Addressing the first set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that P5 becomes a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not naturalism is true, hence whether or not I might get infinite utility, is independent of what I believe. So what reason do I have to disprove or abandon my belief?"

This gets back to P2: a worldview that entails infinite positive utility is preferable to a worldview that entails losing out on that (reworded for clarity and to entertain the changes you suggested). If it made little difference, the motivation would be weak, but given the magnitude of loss on naturalism, it seems like that would be a good reason to hope it's not true and therefore good reason to seek to disprove it. That is, if you desire to be well and live (a fair assumption for most people).

In light of the boat analogy: even if you are convinced you are likely going to die, fighting to live is preferable to doing nothing because the possibility of living (despite being small) is preferable to dying. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts in terms of this analogy, since this is where my intuition for this idea started.

To the second set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that they may not both be true for someone. In fact, I'm quite sure they're false for someone familiar with the relevant philosophy on how to live a virtuous and happy life under naturalism."

I know many naturalists think this way on the basis of philosophical reasoning, but (no offense) to me it seems like a sort of coping mechanism in the face of an execution date, the very thing naturalists often accuse theists of (especially the suggestion of therapy). This is why I've tried to argue throughout the comment section that naturalism offers only a objectively purposeless, meaningless, and altogether hopeless outlook i.e. I reject that there is a way to live happily on naturalism when it's taken to it's full conclusions (except by self-delusion or something).

To be clear, dying in the boat analogy is not just death, but perma-death. Naturalists believe this is what will happen to them- why would they be looking for a life jacket (e.g. some way to survive perma-death) unless they're taking my advice and seeking to disprove what naturalism entails? I think that's what they should do, but it's not what many naturalists who are content with their naturalism actually do. Instead, they cling to their naturalism.

As for your contrast story, I don't see the contrast, and I already engaged it in my last comment. Is there something there that you think I haven't yet engaged with?

I think it will be helpful to try and clarify a few things; perhaps I was misunderstanding you or was otherwise not clear. I am saying naturalism entails a number of conclusions that are infinitely bad if the worldview is in fact true. Someone who believes naturalism will thus be tethered to a worldview that should appropriately cause someone existential dread and dissatisfaction. This should motivate them to try and disprove naturalism. I don't think naturalism is infinitely psychologically harmful, to be clear.

"I wonder how you define well-being"

Just in the ordinary sense of "happy, content, healthy, etc."

"what you think an infinite amount of well-being would be like, if not well-being with finite positive magnitude and infinite duration (hence the notion of an afterlife)"

While I do think a theistic worldview is most appropriate, there are other non-theistic worldviews that could conceivably allow for infinite well-being e.g. some forms of spiritualism or reincarnation.

"At best your argument (rephrased accordingly) would be persuasive to those with serious existential worries, which could be treated with therapy or consulting the vast philosophical literature written by naturalists about said worries."

Right, I suppose you could say I am trying to inspire serious existential worries for the naturalist, since their worldview appears to entail serious consequences when taken to its conclusions.

Sidenote: thanks for interacting with the content of the post and being pleasant.

"based on your choice of words I'd guess you're generally indifferent to (or in denial of) most modern problems, "burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami" as it were."

You assume wrong. I am neither indifferent to nor in denial of such things.

"The point is your claim that "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." doesn't account for the willfull ignorance people have for the impersonal and distant."

I agree that naturalists are often ignorant of the implications of their worldview. Again, that's why I'm making this argument- I think naturalists should follow their worldview to its conclusions and take a long hard look at whether that's something they want to sit on or perhaps instead endeavor to disprove.

"And your claim that "positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises" isn't an argument to abandon Naturalism, it's just a statement of fact"

I agree it's a statement of fact, on naturalism (i.e. if that worldview is held to be true). And this conclusion should compel people to be dissatisfied with naturalism, not cling to it proudly.

You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding logical and metaphysical possibility, even at one point saying,

"also, the way you used "metaphysical possibility" is just meaningless word-babble in the context of this discussion. If anything you've just shown that you don't understand metaphysics or what it means for something to be metaphysically possible"

Your own words apply to you far more than they do to me. Let's review the meaning of these terms, since it seems like you need it:

X is strictly logically possible if, and only if, X is consistent with the laws of logic.

X is broadly logically possible (i.e. metaphysically possible) if, and only if, X is true in at least one possible world.

Now let's look at the statements you made below:

"Someone stating, a personal creator God exists and has given us an objective purpose. Is there anything contradictory in that statement which could cause it not to be true? If not (and I personally think there's not) then it's possibly true. If it's possibly true then theism allows for objective meaning."

The statement is strictly logically possible, because it doesn't appear to contradict itself. But it is not shown to be metaphysically possible, since there is no reason given here to think it's actually possible in a given world and compatible with reality. That would take some development to show (which theists would have no problem doing) and is not just a given. Now lets look at the other statement:

"Someone stating: The main activity of lions is hunting so it seems like their objective purpose is to hunt, and maybe nature has imbued them with this purpose to balance itself or the ecosystem. Anything contradictory there? Nope, so it could be true."

I agree they are similar, which is why I would say the exact same thing: while not self-contradictory on its face, you yourself have not developed any reason to think this is true in any possible world. You seem to take it that it's a foregone conclusion and compatible with reality, while I've expressed there seems to be good reasons to think that's not clear. To show that, you would need to do that which you earlier said you are a self-declared agnostic about and say you don't care to do, which is to go about proving the claim.

"(and I already pointed to naturalistic or close to naturalistic philosophies which do)"

Yes, this is why I said you've pointed to others who endeavor to show this, but you yourself have not shown this, nor do you say you care to.

"just as "you haven't shown me how God could give people objective meaning" would fail as an argument for theism being antithetical toward objective meaning."

While it wouldn't be an argument proper, it would be a completely reasonable request to ask the theist to defend the metaphysical possibility of his statement. Can the statement "God is a the foundation for objective purpose and meaning" be a true description of reality in at least one possible world? Let the theist develop and defend that! It's certainly not a given and neither is your statement.

"But yet you fail to understand, which means you're either extremely obtuse or not very honest with yourself."

Option C: you don't understand fully what you're talking about.

"Your claim was there's no foundation, even though there's objective physical stuff to point to while all you have to bring to the table is philosophical speculations like Kalam which has been debunked a million times apparently."

The existence of trees, bees, and rocks does little to develop or prove your point. Meanwhile your New Atheist vibes here about the Kalam being "debunked a million times!" just serves to display your ignorance of matters in philosophy of religion. Feel free to think what you want about the Kalam (irrelevant to the post), but at least the theist is developing an argument.

"Your claim was that it was (metaphysically) impossible for the prime minister to be a prime number. But yet the Pythagoreans as well as the Neo-Platonists, Kabbalists and other philosophies or mystical strands derived from or related to monism prove you wrong. They could be correct and the basic foundation of reality and everything which exists could be numbers."

If you want to say, as monism implies, that cats and hats, good and evil, or prime ministers and prime numbers are indistinguishable, then by all means feel free to take up a defense for it. It will especially be interesting, since your last statement is completely incompatible with naturalism, as naturalism doesn't allow for the actual independent existence of non-physical abstract objects like numbers. I see no reason to think "they could be correct."

"That just makes your whole boat hypothetical meaningless then, because the only ones who are not going for the life jacket are the depressed nihilists who see no meaning or the delusional theists who think some supernatural force is going to save them. Everyone else will be going for the life jacket and the result will be the same, regardless of the existence of or their belief in objective meaning or not."

This just misunderstands the boat analogy on multiple levels. For one, theists are analogical to the ones looking for a life jacket (i.e. survival past death), not sitting stagnant like the naturalist. Second, I said evaluating the outcomes of people's actions in light of the objectivity of purpose is trivial to whether purpose is actually objective or not. That is, what people do has no bearing on whether purpose is objective or not. I didn't the say the outcomes are the same, that naturalism is actually the case, or that the results of people's actions overall are trivial. The problem is that you're conflating the boat discussion with the objective purpose discussion- they are distinct.

"But I agree. Pascal's boat did sound like trivial drivel, at least the way you put it."

That's because it's clear that you misunderstand a lot in this conversation, despite all your condescension.

"There's nothing there which indicates I have a beef with your God."

Except that you are insistent on attacking the veracity of theism (which isn't on the table, as I have said a number of times) and your comments ooze contempt for theism. You should stick to the topic and focus on making a defense for your own claims.

I'm sorry it appears that way, since I've been trying to respond with intention to each of the points in the conversation. I would invite you to reassess the thread as the post winds down to see the development of these points.

"As I've shown it would provide a better foundation as we have good evidence for nature existing, but yet you opt for (as far as we know) made up stuff."

Why do you keep saying you've "shown" something? You've only asserted your point and called it logically possible, which is just to say it does not contradict itself. That's not an argument much less a demonstration of anything. "Nature existing" certainly doesn't make an obvious connection to objectivity of purpose/meaning. I appreciate that you've added references to other people's arguments, but again this is a far cry from showing something to be true.

"You did not, as monism is a thing."

Surely you're not using monism as a justification to conflate logical possibility and metaphysical possibility...

"If something is logically possible it's logically possible, again. This is not something you can argue around."

Haha I'm not trying to get around it! I don't think that objective purpose on naturalism is logically impossible- I'm saying there's no good reason given to think it's actual. If you want to put a period on the discussion with links for me to go follow up on, that's all good and well. Otherwise, this is just going to require some arguments to be developed and discussed.

"It makes no difference to the result is what I said. None of what you said makes any difference to the result of our actions, in this world."

Whether the result of our actions are the same or not is trivial to me. If human life has objective purpose, then that has numerous profound implications for humanity that would make the difference between a listless, meaningless life and one that is isn't.

"Just like your God again but yet you believe in him."

This isn't the thread for your beef with God. The fact that you keep attacking what I have repeatedly noted is irrelevant gives me the impression that you're intentionally trying to divert the discussion- now why would someone do that? 🤔

To your point: "A supernatural God for which we have absolutely no evidence (and for which by the way you also show yourself reluctant to give a good argument for) would be a much worse predictor of purpose existing in the universe compared to (if there is something like an objective purpose) the idea of it being baked into nature, through genes or determinism or you know, objective stuff in reality we have good evidence for."

This, again, is just not important to the argument. Even if I granted that nature was a better foundation for objective purpose than God (I don't), it wouldn't change the argument that naturalism doesn't itself provide a good foundation for objective purpose. I think there are plenty of good arguments for God's existence (e.g. arguments from natural theology like the Kalam), but it's just not relevant.

"It does, we just established that and your attempts at refuting it have failed so far."

We most certainly did not establish that. In fact, I just finished pointing out how you are conflating logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

"I'm pretty agnostic on whether there is such a thing as objective purpose so I also don't feel very strongly about showing that it exists."

You've been arguing with me for a fair chunk of time about this very issue. It's odd to me that you say this now.

"it's kind of irrelevant because whether meaning is objective or subjective as long as people find a good purpose which isn't based on (theistic or not) harmful delusion the result is going to be the same"

The result is not the same at all. If meaning/purpose is objective (i.e. human-independent), then this brings up all sorts of questions related to the source- who or what assigns meaning to us? Is there a telos for the universe, value in one's actions or inactions, etc? and so forth. Not to mention it would give us reason to think naturalism is false, since it seems to be incompatible on a worldview where we are just biological accidents of natural forces.

"You can look at the paper I posted in this thread or the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius Meditations chapter 5 iirc) or the Daoists (Wu Wei) etc. if you're looking for good arguments of objective purpose existing in nature"

I can always appreciate a good reference. Count me interested.

"But in the end your claim that naturalism requires the view that objective purpose doesn't exist is still false, and that's all I wanted to show."

While you've referred me to some arguments elsewhere, you haven't shown anything in particular. I still very much think that naturalism precludes objective purpose/meaning, since things existing is just a brute fact on naturalism- it doesn't seem there's any rhyme or reason why they exist.

For one, it's not a monologue, as we've been having an exchange of words. Personally, my life is rich in meaning because it is rooted in the One who imbues meaning and creates with purpose. And I think the fact that you so clearly believe there is meaning to be had even when your worldview denies the objective reality of such things is a sign of naturalism's weakness. Your decision to turn away from or towards theism is entirely your own.

Ok, feel free to pity me, but I think you're missing the point: I am happily a theist. I don't believe the world is meaningless, purposeless, etc personally. It is the naturalist that is pitiful, because when he is led to the conclusions of his worldview, he is left without hope, meaning, or purpose, except that which he can delude himself into having subjectively.

"People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future."

I mean, I think they should since it has implications for every action they take now e.g. their actions are null and void in the face of heat death, among other things- that matters now. But I don't think this is all that important to discuss, because it's another thing altogether to talk about what is the case. People think they're leaving their mark, making a difference, etc. but are in fact only constructing what is to be destroyed. Adding time in between doesn't change that and only adds the illusion of lasting effect. 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 wiped of its contents.

"2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them."

This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it. This example is less touching than it is depressing, which is more or less my point.

"What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces? If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar."

Frankly, apples and oranges. People do find similarities and come to similar conclusions about meaning all the time. A more analogous set of questions would be: "Is that duck forwards or broadside?" or "How red is that dress to you?" which involves the subjective element of the observer superimposed on the objective reality. To your second point, that's plainly false, as people come to different conclusions about objective matters all the time. The students in a calculus class have different answers to the same math question, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objectively correct answer. Misperception of an objective thing doesn't make it not objective.

Sidenote: This last part of the discussion on meaning is interesting and all, but it's really not relevant to the main discussion, since I agree that on naturalism, there is no reason why meaning would be objective.

This argument only posits theism as an example of a potential alternative and really doesn't care about the truth or falsity of theism. Like I said, I'll just refer you elsewhere in this thread because you just don't seem to understand:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/100zfxn/atheistic_naturalism_does_not_offer_any_longterm/j2lln47/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

Not the same premises or conclusion, but you still think they're the same argument. Haha ok. I'll just refer you over to the other more interesting comment thread I had on this.

Wow that just makes it all the more clear. Lesson time:

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/Christianity.

My argument makes no such conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entails infinite loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism, and only discontentedly accept it.

So its like I said: the arguments are not the same. The conclusions are not the same. It is only similar insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such.

"Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons."

I'm just relating my experience. Why you feel so sensitive as to interpret what I said here as an argument is beyond me.

"Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify."

Actually I have a whole post explaining my reasoning. If you're still confused, feel free to ask for clarification like an honest commenter in good faith discussion would.

"You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning."

I literally said that nowhere. And my argument doesn't rely at all on my theism.

"Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant"

Wrong word and wrong statement. The word is "existentially." Naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview.

"meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others."

I don't believe that's true, but it's not really relevant since I am trying to make the same point: on naturalism, meaning is not objective.

"I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions."

That's the definition of a vague and unspecified rebuttal if I've ever heard one, folks.

"I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies"

This is almost humorous at this point, since I made my motivations quite clear already: I am a Christian who is here to attack naturalism and see how the philosophy community on reddit responds to an argument I like to use. So far, I have found the experience invigorating and confirming of some thoughts of mine.

"As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate."

Ok, feel free to get specific and discuss something of substance whenever you'd like.

You can speculate on his motivation all day, but its just a flat misunderstanding of either my argument or pascals wager to say they're the same. If you think otherwise, please explain how they're the same argument.

"You are specifically framing naturalism as pessimistic nihilism when it isn’t."

I haven't said any such thing, and I haven't said anything about the objectivity of values.

"your story is just as valid as mine despite them coming to opposite conclusions [...] I don’t think you can seriously say in good faith (pun intended) that praying is more pragmatic than taking actionable steps to survive.

But they don't have opposite conclusions, as I already explained: the naturalist wouldn't be searching for a life jacket because the naturalist already doesn't believe there is such thing as a life jacket (life beyond death or something). And oh, I very much do believe praying for your life would be a better option that doing nothing. Doing nothing results in death. Meanwhile, if there remains even the tiniest honest uncertainty about naturalism, praying might possibly result in salvation from your circumstance.

"I am very glad that countries didn’t wait for their god to finally declare slavery to be immoral after thousands of years."

This seems like a debate you want to have, but its not one that's relevant to the post. Perhaps another time.

"People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent."

People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.

"And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either."

Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

"By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't."

Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.

Is it logically possible that the prime minister is a prime number? Yes. Is it metaphysically possible (i.e. is it broadly logically possible?) No. Does it match reality? No. Logical possibility doesn't mean you're correct. Naturalism leaves no space for objective meaning and purpose and your reluctance to give a good argument for it is telling.

The top comment thought the same thing about it being a rerun of pascals wager and later retracted that thought. I would recommend you to that thread, since I address in my post that this is a distinct argument.

"We weren't talking about "objective purpose," we were talking about finding meaning. And I'd argue you're not finding purpose, you're just outsourcing the job of finding purpose to god."

Sure, that's why I included meaning in the statement. Purpose is related, but not the point. I don't think there's anything objectionable about God being the ground of meaning and purpose if he's the one created things with intended purposes and imbuing reality with intentional meaning. Whether I think this or whether you agree is not entirely relevant though.

"That was not a matter of if I could I would, it was stated more so that if it had better explanatory power, I would be compelled to look into it."

Again, are you certain that there categorically are no non-naturalist views that satisfy the above? To claim "yes" to that statement would be like an admission of being omniscient.

In my own experience, every atheist convert to Christianity I met has expressed to me the certainty with which they held their beliefs only to feel ashamed of that certainty upon interacting more deeply with the intellectual tradition of the faith and changing their mind. This is also, at times, true in the reverse, and bolsters the point that we shouldn't rest too happily on certainty, especially when there's nothing to be happy about on naturalism.

"I'm still not going to choose fantasy over reality just because it sounds nice."

No one is asking you to choose something you have no justification to believe in. I'm saying you have every motivation to investigate it in light of the fact that naturalism has nothing to offer that won't be taken away. There's just no good reason to cling to naturalism; it's like being the man on the boat that just decides to sit down and die- is that your preferred option in that scenario?

Can you give me an example of where you think I am rewording his responses?

It's precisely because you did not read further that you thought it was pascal's wager. I address this in the latter half of the post.

Why do you think I'm making the post? My aim is to spur a subset of people (naturalists/atheists) to reconsider and take in the big picture. Seems to have had an effect on atheists I know personally.

Frankly, I don't understand your last point. It doesn't look like you're aiming to be helpful or charitable though, so I guess that's disappointing.

To your point: "People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory."

Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?

"I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live."

I think the coming erasure of all things, especially at the end of one's immediate life, makes the whole endeavor worthless. People can try and supply themselves with self-imposed reasons to live, but the universe doesn't care on naturalism, and that's no better than religion being considered a self-imposed reason to live.

"Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life."

Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?

"for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it."

Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.