Thanks for hearing out my experience, I appreciate it. I don't see a need to continue a debate in this thread either, since we've strayed from the post anyway. I believe that our purpose is to know God as Father and enjoy him forever with a family that will never die on an Earth that will never pass away. This is why we are born first as children- to know first what it is like to be a child in this world. We learn first what it is like to love, obey, and lean on our parents, who have the responsibility of being the first image of God, the first reflection of him we see in the world. Those who have children learn even more deeply how God sees us, what it is like to hold them close as the most precious thing you have, what it is like to despair when they disobey and turn away from you, and the joy when they lean on you and love you. Family, love, belonging, stewarding a new creation- this is what I believe we were created for, and since God gives us existence, the objective reason for our existence is properly grounded in him.

(part 3)

State of the field concerning these four facts

According to Mark Allen Powell, the chair of the Historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature, ‘The dominant view is that the passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony’ (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 [2000]: 171). Specifically, with respect to the burial, Kendall and O'Collins note Bultmann, Fitzmeyer, Porter, Gnilka, Hooker, ‘and many other biblical scholars’ who recognize a historically reliable core in the account of Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea. They observe that ‘every now and then’ the burial story is dismissed as unhistorical, for instance by John Dominic Crossan; but notwithstanding, ‘The standard recent commentators on Mark (Ernst, Gnilka, Haenchen, Harrington, Hooker, Pesch, Schweizer, etc.)...do not invest him with the kind of creativity needed to invent the burial story...’ (Daniel Kendall and Gerald O'Collins, ‘Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?’ Biblica 75 [1994]: 240). O'Collins and the renowned New Testament scholar Raymond Brown both confirmed that only a small minority of scholars who have published on the subject would deny the historicity of Jesus' interment by Joseph of Arimathea. Similarly with respect to the empty tomb, already by the late 1970s Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, was able to report, ‘By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb’ (Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50).

The role of women in discovering that the tomb was empty has been especially persuasive to scholars. According to Raymund Schwager, ‘it has recently become usual to assess positively the women's role at the death of Jesus and on Easter morning,’ in contrast to the legend hypothesis (Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche [1993]: 436). As for the post-mortem appearances and the disciples' coming to believe that Jesus was risen, well, no one doubts those facts. For as Paula Frederickson (no conservative!) says, ‘The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ... [is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting’ (Jesus of Nazareth [New York: Vintage, 1999], 264).

It's also not hard to find what you call ‘neutral’ or ‘opposition’ scholars who accept these four facts. Some of those already mentioned above fit that description. As examples of neutral scholars, take Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes, who are Jewish scholars who defend the historicity of these four facts. Vermes writes, ‘When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that...the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb’ (Jesus the Jew, p. 41).

As an example of an opposition scholar, take Bart Ehrman, who writes, ‘The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial... Some scholars have argued that it's more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals (which also happened commonly for crucified persons in the Roman Empire). [Ehrman is referring here to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan, whose skepticism about the historicity of the burial has been widely rejected, as mentioned above. Ehrman will now reject it, too.] But the accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus' death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb’ (Bart Ehrman, From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Lecture 4: "Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus" [The Teaching Company, 2003].)

Perhaps the most objective evidence for the current lay of the land in New Testament scholarship concerning these four facts would be a bibliographical survey of the relevant literature. Such a survey has, in fact, been conducted by Gary Habermas (‘Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,’ Dialog 45 (2006): 288–97). In a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Habermas found that 75% of the scholars surveyed accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb. Belief in the disciples' experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus is virtually universal."

(part 2)

Historical facts surrounding the Resurrection

Fact 1: Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

• ⁠Jesus’ burial was an old tradition: In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, we find Paul quoting a short and stylized teaching using rabbinical terms such as “receive” and “deliver” that indicate he was given this teaching from prior. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case. • ⁠All four gospels (including the oldest, Mark) are united on the burial story, which indicates it was not around long enough to be influenced by legend. • ⁠Given that the Sanhedrin were enemies to the Christian followers (since they handed Jesus over to the Romans), it is unlikely that this detail is fabricated. • ⁠No competing stories of Jesus’ burial exist.

Fact 2: Jesus’ tomb was found empty by some of his female followers.

• ⁠Like the burial tradition, the empty tomb tradition was also part of the early Gospel summary told in Mark. The story is simple and lacks embellishment of other comparable legends during that time (see the apocryphal Gospel of Peter for an example of comparative legend). • ⁠If the tomb were not empty, it would have been well-known and easily discoverable by anyone living in the nearby area. • ⁠The Jews accused Christ’s followers of hiding/stealing his body. As a point of embarrassment for the Jews, this would have been unfavorable to admit and would have likely been told a different way if the empty tomb was less certain. For instance, they could have just laughed it off and ridiculed them if the tomb wasn’t really empty. • ⁠It is unlikely this detail would have been fabricated, because the testimony of women was seen as unreliable and lesser in value during that day. If it were fabricated, then we should expect to see male followers finding the empty tomb instead of his female followers.

Fact 3: There exists early independent attestations of Jesus’ post-mortem appearances between the four gospels: to the crowd of 500, to Peter, to his 12 disciples, to his brother James, and to Saul of Tarsus.

• ⁠The list of witnesses of the appearances of Jesus are given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, meaning the appearances are early and well attested in the pre-Markan tradition. • ⁠We have biblical data that neither James nor the rest of Jesus’ brothers believed in his divinity during his lifetime. There’s no reason to think the early Church would have generated fictitious stories about his brothers’ unbelief had they been genuine followers all along. • ⁠In addition, the 1st century historian Josephus records and confirms that James went on to be a leader in the early Church, eventually being martyred for his beliefs a few decades later.

Fact 4: The original disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, despite every predisposition not to.

• ⁠The Jews had no cultural predisposition to believe in or understand a dying and rising Messiah. They largely believed that the Messiah would overthrow Rome and re-establish the new Jerusalem, as other fake messiahs of Jesus’ time tried to do. • ⁠Jesus was condemned as a heretic by the Jewish Sanhedrin, which is the exact opposite of what was expected of the Messiah. • ⁠The Jews did not believe that there would be any sort of resurrection prior to THE resurrection of all the dead at Judgment Day. Jesus’ resurrection to a glorified body was totally unheard of.

"What's the alternative? I'm happy to consider it. I'm exploring. Also, I'm kind of a spooky naturalist so you might be surprised what I would go along with."

Haha I like the term "spooky naturalist." For myself, I have found (separately) the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus convincing. These were intellectually enough for me for awhile, but eventually after becoming a believer, I have had two dreams over a 10 year period that each were unlike anything else I have experienced, and changed the course of my life. In both cases, God spoke directly to me, wordlessly, and caused me to melt away the parts of me that I was holding back, the parts that were cold and dying and kills a man from the inside out. I can never look back after that. Look- I'm a skeptical bastard, but after some time, I couldn't deny what was clearly presented to me anymore.

I know you've probably examined Christianity, but that is my personal recommendation. Particularly, this information about the resurrection (I will add it in a few comments following). I am not looking to debate this, just sharing what I found useful to me. Some initial links:

From Dr. of Philosophy, William Lane Craig's website:

Historicity of the Resurrection: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus

"Also, one thing I value is present experience. It has nothing to do with necessarily lasting into the future. Do you?"

I value it much. At times, it is divine and surreal (e.g. on mountain tops, which is a common place for the God of Abraham to associate himself). But I would not feel so positive about it all if I knew it was going to leave me. I can't believe I'm quoting the Lord of the Rings but here's Gimli's thoughts, which I sympathize with:

"Gimli wept openly. 'I have looked the last on that which was fairest,' he said to Legolas his companion. 'Henceforth I will call nothing fair unless it be her gift.' He put his hand to his breast. Tell me Legolas, why did I come on this Quest? Little did I know where the chief peril lay! Truly Elrond spoke, saying that we could not foresee what we might meet upon our road. Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy."

"I'm enjoying the conversation."

Me too (: Philosophy is my passion, and existential stuff is bread and butter (my wife says I never stop talking about it). I'm also a diehard disciple of the living God and can't help but to share my faith with you!

"Because I have heard Muslims argue that if you study the entire Quran in its original language that its insurmountable beauty and truth will overwhelm you and you will have no doubt of the truth of Islam."

I, too, find this unconvincing. I have read the Quran and found the main issues to be with (1) it's conception of God who is only conditionally loving and (2) it's sharp disregard for the historical evidence on the resurrection of Jesus. It just doesn't match what the field indicates happened by a long shot. The fact that the Quran begins by attacking Christianity and Judaism is an earmark of suspicion for me. That said, I think Muhammad really did meet an angel (the enemy) in a cave, who gave him such a distorted image of God as tyrant and unloving. I love muslims and their passion, but I detest Islam.

"Are you going to shut down that potential ultimate truth without full explorarion?"

I did investigate it and came away with articulations for why I think it's false. While my search would otherwise go on if I had no faith, I am now comfortably passionate and happy with my Christian faith. If it were otherwise, I'd be delving off into study again as I did many years ago (and still do now, though to learn more deeply about God and creation and the intellectual tradition of the faith!)

"I kind of love this argument for Islam because of its sheer audacity. Imagine spending a decade getting to the point where you can personally examine the claim and being like, yeah, still not convinced."

It is oddly middle eastern-centric. One thing I love about Christianity is its universality: people from every corner of the world (one third!) resonate with its understanding of the human condition, and Christianity wins more by conversion than Islam where it's mostly growing by births.

"It is analogous because after you die your memories are gone."

I'm confused- I agree that your memories are gone after you die. That is why it is not analogous to the meal, since you can at least look back and remember had a delicious meal.

"On your last question, of course there is still value if you enjoy writing."

How so? You wouldn't remember it nor would you have anything left of it. So where's the value after it's gone? If the value is only temporary, then its true that only eternal things retain value.

"Your position seems to be that, for example, my personal experience of holding my child or my wife has no value but only the illusion of value."

On naturalism, yes...

"My position is that is absurd. I know it has value."

I agree with you! Of course it has meaning and value- as a theist, I affirm that deeply. I'm saying that such a claim would be incompatible with naturalism. This is what I mean when I say naturalism just doesn't seem to match what is obviously true: things like loving my family and holding my newborn has intrinsic moral worth.

"But even if there is not, who cares? I care about holding and loving my wife way, way more than I care about trying to justify my values as being objective."

The reasons to care are what I've tried to explain above: if these things appear to be of worth to you, as they are to me, and life is worth living, then that gives one motivation to do everything one can to disprove a worldview that tries to say that it's not true and we will lose everything we love. On a purely personal note, I believe I have done this for myself, and its had a more profound effect on my life than anything else. I can't help but want others to at least look that direction, even if you disagree with my own views.

"If you want to put something on the table, I can readily explain to you why you also have no basis to claim an ultimate objective purpose."

Again, I don't need to provide an alternative to conclude things about the things naturalism entails. It could be true or it could be false- either way, we should be unhappy about what it entails.

Serious question: why are you quick to defend yourself from alternatives? Why not welcome alternatives and seek them out with open arms? Unless you are omniscient and know for certain that there is no possible alternative to naturalism, then there's room to be open to alternatives.

To your point: "You're avoiding talking about theism, but your objections to naturalism are irrelevant if you can't establish a better alternative."

I am pointing out what naturalism entails- these are not arguments against the veracity of naturalism. I don't need to provide an alternative to naturalism to talk about why we should be dissatisfied with it. Theism isn't the only possible alternative to naturalism (though I personally find it the best alternative myself). The point stands that if someone sees naturalism for what it is (horrible) then they should be motivated to seek to disprove it.

"And I vehemently disagree that I lack "real purpose, morality, and human value." It's just rediculous and kind of insulting from my perspective."

Why do you find it insulting? I certainly don't intend it that way, and I have no desire to attack you- I'm here to discuss ideas with you. In either case, it really does seem to me to be what naturalism entails, hence why I think it's a terrible worldview to sit satisfied with!

About what I wrote above- where do you base such things like purpose/meaning/human value if not in humans? Like I said, to make humankind the foundation for these things amounts to expressing opinions about ourselves, and is not any different than a self-imposed illusion. So what other option is there?

"If I take you to a nice restaurant, you should enjoy the meal rather than fretting that you will be hungry again tomorrow or crying about the eventual heat death of the universe."

I don't think this is analogous, since at least the memory of the meal has lasting value. Do you think there's any value to be had writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and your memory were to be wipes of its contents?

I disagree with your assessment of theism, since it is very much not the case for myself and other theists who are philosophically-minded. But this post is not about the veracity or sufficiency of theism, it is about naturalism.

I can see no reason why a naturalist would think our self-made purposes, meaning, and morals are anything more than a self-imposed illusion. On such a view, my life is ultimately inconsequential. How I live will eventually matter to no one and, on this view, when the universe is empty and silent, there will be no one to care whether I existed or not.

Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe.

The contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.

If naturalism is true, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence. For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. By far, most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress.

If naturalism is true, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for justice or deliverance from evil.

Or again, if naturalism is true, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. The sober fact is that unless you die young, someday you yourself will be an old man or an old woman, fighting a losing battle with aging, struggling against the inevitable advance of deterioration, disease, perhaps senility. And finally and inevitably you will die. There is no afterlife beyond the grave. Naturalism is thus a philosophy without hope.

Consider, if each of us are just a collection of atoms, why think that we are any different than the animals or insects around us? Is anything lost when a spider captures and consumes a fly? No, it is simply destroyed, and no one cares. But why think we are any different than the fly, on naturalism? It’s not obvious that our life is any more inherently valuable than the fly’s— to say otherwise would just be a form of bias in favor of the human species.

Or consider the morality of a spider capturing and consuming a fly; does the spider murder the fly? No, it simply kills it, and no one cares. Why think of our actions on Earth to be any different? If one accepts naturalism, then all ability to condemn or praise others would be reduced to neutral words and matters of opinion.

Does a fly have any objective purpose for its existence? On naturalism, it’s hard to imagine. The fly just exists, buzzing around until it dies. But why think we’re any different just because we have more intricate brain matter? What reason is there to believe in a purpose that isn’t just self-created?

Some may be satisfied with the idea of self-created purpose, but any sort of purpose like this is just subjective by definition. If your purpose is subjective, then you may as well just say you have an opinion about yourself. If that’s true, then there really is no objective purpose on naturalism and no reason why any of us exist at all.

When taken together, the lack of real purpose, morality, and human value— combined with the eventual heat death of the universe— provides a grim outlook for our lives if naturalism is true. It is in the naturalist's interest, then, to seek to falsify naturalism. If there’s any hope at all that it's false, even if there were only a 1% chance, it should still behoove them to seek rational reasons to falsify it.

I appreciate his perception that life does have meaning and that the beauty of creation calls out to us on a deep level- this is something we can all enjoy. However, there's no reason to think that's true on naturalism. Sitting on the beach enjoying your family would be at best an illusion of meaning, something not really there.

But it's precisely the gap between what naturalism commits us to (lack of objective meaning, lack of objective purpose, lack of objective moral duties or values, lack of a conscious immaterial mind, etc.) and the apparent reality of those things that seems so absurd! People often seem to think there are things beyond themselves like real meaning, purpose, duties, values, their own consciousness, etc.

Just speaking non-philosophically, my own senses tell me the conclusions of naturalism are unbelievable to me. Life just does not seem to match what naturalism says it should. So it's no wonder that I agree with angry-beach-man. I agree, life is in some way actually meaningful. I know firsthand what he means. But his worldview just doesn't allow for that in any objective sense.

I am not basing the argument on what is ontologically the case. I am saying, "Why settle on a worldview where you believe there is no life jacket?" Naturalism entails this belief. Like you say, I am trying to get people to investigate the possibility of an afterlife and to be unhappy with naturalism- I'm glad you are enjoying the search!

"But if someone doesn't enjoy that search, I don't see why they should spend the finite boat ride that they know exists searching for a mythical life jacket in case of a shipwreck that may or may not happen when they could be enjoying the scenery instead."

Because to be a naturalist is to commit oneself to the idea they will die and lose everything that can be lost. I think there are very good reasons to be unhappy with this outlook and therefore to spur someone to search for the lifejacket the rest of their life. Surely, if I was on the sinking boat, I would think an attempt at survival was worth it. Definitely better than sitting down waiting for death. What can be gained in this life that won't be lost?

In this analogy, naturalism does not equate to a life jacket, since naturalism says there isn't any surviving death. On naturalism, the boat is going down and that's it. If you think death is a bad thing, and you also desire continued life, why not seek out a life jacket? Maybe you never find it, but (importantly) maybe you do.

Regarding the boat analogy: if the boat is sinking and it seems we're going to lose our life, wouldn't your preference for continued life motivate you to seek out a life jacket or something similar? Even if you were convinced you were likely going to die?

It seems like you value life highly. A couple questions in light of this:

Do you see loss of life as a bad thing?

Do you hope there is an afterlife?

I think people will believe what makes sense to them- I certainly don't think you should stop believing naturalism for no reason. The core thought I would like to propose is this: the naturalist should hope naturalism is wrong (motivation) and keep seeking to prove it wrong (action). Why? Because naturalism, if true, is existentially horrifying. Specifically: it entails a lack of objective purpose and meaning to life, a loss of everything labored for in this life, and an eventual loss of the universe itself to heat death.

I'm sorry, I think this is confused for a number of reasons:

1.) This post isn't discussing the veracity of abrahamic theism or the veracity of theism at all. This post is about considering Naturalism on its own terms and prompting people to abandon it.

2.) If you believed in this naturalist-rewarding God, you would cease to be a naturalist. If you didn't believe in this God, then we're back to square one on the post's main consideration: why settle on naturalism?

3.) I doubt most theists would accept your characterization of faith as reasonless. Most theists, including myself, have reasons they can articulate why they believe. The strength of those reasons is another matter, though there are a large number of theists who do use their rational faculties to make the best judgement they can and at least try to defend their beliefs with good reasons.

More words, even less to make of them. We're still not talking about theism, by the way. And as someone studied in the field of philosophy of religion, your words just seem ignorant of the things they're addressing. The reason you think the rest is drivel is because you have shown clearly that you don't understand what you're talking about and can't respond to it. Like I said, leave it to those who can. Thanks for the links.

You say: "I am not explaining my beliefs further to you" yet you clearly can't let go of this conversation.

"You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal."

Yes, because (as you agree with the manuscript example) temporary things are lost forever on naturalism.

"You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it."

Yes, because I am intentionally here to spur people who have chosen to die away from that choice. I do think life is worth spending every moment searching for.

"How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world."

Unless you are omniscient, there is always more to learn. I doubt you know everything there is to know about every non-naturalistic view. I never said you should dedicate the rest of your life to finding my faith (Christianity) though you're very welcome to. And I never said you shouldn't be a good person- be a good person. Though that will be difficult on naturalism because there is no such thing as objective moral good on naturalism any more than there is such thing as objective evil.

"You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism."

There is no such thing as an objective purpose on naturalism, therefore there is no way to fulfill anything in your life in any real meaningful way as there never was any real point to it. There is no such thing as a wasteless life on naturalism, since it will all be destroyed. On naturalism, we are simply the byproducts of biology, accidents of natural forces, and orphans in the universe. There really is nothing more to it, and nothing noble about what you describe.

"My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good"

Again, there is no such thing as a good person or evil God on your worldview in any objective sense. All you're saying is something like "I'm glad I did what was enjoyable in my own eyes; I don't like God!" This post has revealed what is only confirmatory of my suspicions: naturalists are more in love with their own throne, their own temporary power over this life than Life itself. People like you choose eternal death.

So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

"Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical."

A hypothetical can be conceived of, evaluated, and still judged as false.

"Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction."

We already went over this. Logical possibility does not imply something is metaphysically possible. You have to understand the basics before you dive into something you don't understand and look foolish.

"It doesn't have to be actually possible."

If it's not metaphysically possible, then there is no possible world where objective purpose exists on naturalism.

"I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth hold truth value."

I was already explicit about this too. Theists don't defend the idea that because God allowing for objective meaning is logically possible, it's possible in some world. They would go on to defend why it's possible in some world and give an account on how that works. If an atheist were to refute this defense, we would be left with no reason to think what is logically possible is actual. That's how this works.

"I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural)"

If you reject it, then you supposedly have a reason why you reject it (i.e. you find it to be untenable). This would mean you find it to be incompatible with reality and therefore at least not metaphysically possible. Since you're a self-proclaimed agnostic about objective purpose on naturalism, you don't reject it, but you neither accept it. I am not agnostic about the matter- I do reject it for reasons I have expressed. An argument in defense of objective purpose existing on naturalism not forthcoming, I have no reason to believe it's metaphysically possible.

This next example is where your thinking really exposes itself:

"Is Harry Potter real?"

If by real, we mean actually attains in this world, then no, agreed.

"Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary."

He in actuality does not exist, so again, I agree- no.

"Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No!"

So far so good.

"Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win."

No, not on that basis at all! This is where you go wrong every time. While there's nothing inherent to the statement that is self-contradictory, there's no defense given for why we should think such a thing is a coherent description of a possible world. For example, is magic in contradiction with the natural laws of that world? Are such things in the HP universe in contradiction to one another? Now- maybe it is a metaphysically possible world and a description of that world wouldn't contradict itself (I think it's likely the case), but that can't just be assumed. It must be explained and developed why we should think so, because it's not obvious.

"You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it)."

You're displaying your lack of understanding in full fledge. If it's not possible in any world, then there's no description of any world where that statement is true, including this world. That just is what it means to refute the possibility of objective purpose on naturalism to be real or actual.

"I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory."

Yes, like you'd be able to look at the monism you appealed to and see that it is contradictory to naturalism. Not very helpful to your argument.

"Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism."

I can't imagine why you think that, since the whole point of my post is to evaluate naturalism (something I don't believe, yet regard as metaphysically possible) and then make considerations about the implications of that worldview. You're just making yourself look silly at this point flinging about accusations.

"So did I, I gave and alluded to several even."

Linking other people's arguments is not making an argument nor is it showing anything. I already said I'd be interested to read such things, but I deny that you've made, shown, or defended any claim of value in this conversation regarding objective purpose on naturalism. You've only given me reason to think you are an amateur at this. Especially given your reaction to my comments; only people who are knocked off-balance get mad like you are now.

"No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief."

Oh look, a "no u!" in the wild lol. Anyway, the theist actually defends their worldview by attempting to develop arguments, which you have still failed to do. It's probably for the better at this rate too. Leave it to the people you linked instead.

To your point: "I have already investigated claims of theism and life after death [...] Why would I waste more time on that instead of living my life as best as I can?"

Because so long as it's possible that naturalism is false, then it is possible that such investigation may have eternally beneficial consequences. Compared to the infinite loss naturalism offers, the journey of seeking to disprove naturalism is worth the potential gain.

"As for the reality of loss via naturalism, that is just how life is."

Unless naturalism is false, which you admit is possible. As I keep saying, that's worth investigating due to it's eternal benefit.

"I won’t live in a fantasy just bc it more comfortable than real life"

As I said before, no one is asking you to live in a fantasy or believe what you don't have reason to believe. I'm saying you should have strong motivation to investigate and disprove your naturalism.

"Yes to trash a manuscript is a waste."

Then, analogously, everything we endeavor to accomplish on naturalism is a waste. Like the manuscript, our lives will be thrown away, destroyed, and no memory will eventually remain of our actions.

"It is not waiting to die, it is about living my life without wasting time speculating about something that seems impossible to prove."

If you think the manuscript being thrown away is a waste, then so is your time "living your life" on naturalism anyway. And it's not so impossible to prove. At least on the Christian side of things, for example, there exists 2000 years worth of an intellectual tradition answering and discussing such things. Now you may not find it convincing currently, but there's probably a great deal there you aren't fully aware of and many great people have found such arguments of natural theology convincing. All an example just to say that it's not as impossible and opaque as you make it sound. Philosophy allows us to consider such things and make convincing cases. Given that you want there to be an afterlife, that you think it's possible, and that your thinking on the manuscript reveals our lives will be a waste on naturalism, I see no reason not to dig into it. Or anything besides naturalism for that matter.

"If an after life exists, then I will learn that when I get there. If I live as good of a life as I can for myself, my friends, my family, my community, my world including the people and cultures I haven’t met, and that still isn’t enough for me to not be sent to hell, then I am comfortable calling the god that made it that way evil"

For one, if naturalism is true, there is no such thing as objective evil. Evil is simply whatever humans designate distasteful, unacceptable, or not-liked (i.e. it becomes subjective, human-dependent). So I don't know why you make such strong moral condemnation when you have no objective moral foundation to stand on and call anything evil. It's just your opinion at best.

Secondly, if God exists, then pragmatically speaking, all bets are off. At that time, all that matters is that it would have been better to have sought understanding of God and understood the situation you are in instead of having clinged to naturalism, since God is going to have the say on what happens thereafter.

"No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. [...] Do I want an afterlife? Yes."

That means you believe there is a chance that perma-death might not be the end of everything you love and that you'd prefer it. Why not take hold of that and investigate it with every second you have left to spend? There is nothing you will gain by clinging to (or turning a blind eye to) naturalism that you won't lose eventually.

"If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort"

I think it's a waste in the same way the trashed manuscript would be a waste. I wonder what you think about that analogy I gave?

"I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope."

I don't think that's what they should believe and I didn't say they should. You spent a lot of time talking about accepting hard truths, and I agree that this usually makes sense. In fact, I said believing that things won't get better at times provides a beneficial (but temporary) tradeoff. However, this is not the case with naturalism and perma-death, since there's nothing you will gain by believing it that won't be lost forever when you die. Again, this is like sitting down and waiting to die on the boat- any sense of virtue gained by doing so will matter little when the boat sinks and no one is left to care.

"I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure"

Despite our hearty disagreement, I've enjoyed having your input.

If the circumstance were less dire, there might be conceivable temporary tradeoffs to accepting less favorable beliefs e.g. self preservation with the murder example. But given the life-or-death stakes of perma-death and the permanency of perma-death, avoiding the loss of literally everything seems like as good a reason as any to motivate the naturalist to try and disprove naturalism.

"It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen."

You say this as if you are certain. Do you really think it's a certainty that naturalism is true? That there's not even an infinitesimal chance it's false? I don't think most naturalists I've interacted with would defend that.

"Blind hope based on subjective comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives and can be directly harmful to life."

On naturalism, why would moving on with life matter? You will die and lose everything. And temporary living doesn't seem to satisfy- I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.

"Hoping that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that I will be fine by walking into traffic blind will not make me live longer."

Such examples don't match up, since these are not matters of life and death, and serve some benefit (albeit temporary) to believe as mentioned above.

I'm still left wondering:

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

But it's not denial, since I'm not saying anyone should deny naturalism on this basis. If they find it to be most rational, they're rational to hold that view. But I think there's no reason to be satisfied with it, however. There's good reason to hope it's not true and no reason to hope it is. If "maturity" is sitting on the boat waiting for death, then I'll take fighting to live every time. I don't see naturalism as a certainty, and therefore I see life as a possibility.

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

To be clear, I'm definitely not saying you should believe something you have no justification to believe. That would be foolish- agreed. I'm saying the implications of naturalism should spark motivation to seek out holes in naturalism, to seek to disprove it, even if you remain convinced for the time being.

"Besides, no human being will be around for the heat death of the universe. The sun will go supernova in 5 billion years"

Funny enough, I agree! I'm not even sure we'll make it that far. Some naturalists I've spoken to have been rather...optimistic about our future as a species, which is why I point out the big kaput (heat death).

I mean, on naturalism we will lose the universe to heat death. That's about as bad as it gets. In light of that, do you see why I would think it's prudent for the naturalist to try and disprove his/her naturalism?

No problem! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

"But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”

It's similar, but only insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such. To compare:

Pascal's Wager more or less says one should believe in God because doing so entails infinite gain if correct and only finite loss if wrong. Meanwhile the atheist position entails only finite gain if correct and infinite loss if wrong (hell). So the rational person should believe in God and/or Christianity.

My argument has a different conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entail such loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism.

"I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic."

I can see why that would be a course of action in non life or death circumstances, but when perma-death is around the corner, there's nothing to be gained by coming to terms. Panic, despair, frantic searching, and even crying out to a God all make sense to me! If there's even an infinitesimal chance that naturalism is incorrect, it would worth investigating for the naturalist.

But I did step into your story. I said the naturalist ought to join his religious friend in prayer. If what you mean is that I'm not agreeing with the way you've reimagined the boat analogy, then yeah- it's faulty, because it misinterprets what naturalism entails (no life jacket).

"It is completely unreasonable to assume that by believing there isn’t an afterlife, naturalists must therefore have no desire to preserve their own life."

I wasn't making that point at all. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: the naturalist's life preserving instinct should motivate him to seek to disprove naturalism, since that worldview entails perma-death. You seem to be confusing my statement that naturalism entails perma-death (no life jacket) with an assumption that naturalists wouldn't try to survive perma-death. As I said, I very much think they should try and survive perma-death! But this would be a rejection of naturalism, since naturalism leaves no room for such things when the universe is destined to perma-death itself (heat death) and leaves no room for things like afterlives.

"Your strawman is a fallacy, your story is absurd, and you can talk with any naturalist to realize this yourself if you want to do more than speculate."

I mean, I've been discussing this with literally just about everyone on this comment section (mostly naturalists), and I don't find your assessment accurate. In fact, this whole post has been heartening to me, since this hostile comment section (reddit being what it is) has had little to say that I haven't already discussed or thought of with colleagues and theological minded friends of mine. I think if I were on that boat, an effort to survive would be a clear choice.