origin of the universe. I'd say a feeling of gratitude towards life could arise through a number of more plausible means than the conclusion that they reflect some truth. I think humans have a desire to be thankful for good things, regardless of whether they were caused by some 'being' or totally random. Similar to how we have a desire to dispense blame on all sorts of things when bad stuff happens. When I bang my head hard on something, I have a few seconds of anger to the point I might even punch the cupboard to get back at it!

If someone asked me if I'm grateful for life I'd probably say yes, I'd probably say the same if I won the lottery...

We know we're more than a little biased in attributing human characteristics to things where it's not warranted, so yeah, there could be a more plausible explanation. What I was thinking of, though, is how we sometimes get a feeling someone's bluffing us without being able to completely come up with a rational explanation for the feeling. We may not be correct or there may be some other reason for the feeling, but it's still real for the person experiencing the feeling and hence a justifiable reason to act in a certain way for him. Who knows, maybe God has tells.

Ah I see where you're coming from... yea perhaps! I can't really think of any potential explanation of how we're receiving this information, but I suppose if you're willing to grant God exists, then Him influencing us in ways we don't understand isn't such a big step...

I actually believe that bridge is a good analogy. You have cards and a contract. If you play the hand assuming that the cards are such that you can win, you might. If you play the hand as if it doesn't matter how you play, you lose. The first is the theist. The second is the atheist.

I swear i live in a different universe. Not then you just in general.

The specific cards in the hand represent the specific tuning of the 'fine tuned constants.' Proponents of the anthropic argument claim that because these constants could have been a huge number of other things that would not have allowed for life to exist this somehow implies that a conscious being set these constants because it is extremely unlikely that they would have been that way by chance (though for some reason they never explain how they got the information that it would be extremely unlikely that they would be arranged that way by chance).

Except that we have no idea whether or not there is an objective to the game, let alone what it is, so we have no way of determining how to play to win.

I have to acknowledge a much better point than the OP. However, as I have said before, there is a rationale for determining a course of action in the scenario of an involved benevolent God. In the scenario of an uninvolved or malevolent God, you are no worse off for following it.

I think that sounds more reasonable than it actually is. The parents who don't seek medical treatment for their children believe their involved, benevolent god will cure the child.

Obviously there are beliefs and behaviours stemming from belief in a god that are at worst neutral in a godless universe, but it's not necessarily the total freeroll you seem to imply.

Can we agree that if there is no objective then playing any way other than 'have fun while the hand lasts' is not optimal?

It is admittedly difficult to comment on specific actions of others in my view. For me, to follow the course of action in your example would be wrong. However, for me to judge someone else's actions is more difficult. If there is a God and an afterlife then the ultimate good or evil of a choice made in this finite existence may not be apparent. The point of view I hold is useful for me making the choices for myself. It has no value in judging the choices made by others, so I do not do it. I can only say that it would be wrong for me.

I agree with the second paragraph I think, but I do not see where I implied a freeroll. Perhaps I am not getting the point.

I am not sure what you mean by "objective". If you meant to use it as a noun (as in "an objective for this life") and if that is given as a postulate, then I agree. However, I do not accept the postulate nor do I believe that premise is demonstrable.

That is what I mean by objective. And you do not have to accept that it is the case. However, if you agree, then playing as if there is an objective when we do not know one exists and have no way of evaluating how likely it is that one exists is not a good idea if that way of playing interferes with our 'fun'. That is all I was getting at (not claiming that you were saying this).

OK.

I was pulled away for a couple of minutes and wished to correct my response in one way. In the case where there is no objective because there is no afterlife, I would not call the other choices as suboptimal. I would consider them neutral, in that it makes no difference how you live.