"By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived hopelessness in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife."

You are already off-base. I perceive hopelessness on naturalism on the basis of its own terms, completely independent of theism. Naturalism offers only infinite nothingness and that's a problem for naturalists, some of whom have said as much to me personally.

"Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings."

You left off an important word. I said it is an existentially dead-end worldview. Which it is, because it asserts as much. According to naturalism, you are here by accident, for no reason, and you will cease to exist forever just as meaninglessly as you began to exist.

"No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise."

If you've got a problem with a specific premise, then you have yet to make it clear which premise that is.

"That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith."

I am unabashedly a Christian attempting to attack naturalism, and have made this clear in my post and comments. This does not exclude good faith discussion. This is how arguments are tested, which is what this post is here for. Meanwhile, your condescension, your repeated speculation on my motivations, and your irrelevant points on theism convince me that you are the one not here in good faith.

To your point: "I think it'd be worse if we lacked purpose, meaning, and hope, and we were trapped in fire feeling our flesh burn and blood boil forever. That fire would certainly bring an additional loss to my well-being that the other things didn't. But suit yourself."

I mean, I think that's bad too. Different kinds of infinities, different kinds of ways to be infinitely sporked. For what it's worth, I believe the Christian Scriptures indicate hell as annihilation rather than eternal conscious torment, but I suppose that's a discussion for another day.

"I want to make this clear: are you analyzing the implications of belief in naturalism per se, or of belief in naturalism and being correct about those beliefs?"

I'm saying if one believes naturalism, then their belief entails a number of believed conclusions that would color their outlook on life and expectations black. This is a threat to our current well-being when fully realized, and I know atheists who do in fact struggle living with these conclusions.

"This is an important point because your argument is trying to move us to hold a certain belief based on the well-being it entails."

To be clear, I am not pushing for anyone to hold a specific belief (e.g. theism). I am only trying to spur people into reconsidering their naturalism- the naturalist conclusions look bleak but maybe there's time yet to reconsider.

"I could prefer to be cured from my (hypothetical) terminal cancer but be justified in my belief that I will die, for example. I'm not sure how your argument works from here."

I agree. To bridge the analogy: if someone told me I had a terminal illness and that I was likely going to die, I would still seek treatment and wish to live until the day I died. While I may, in fact, be convinced that I am dying, I would remain motivated to disprove that. I certainly would not lie down, give up, and die.

Ok. I mean, my argument doesn't rely on my theism. If everything you said was stalwart (p.s. it's not), it wouldn't make a difference as to whether objective meaning/purpose can exist on naturalism. You keep asserting it can, but give no reason to think why it can.

To your point: "None of this is possible in the infinite." Sure it is. Theists, for example, derive objective purpose and meaning from God's having created them for intended purposes (namely to know God and enjoy him forever). We have no issue grounding such things in God for eternal time-spans.

"Well, for one thing, I don't find naturalism unsatisfying." As you said earlier, if you could have a different outcome for the universe (+stipulations) you would. So why not be unsatisfied? Why would infinite oblivion be preferable to a continued search at minimum?

"The Tao and sayings of Confucius also have a good bit of wisdom to them as well. Have you given those options a fair look..?"

Definitely. I love philosophy of religion and have investigated Taoism and Confucianism. All said, I find the Christian truth claims to be convincing, and do not have the same pressure to "find my life jacket" that the naturalist does.

I already replied to this point in the original post:

"If we let utility mean future well-being, then why arbitrarily stop measuring the impact of the future at the end of one’s life? That’s like burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami and saying, “everything’s just fine if I don’t look!” In addition, it’s not how people tend to look at other endeavors that affect peoples’ lives after they die. For example, people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc. After all, the universe continues on into the future even if the Naturalist doesn’t. Any positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises; the Naturalist should therefore consider how this impacts his decisions now."

I'm not discussing my God here. I'm discussing how naturalism could offer objective purpose without completely redefining the word purpose. I have yet to hear any worthwhile defense from you.

All your flimsy critique of theism aside, nothing you stated has anything to do with the thrust of the post. Additionally this post doesn't seek to convince people of theism (as stated) but only offers it as a potential alternative.

The actual point was this: naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview bereft of objective purpose and meaning, and one which is fated to the heat death of the universe. No one should be content to believe such a thing, and even a convinced naturalist should endeavor to prove it wrong.

To your question: "Why should it?" Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.

"Those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration."

In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.

"Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live."

This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.

"By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning."

For one, that is interesting. On a more critical note, this is like saying people who are blind are unable to apprehend the color red. Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.

This simply misses the point of my post. I'm not talking about temporal finite gains in well-being, nor am I trying to convince anyone to specifically adopt theism. I am discussing the implications of naturalism and the utter oblivion it asserts we are all doomed to.

To this point: "Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity."

Why not?

"If they held the explanatory power of naturalism and weren't self-evidently untrue and based on wish fulfillment, I suppose I would."

Are you certain there are no other worldviews that satisfy these stipulations? If not, why settle on naturalism?

For example, many people find theism explanatorily powerful, not self-evidently untrue, and not based on wish fulfillment, but actually true (e.g. the majority of philosophers of religion by measure). Are you certain theism is false? If perhaps not certain, wouldn't it be worth taking a second, third, even fourth look? And if not theism, then anything other than naturalism?

If life is simply the byproduct of natural forces, any sort of objective purpose/meaning as it's commonly understood (i.e. intentional, end-oriented) will simply be illusory. It's hard to see how "meaning" exists in a soup bowl of atoms (the universe) unless you want to import a different understanding of the words "purpose" and "meaning" altogether.

"It will matter to those who accomplish great things."

They will not exist when the universe is dead.

As for your views on theism, I personally don't find them accurate, but we aren't here to be convinced of theism (as I previously mentioned), so I don't think these details are a relevant matter.

"By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity."

If there were other fates for the universe that didn't result this way, would you be interested in avoiding this fate?

"It's more like you're saying that naturalism is just so boring, why don't we look into other alternatives? Not exactly compelling."

To be clear, I think naturalists should find their worldview's implications horrifying and infinitely empty in the worst way. Not boring.

I disagree. Following the contemporary evidence will empirically lead one to the fact that the heat death of the universe is a defensible theory and likely outcome. Knowledge of this future event should lead one to ask now "what are we working and striving towards that won't ultimately be lost?" It has palpable consequences for the present, since all of our hopes to leave behind a better future will become null and void ventures. So again, why "live well" or do this or do that?

I'm not sure I find your first paragraph relevant, since I am not talking about the objectivity of values on naturalism, but rather objective purpose. How is man-sourced purpose anything short of a self-imposed illusion?

"You paint your own view of what naturalism has to offer and then pull the Pascal of 'Well it doesn’t have as much to offer so it’s only logical'"

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.

"I created a story to show how anyone can create a story that creates ideal framing, so it is a bad argument."

But I don't think you succeeded in that, since the story you painted only reiterates my point: the naturalist would have no recourse, and praying with the religious friend would still seem to be a better option than the naturalist alternative of just dying.

"It can be done for anything especially if you necessitate the naturalist as someone saying 'We’re all gonna die, there’s no point in trying anything'"

Remember, the naturalist does in fact assert "we're all gonna die." I didn't make any statement about whether he would think to try and do anything about it, but I would hope he would do the following: seek to falsify naturalism.

Let's grant everything you say about theism for the time being- I don't think this changes much about the decision to sit with naturalism. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of theism. What I'm saying is, "why not keep looking anywhere else (including somewhere other than theism) than to sit contentedly on naturalism?"

"I fail to see how belief in an infinite afterlife doesn't completely diminish this finite life."

For what it's worth, theists have every reason to value this life, because our actions have eternal consequences and our lives have real objective value. On theism, this life is the setting stage for eternity and therefore is of infinite worth.

"The bounded time frame adds a sense of urgency to seeing what we can accomplish, both individually and collectively as a species."

Who will it matter to when the universe is cold, dark, and empty? 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.

To your first point: I can't see how any man-sourced purpose is real. What would separate it from a self-imposed illusion, much the same way that naturalists view religion as a self-imposed illusion?

To your second point: I don't think naturalism and theism are perfect negations of each other. Saying "you should seek to abandon naturalism" does not automatically imply theism. For example, one could seek to defend some kind of spiritual reincarnation that is absent God or religion. Tenability of that specific view aside, the argument is simply that naturalism isn't worth clinging to as many seem to.

In your re-imaged analogy, there simply is no life jacket on naturalism (as the worldview itself concludes), and therefore no reason to be doing any searching. According to the naturalist: we're gonna die, and that's the end! At least the religious friend offers a potential out, even if it were only an uncertain tiny chance.

I think you missed what I meant by utility. Here, I am referring to utility as a measure toward well-being. This is what I said in my post:

"Let "utility" refer to the usefulness of a given outcome toward a goal (in this case, your future well-being). Outcomes that increase one's future well-being are given positive utility, and outcomes that decrease one's future well-being are given negative utility."

As a Christian, I am quite at peace. I feel you have missed the point- this post is about the naturalist's outlook on its own terms, and the expressions therein are those of atheists that have told me as much. Not theists.

The point is that naturalists shouldn't be happy to die forever. They should be motivated to seek life and only discontentedly accept naturalism given its implications. Naturalism has nothing to offer that won't be lost eternally.

Remember, I'm not arguing what naturalists should look for, just that sitting down and accepting death shouldn't be appealing to anyone. It should motivate them to seek life. I only discuss theism as a possible alternative.

Now clearly you and I have different levels of confidence in the arguments presented by theists (I am a Christian). That's fine, though personally I don't find the comparison to fairies, etc to be similar at all given the philosophical arguments and robust intellectual tradition that theism has to offer vs fairies.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback.

I assert that the fate foretold on naturalism is as bad as a fiery hell. Right now, it would strip the adherent of objective purpose and meaning, condemn the adherent to everlasting nothingness as the universe grows towards eventual heat death, and deprive the adherent of any possible hope. This state, and it's future, are not just 0 (i.e. of neutral effect on well-being)- this is as bad as it gets. Pure deprivation and infinite loss.

"Why would merely believing in naturalism entail missing out on infinite utility, but not believing in non-naturalism?"

I'm saying that naturalism, on its own terms, indicates this to be the fate of all humans. If it turned out another way, that would be lucky to say the least, but I'm engaging naturalism on its implications.

"What do you mean when you call meaning illusory? Do you take "illusory" to mean "subjective", or "arbitrary", or something else?"

Sorry if I'm unclear. I mean that any sense of mind-independent purpose would only be the appearance of one. We wouldn't really be created for anything and our lives wouldn't really have some kind of in-built intent.

"P2 seems to be espousing an epistemic norm, specifically that whether a belief is warranted depends in part or in whole on the good/bad consequences it causes for the holder."

I could stand to reword it, but my intended meaning is simply that no one likes being infinitely unwell compared to infinitely well off. If anyone disagreed with that notion, I would find it contrarian, honestly.

Why would "living well" or "living effectively" matter if the universe is destined to heat death and utter destruction on naturalism? On naturalism, there is no objective purpose to life, and if I wanted to live a life where I waste my time doing absolutely nothing, I can't see why that would be objectionable or of any less value than one "lived effectively."

I acknowledge that naturalists don't make that claim, but I do. I myself have yet to see a compelling reason to believe there is any "purpose" for human life on naturalism, since naturalists deny there is any intent inherent in nature. Not unless we redefine purpose to mean something else. It would seem that any purpose we assign to mankind would be self-derived and therefore mind-dependent and therefore subjective by definition.

As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism, even if it is true that some theists believe in letting world disasters continue unabated. To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.

To the second point you make about unbelieving scientists, however: stopping the boat from sinking now only appears to delay the inevitable; after all, the universe will undergo heat death and total destruction in the future and all human progress will be wiped away forever. If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?

While I sense your disdain for the argument, I'm left wondering: do you take issue with a specific premise?

It is similar to Pascal's argument only insofar as it is a pragmatic approach. As I stated in the post, I am not looking to convince anyone of theism; rather, I am trying to convince people that naturalism has nothing to offer, on its own terms.

I recognize that atheists consider naturalism freeing, but I think this is shortsighted given the infinite nothing approaching that consumes everything you do. What is there to gain that won't ultimately be lost? To your last point: why does leaving the world a better place matter if the universe is destined for heat death, a cold, dark, empty, dead fate of utter destruction?