Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true....
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Humanism...
are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc aside for now).
If theism is true...
... (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability with eternal personal consequences)...
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
On 4/7/2026 2:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
You are lying to yourself about this.-a There is a philosophical materialism, but it isn't supported by science.
-a You are anti science because you do not want to believe that the Bible is just plain wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.-a That is not due to the existence of philosophical materialism.-a It is due to what reality actually is.-a All science is, is the study of nature, and nature is not the creation described in the Bible.-a This was known at the beginning of Christianity, but Biblical creationists such as yourself have never been able to deal with that fact.-a Even creationists like Harran have not been able to deal honestly with that fact.
Science has never ruled out the existence of any god or gods.-a Why do you think so many well known scientists have been religious?
You are not anti evolution because of materialism, but because you can't deal with the fact that reality does not support your Biblical beliefs. The ID scam never supported your religious beliefs.-a There is only one nature for us to study, and the Top Six told you and the other IDiots that any valid ID science was never going to support your Biblical beliefs.-a The Top Six would not have failed you due to materialism.-a The failure was due to reality not being Biblical.--
Ron Okimoto
On 2026/04/07 1:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
No.
But if materialism is true....
There is no such belief: it is a word coined by idiot philosophers who
love to add "ism" where it does not belong just so that they have
something puerile and of no value at all to argue about. Even if the
concept actually existed, it would not be "True:" it would be "Correct."
Sane, rational, educated people do not use the word much: theists, on
the other hand, constantly use it as some kind of expletive.
The universe is made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic
elemental particles which are made out of subsubatomic elemental
particles which are made out of elemental field energy states that have reached an energy threshold above the bound / base state. There is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.
You are bitching about how reality is, which is silly.
... then your life is _only_ matter: a particular aggregation of matter
in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.rCY
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Damn shame that he is correct. Damn shame humanity only has humanity to
help and serve and protect humanity and everyone else. Oh, well. We damn well better get to work on that, as the gods have no interest in us.
Humanism...
... which was and still is groups of Christians who have concluded that
to serve humanity is to serve god, just as the Christian Testament has
Iesus stating: please look it up in the National Archives and Library of Congress...
, existentialism, nihilism etc
You added that as your idiotic, demonstrably false, opinions. Please let
the people, if any, who hold a position to state what it is: they do not need you to tell them what they have been convinced-a of.
are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For
brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc
aside for now).
The lack of evidence excludes the gods.
If theism is true...
Theism cannot be "true:" it can be "correct" or "incorrect."
... (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability with
eternal personal consequences)...
... including Hinduism, Islam, god's father Elyon and one of his sons Yahweh, Zeus, Poseidon, Artemis (who punished a hell of a lot of
humans), etc. There is no evidence for the gods existing, let alone that they give a shit about humans and their "morality." And stop the fuck threatening us in the name of your gods.
... then your life matters in additional ways. If, for example, your
life will continue in either conscious torment or in paradise...
Good bloody *GODS!* Do you even read what you write? Can you really not
see the asinine absurdity that you wrote?
"If your mother was a street walker trolley, she would have wheels. If
you believe otherwise, you will suffer eternal torment."
How is what I wrote any difference than what you wrote?
*SNIP!*
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Stop the fuck threatening people and claiming the gods want you to.
"Safe" from what? From who? And the NULL position does not require any defense. "I do not know" means someone does not know something. It is a
NULL position, and therefore is neither "true" nor "false."
On 2026/04/07 1:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
No.
But if materialism is true....
There is no such belief: it is a word coined by idiot philosophers who
love to add "ism" where it does not belong just so that they have
something puerile and of no value at all to argue about. Even if the
concept actually existed, it would not be "True:" it would be "Correct."
Sane, rational, educated people do not use the word much: theists, on
the other hand, constantly use it as some kind of expletive.
The universe is made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic
elemental particles which are made out of subsubatomic elemental
particles which are made out of elemental field energy states that have reached an energy threshold above the bound / base state. There is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.
You are bitching about how reality is, which is silly.
... then your life is _only_ matter: a particular aggregation of matter
in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.rCY
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Damn shame that he is correct. Damn shame humanity only has humanity to
help and serve and protect humanity and everyone else. Oh, well. We damn well better get to work on that, as the gods have no interest in us.
Humanism...
... which was and still is groups of Christians who have concluded that
to serve humanity is to serve god, just as the Christian Testament has
Iesus stating: please look it up in the National Archives and Library of Congress...
, existentialism, nihilism etc
You added that as your idiotic, demonstrably false, opinions. Please let
the people, if any, who hold a position to state what it is: they do not need you to tell them what they have been convinced-a of.
are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For
brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc
aside for now).
The lack of evidence excludes the gods.
If theism is true...
Theism cannot be "true:" it can be "correct" or "incorrect."
... (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability with
eternal personal consequences)...
... including Hinduism, Islam, god's father Elyon and one of his sons Yahweh, Zeus, Poseidon, Artemis (who punished a hell of a lot of
humans), etc. There is no evidence for the gods existing, let alone that they give a shit about humans and their "morality." And stop the fuck threatening us in the name of your gods.
... then your life matters in additional ways. If, for example, your
life will continue in either conscious torment or in paradise...
Good bloody *GODS!* Do you even read what you write? Can you really not
see the asinine absurdity that you wrote?
"If your mother was a street walker trolley, she would have wheels. If
you believe otherwise, you will suffer eternal torment."
How is what I wrote any difference than what you wrote?
*SNIP!*
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Stop the fuck threatening people and claiming the gods want you to.
"Safe" from what? From who? And the NULL position does not require any defense. "I do not know" means someone does not know something. It is a
NULL position, and therefore is neither "true" nor "false."
On 8/04/2026 6:04 am, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/07 1:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
No.
But if materialism is true....
There is no such belief: it is a word coined by idiot philosophers who
love to add "ism" where it does not belong just so that they have
something puerile and of no value at all to argue about. Even if the
concept actually existed, it would not be "True:" it would be "Correct."
Sane, rational, educated people do not use the word much: theists, on
the other hand, constantly use it as some kind of expletive.
The universe is made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic
elemental particles which are made out of subsubatomic elemental
particles which are made out of elemental field energy states that
have reached an energy threshold above the bound / base state. There
is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.
You are bitching about how reality is, which is silly.
... then your life is _only_ matter: a particular aggregation of
matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and
purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of
meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely
the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View
of Life)
Damn shame that he is correct. Damn shame humanity only has humanity
to help and serve and protect humanity and everyone else. Oh, well. We
damn well better get to work on that, as the gods have no interest in us.
Humanism...
... which was and still is groups of Christians who have concluded
that to serve humanity is to serve god, just as the Christian
Testament has Iesus stating: please look it up in the National
Archives and Library of Congress...
, existentialism, nihilism etc
You added that as your idiotic, demonstrably false, opinions. Please
let the people, if any, who hold a position to state what it is: they
do not need you to tell them what they have been convinced-a of.
are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For
brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc
aside for now).
The lack of evidence excludes the gods.
If theism is true...
Theism cannot be "true:" it can be "correct" or "incorrect."
... (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability
with eternal personal consequences)...
... including Hinduism, Islam, god's father Elyon and one of his sons
Yahweh, Zeus, Poseidon, Artemis (who punished a hell of a lot of
humans), etc. There is no evidence for the gods existing, let alone
that they give a shit about humans and their "morality." And stop the
fuck threatening us in the name of your gods.
... then your life matters in additional ways. If, for example, your
life will continue in either conscious torment or in paradise...
Good bloody *GODS!* Do you even read what you write? Can you really
not see the asinine absurdity that you wrote?
"If your mother was a street walker trolley, she would have wheels. If
you believe otherwise, you will suffer eternal torment."
How is what I wrote any difference than what you wrote?
*SNIP!*
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Stop the fuck threatening people and claiming the gods want you to.
"Safe" from what? From who? And the NULL position does not require any
defense. "I do not know" means someone does not know something. It is
a NULL position, and therefore is neither "true" nor "false."
And for the record, I note you failed to grasp and address my main
point. Less emotion and dogmatism and more rationality and logic please.
On 8/04/2026 6:04 am, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/07 1:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
No.
But if materialism is true....
There is no such belief: it is a word coined by idiot philosophers who
love to add "ism" where it does not belong just so that they have
something puerile and of no value at all to argue about. Even if the
concept actually existed, it would not be "True:" it would be "Correct."
Sane, rational, educated people do not use the word much: theists, on
the other hand, constantly use it as some kind of expletive.
The universe is made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic
elemental particles which are made out of subsubatomic elemental
particles which are made out of elemental field energy states that
have reached an energy threshold above the bound / base state. There
is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.
You are bitching about how reality is, which is silly.
... then your life is _only_ matter: a particular aggregation of
matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and
purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of
meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely
the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.rCY
(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Damn shame that he is correct. Damn shame humanity only has humanity
to help and serve and protect humanity and everyone else. Oh, well. We
damn well better get to work on that, as the gods have no interest in us.
Humanism...
... which was and still is groups of Christians who have concluded
that to serve humanity is to serve god, just as the Christian
Testament has Iesus stating: please look it up in the National
Archives and Library of Congress...
, existentialism, nihilism etc
You added that as your idiotic, demonstrably false, opinions. Please
let the people, if any, who hold a position to state what it is: they
do not need you to tell them what they have been convinced-a of.
are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For
brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc
aside for now).
The lack of evidence excludes the gods.
If theism is true...
Theism cannot be "true:" it can be "correct" or "incorrect."
... (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability
with eternal personal consequences)...
... including Hinduism, Islam, god's father Elyon and one of his sons
Yahweh, Zeus, Poseidon, Artemis (who punished a hell of a lot of
humans), etc. There is no evidence for the gods existing, let alone
that they give a shit about humans and their "morality." And stop the
fuck threatening us in the name of your gods.
... then your life matters in additional ways. If, for example, your
life will continue in either conscious torment or in paradise...
Good bloody *GODS!* Do you even read what you write? Can you really
not see the asinine absurdity that you wrote?
"If your mother was a street walker trolley, she would have wheels. If
you believe otherwise, you will suffer eternal torment."
How is what I wrote any difference than what you wrote?
*SNIP!*
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Stop the fuck threatening people and claiming the gods want you to.
"Safe" from what? From who? And the NULL position does not require any
defense. "I do not know" means someone does not know something. It is
a NULL position, and therefore is neither "true" nor "false."
And for the record, I note you failed to grasp and address my main
point. Less emotion and dogmatism and more rationality and logic please.
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor
any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties
we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil,
no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)
Humanism, existentialism, nihilism etc are different responses to a worldview that excludes God. (For brevity, I'll leave pantheism, deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc aside for now).
If theism is true (i.e. a version that includes individual moral accountability with eternal personal consequences) then your life
matters in additional ways. If, for example, your life will continue in either conscious torment or in paradise, then this life matters
infinitely more than is the case wit materialism.
I'm not proposing now to specifically debate this theologically, or
Pascal's Wager etc. Rather, I'm interested to tease out possible tacit
and flawed assumptions within materialism.
For argument, let's use an example I've posted here previously: if, say, after 1000 years of sustained OoL research, all proposed naturalistic hypotheses have been rejected by broad scientific consensus. You might interpret this as evidence for a designer (theism), or you might indefinitely take the position of "I don't know" (IDK). Either way, it
is evidence, not proof, and open to interpretation.
However, given the potential stakes with theism being true as noted
above, to be comfortable with IDK implies you are assuming that the probability of God is very low. For example, if you thought the
probability of God (in view the OoL hypothetical) was as little as 10%
or 1% or 0.1%, to ignore this option would be irrational given the
personal risk. Most people pay substantial insurance premiums to protect against risks with have much lower probability and severity.
The problem is, we cannot know the probability of God, and therefore we cannot assume a very low probability of God. In fact, the scientific evidence at the end of the 1000 years would have only increased the probability of God as the explanation.
Therefore, a fixed IDK position as described points to an a priori commitment to materialism, which is a metaphysical stance, not a
scientific one.
Note too that I'm not implying that anyone should consequently have a
bet each way and profess a token belief; nor am I suggesting that belief
in God is or should be dependent on science; nor that the question of
"which God then?" is easily resolved, etc.
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it was,
and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
On 7/04/2026 5:52 pm, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness,
love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent
properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View
of Life)
Humanism, existentialism, nihilism etc are different responses to a
worldview that excludes God. (For brevity, I'll leave pantheism,
deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc aside for now).
If theism is true (i.e. a version that includes individual moral
accountability with eternal personal consequences) then your life
matters in additional ways. If, for example, your life will continue
in either conscious torment or in paradise, then this life matters
infinitely more than is the case wit materialism.
I'm not proposing now to specifically debate this theologically, or
Pascal's Wager etc. Rather, I'm interested to tease out possible tacit
and flawed assumptions within materialism.
For argument, let's use an example I've posted here previously: if,
say, after 1000 years of sustained OoL research, all proposed
naturalistic hypotheses have been rejected by broad scientific
consensus. You might interpret this as evidence for a designer
(theism), or you might indefinitely take the position of "I don't
know" (IDK). Either way, it is evidence, not proof, and open to
interpretation.
However, given the potential stakes with theism being true as noted
above, to be comfortable with IDK implies you are assuming that the
probability of God is very low. For example, if you thought the
probability of God (in view the OoL hypothetical) was as little as 10%
or 1% or 0.1%, to ignore this option would be irrational given the
personal risk. Most people pay substantial insurance premiums to
protect against risks with have much lower probability and severity.
The problem is, we cannot know the probability of God, and therefore
we cannot assume a very low probability of God. In fact, the
scientific evidence at the end of the 1000 years would have only
increased the probability of God as the explanation.
Therefore, a fixed IDK position as described points to an a priori
commitment to materialism, which is a metaphysical stance, not a
scientific one.
Note too that I'm not implying that anyone should consequently have a
bet each way and profess a token belief; nor am I suggesting that
belief in God is or should be dependent on science; nor that the
question of "which God then?" is easily resolved, etc.
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Out of interest, I've subjected my own post to an AI critique. It seems reasonable. Does AI render TO obsolete in part?
_______
My argument centres on the indefinite "I don't know position".
ChatGPT:
Is it "decision-theoretically stable given asymmetric stakes"?
"Under uncertainty + potentially infinite stakes, remaining indifferent
may be irrational; need to consider decision theory arguments, including expected value, asymmetric risk, and probability vs consequence weighting."
_______
ChatGPT:
Your post is thoughtful, structured, and clearly aimed at pushing beyond superficial rCLscience vs religionrCY rhetoric. It succeeds in framing a decision-theoretic challenge rather than a purely evidential one. That
said, there are several philosophical vulnerabilities and rhetorical overextensions that a careful critic can exploit.
Below is a rigorous critique.
1. What your argument does well
(A) Correctly shifts the frame
You move from:
Is theism proven? raA to raA Is rCLIDKrCY rational under uncertainty + stakes?
ThatrCOs a legitimate move into:
decision theory
epistemic risk analysis
This is more sophisticated than standard apologetic arguments.
(B) Identifies a real tension
You highlight:
Low-probability + high-stakes events still matter (insurance analogy)
This is valid in many domains and forces interlocutors to confront:
practical rationality, not just belief justification
(C) Avoids some common pitfalls
You explicitly avoid:
crude PascalrCOs Wager
claiming scientific proof of God
This strengthens credibility.
2. Core weaknesses
(A) Equivocation on rCLmaterialismrCY and value
You argue:
If materialism is true, life is rCLonly matterrCYrCa meaning, justice, etc. are rCLmerelyrCY emergent.
This is rhetorically effective but philosophically weak.
Problem:
You smuggle in a normative downgrade via words like:
rCLonlyrCY
rCLmerelyrCY
But under most contemporary views:
Emergent rea insignificant
Physical rea meaningless
Many philosophers (including non-theists) hold:
robust moral realism or constructivism within a naturalistic framework Consequence:
A critic can respond:
You havenrCOt shown that meaning is undermined, only that it is grounded differently.
(B) Overstating the implications of theism
You claim:
If theism is truerCa life matters infinitely more.
This assumes:
eternal conscious existence
moral accountability
heaven/hell structure
Problem:
ThatrCOs not rCLtheismrCY broadlyrCoitrCOs a specific subset (roughly Abrahamic).
You acknowledge this briefly, but your argument depends heavily on it.
Vulnerability:
A critic can say:
Many theisms do not include:
eternal torment
personal afterlife
Therefore your expected-value argument collapses or fragments
(C) The key flaw: decision theory with undefined probabilities
Your central move:
If P(God) is even 0.1%, ignoring it is irrational given the stakes.
Problem 1: You cannot assign even a rough probability
You say:
rCLwe cannot know the probability of GodrCY
CorrectrCobut then:
You still rely on non-negligible probability
A critic can reply:
It could be 10rU+rU|rU# or effectively zero for practical purposes.
Problem 2: Infinite payoff problem
If outcomes are:
infinite reward / infinite punishment
Then standard expected value theory breaks down:
Any non-zero probability raA dominates all decisions
Leads to decision instability
This is a well-known issue in philosophy of religion.
Problem 3: Many-gods problem (major gap)
You briefly acknowledge rCLwhich God?rCY, but your argument depends on ignoring it.
If there are:
many mutually incompatible theisms
with different salvation conditions
Then:
Expected value becomes indeterminate or contradictory
This is the strongest objection to your argument.
(D) Mischaracterisation of the rCLIDKrCY position
You argue:
IDK implies assuming low probability of God
This is not necessarily true.
Alternative:
A person can hold:
epistemic agnosticism (no justified probability assignment)
combined with decision suspension
Or:
treat the question as underdetermined and non-actionable
Key point:
IDK is a belief state, not necessarily a decision policy.
You conflate the two.
(E) OoL hypothetical is doing hidden work
Your argument relies heavily on:
1000 years of failed origin-of-life research
Problems:
Speculative extreme
Not obviously relevant to current epistemic conditions
False inference
Failure of naturalistic hypotheses rea evidence for theism
Could imply:
unknown natural mechanism
conceptual error
limits of inquiry
Asymmetry
You treat failure of A as support for B
But B (theism) is not independently specified/testable
(F) Hidden assumption: rCLevidence increases probability of GodrCY
You state:
the scientific evidencerCa would have increased the probability of God
This is contestable.
A critic can argue:
It increases:
uncertainty, not
specific alternative hypotheses
Unless you show:
why design is the best explanation, not just a possible one
(G) Insurance analogy is incomplete
You compare belief to:
buying insurance
But insurance works because:
probabilities are estimable
outcomes are well-defined
actions are clear
In your case:
Probability: unknown
Outcome: undefined (which God?)
Action: unclear (what belief/practice?)
So the analogy breaks under scrutiny.
3. Strongest critique in one line
You are importing decision-theoretic reasoning into a domain where probabilities, outcomes, and actions are all underdeterminedrCoso the argument cannot function as intended.
4. How to strengthen your argument
If you wanted to make this more robust:
(A) Narrow the claim
Instead of:
rCLtheismrCY
Specify:
a particular model of theism
(B) Reframe IDK critique
Argue:
not that IDK is irrational
but that it is existentially unstable or incomplete
(C) Replace probability with plausibility structure
Instead of numeric probabilities:
argue that:
certain features (e.g. information, fine-tuning)
systematically favour theism
(D) Engage many-gods problem directly
You need at least:
a filtering principle
or hierarchy of hypotheses
(E) Soften the rCLmaterialism raA meaninglessnessrCY claim
Reframe as:
tension or grounding problem
not outright negation
5. Bottom line
Your post is:
conceptually interesting
strategically framed around risk
more sophisticated than typical forum arguments
But it is weakened by:
overextension on materialism
underdeveloped decision theory
insufficient handling of competing theisms
conflation of epistemic and practical rationality
Final concise verdict
The argument succeeds as a provocationrCoforcing reflection on epistemic riskrCobut does not yet establish that rCLIDKrCY is irrational, because its decision-theoretic core depends on undefined probabilities, ambiguous outcomes, and unresolved competing hypotheses.
On 7/04/2026 5:52 pm, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness,
love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent
properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View
of Life)
Humanism, existentialism, nihilism etc are different responses to a
worldview that excludes God. (For brevity, I'll leave pantheism,
deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc aside for now).
If theism is true (i.e. a version that includes individual moral
accountability with eternal personal consequences) then your life
matters in additional ways. If, for example, your life will continue
in either conscious torment or in paradise, then this life matters
infinitely more than is the case wit materialism.
I'm not proposing now to specifically debate this theologically, or
Pascal's Wager etc. Rather, I'm interested to tease out possible tacit
and flawed assumptions within materialism.
For argument, let's use an example I've posted here previously: if,
say, after 1000 years of sustained OoL research, all proposed
naturalistic hypotheses have been rejected by broad scientific
consensus. You might interpret this as evidence for a designer
(theism), or you might indefinitely take the position of "I don't
know" (IDK). Either way, it is evidence, not proof, and open to
interpretation.
However, given the potential stakes with theism being true as noted
above, to be comfortable with IDK implies you are assuming that the
probability of God is very low. For example, if you thought the
probability of God (in view the OoL hypothetical) was as little as 10%
or 1% or 0.1%, to ignore this option would be irrational given the
personal risk. Most people pay substantial insurance premiums to
protect against risks with have much lower probability and severity.
The problem is, we cannot know the probability of God, and therefore
we cannot assume a very low probability of God. In fact, the
scientific evidence at the end of the 1000 years would have only
increased the probability of God as the explanation.
Therefore, a fixed IDK position as described points to an a priori
commitment to materialism, which is a metaphysical stance, not a
scientific one.
Note too that I'm not implying that anyone should consequently have a
bet each way and profess a token belief; nor am I suggesting that
belief in God is or should be dependent on science; nor that the
question of "which God then?" is easily resolved, etc.
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Out of interest, I've subjected my own post to an AI critique. It seems reasonable. Does AI render TO obsolete in part?
_______
My argument centres on the indefinite "I don't know position".
ChatGPT:
Is it "decision-theoretically stable given asymmetric stakes"?
"Under uncertainty + potentially infinite stakes, remaining indifferent
may be irrational; need to consider decision theory arguments, including expected value, asymmetric risk, and probability vs consequence weighting."
_______
ChatGPT:
Your post is thoughtful, structured, and clearly aimed at pushing beyond superficial rCLscience vs religionrCY rhetoric. It succeeds in framing a decision-theoretic challenge rather than a purely evidential one. That
said, there are several philosophical vulnerabilities and rhetorical overextensions that a careful critic can exploit.
Below is a rigorous critique.
1. What your argument does well
(A) Correctly shifts the frame
You move from:
Is theism proven? raA to raA Is rCLIDKrCY rational under uncertainty + stakes?
ThatrCOs a legitimate move into:
decision theory
epistemic risk analysis
This is more sophisticated than standard apologetic arguments.
(B) Identifies a real tension
You highlight:
Low-probability + high-stakes events still matter (insurance analogy)
This is valid in many domains and forces interlocutors to confront:
practical rationality, not just belief justification
(C) Avoids some common pitfalls
You explicitly avoid:
crude PascalrCOs Wager
claiming scientific proof of God
This strengthens credibility.
2. Core weaknesses
(A) Equivocation on rCLmaterialismrCY and value
You argue:
If materialism is true, life is rCLonly matterrCYrCa meaning, justice, etc. are rCLmerelyrCY emergent.
This is rhetorically effective but philosophically weak.
Problem:
You smuggle in a normative downgrade via words like:
rCLonlyrCY
rCLmerelyrCY
But under most contemporary views:
Emergent rea insignificant
Physical rea meaningless
Many philosophers (including non-theists) hold:
robust moral realism or constructivism within a naturalistic framework Consequence:
A critic can respond:
You havenrCOt shown that meaning is undermined, only that it is grounded differently.
(B) Overstating the implications of theism
You claim:
If theism is truerCa life matters infinitely more.
This assumes:
eternal conscious existence
moral accountability
heaven/hell structure
Problem:
ThatrCOs not rCLtheismrCY broadlyrCoitrCOs a specific subset (roughly Abrahamic).
You acknowledge this briefly, but your argument depends heavily on it.
Vulnerability:
A critic can say:
Many theisms do not include:
eternal torment
personal afterlife
Therefore your expected-value argument collapses or fragments
(C) The key flaw: decision theory with undefined probabilities
Your central move:
If P(God) is even 0.1%, ignoring it is irrational given the stakes.
Problem 1: You cannot assign even a rough probability
You say:
rCLwe cannot know the probability of GodrCY
CorrectrCobut then:
You still rely on non-negligible probability
A critic can reply:
It could be 10rU+rU|rU# or effectively zero for practical purposes.
Problem 2: Infinite payoff problem
If outcomes are:
infinite reward / infinite punishment
Then standard expected value theory breaks down:
Any non-zero probability raA dominates all decisions
Leads to decision instability
This is a well-known issue in philosophy of religion.
Problem 3: Many-gods problem (major gap)
You briefly acknowledge rCLwhich God?rCY, but your argument depends on ignoring it.
If there are:
many mutually incompatible theisms
with different salvation conditions
Then:
Expected value becomes indeterminate or contradictory
This is the strongest objection to your argument.
(D) Mischaracterisation of the rCLIDKrCY position
You argue:
IDK implies assuming low probability of God
This is not necessarily true.
Alternative:
A person can hold:
epistemic agnosticism (no justified probability assignment)
combined with decision suspension
Or:
treat the question as underdetermined and non-actionable
Key point:
IDK is a belief state, not necessarily a decision policy.
You conflate the two.
(E) OoL hypothetical is doing hidden work
Your argument relies heavily on:
1000 years of failed origin-of-life research
Problems:
Speculative extreme
Not obviously relevant to current epistemic conditions
False inference
Failure of naturalistic hypotheses rea evidence for theism
Could imply:
unknown natural mechanism
conceptual error
limits of inquiry
Asymmetry
You treat failure of A as support for B
But B (theism) is not independently specified/testable
(F) Hidden assumption: rCLevidence increases probability of GodrCY
You state:
the scientific evidencerCa would have increased the probability of God
This is contestable.
A critic can argue:
It increases:
uncertainty, not
specific alternative hypotheses
Unless you show:
why design is the best explanation, not just a possible one
(G) Insurance analogy is incomplete
You compare belief to:
buying insurance
But insurance works because:
probabilities are estimable
outcomes are well-defined
actions are clear
In your case:
Probability: unknown
Outcome: undefined (which God?)
Action: unclear (what belief/practice?)
So the analogy breaks under scrutiny.
3. Strongest critique in one line
You are importing decision-theoretic reasoning into a domain where probabilities, outcomes, and actions are all underdeterminedrCoso the argument cannot function as intended.
4. How to strengthen your argument
If you wanted to make this more robust:
(A) Narrow the claim
Instead of:
rCLtheismrCY
Specify:
a particular model of theism
(B) Reframe IDK critique
Argue:
not that IDK is irrational
but that it is existentially unstable or incomplete
(C) Replace probability with plausibility structure
Instead of numeric probabilities:
argue that:
certain features (e.g. information, fine-tuning)
systematically favour theism
(D) Engage many-gods problem directly
You need at least:
a filtering principle
or hierarchy of hypotheses
(E) Soften the rCLmaterialism raA meaninglessnessrCY claim
Reframe as:
tension or grounding problem
not outright negation
5. Bottom line
Your post is:
conceptually interesting
strategically framed around risk
more sophisticated than typical forum arguments
But it is weakened by:
overextension on materialism
underdeveloped decision theory
insufficient handling of competing theisms
conflation of epistemic and practical rationality
Final concise verdict
The argument succeeds as a provocationrCoforcing reflection on epistemic riskrCobut does not yet establish that rCLIDKrCY is irrational, because its decision-theoretic core depends on undefined probabilities, ambiguous outcomes, and unresolved competing hypotheses.
On 2026/04/07 1:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
No.
But if materialism is true....
There is no such belief: it is a word coined by idiot philosophers who love to add "ism" where it does not belong just so that they have something puerile and of no value at all to argue about.
Even if the concept actually existed, it would not be "True:" it would be "Correct."
Sane, rational, educated people do not use the word much:
On 4/7/2026 10:44 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:52 pm, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others. >>>
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness,
love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent
properties or epiphenomena of meat machines:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely
the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference.rCY (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View
of Life)
Humanism, existentialism, nihilism etc are different responses to a
worldview that excludes God. (For brevity, I'll leave pantheism,
deism, panentheism, panpsychism etc aside for now).
If theism is true (i.e. a version that includes individual moral
accountability with eternal personal consequences) then your life
matters in additional ways. If, for example, your life will continue
in either conscious torment or in paradise, then this life matters
infinitely more than is the case wit materialism.
I'm not proposing now to specifically debate this theologically, or
Pascal's Wager etc. Rather, I'm interested to tease out possible
tacit and flawed assumptions within materialism.
For argument, let's use an example I've posted here previously: if,
say, after 1000 years of sustained OoL research, all proposed
naturalistic hypotheses have been rejected by broad scientific
consensus. You might interpret this as evidence for a designer
(theism), or you might indefinitely take the position of "I don't
know" (IDK). Either way, it is evidence, not proof, and open to
interpretation.
However, given the potential stakes with theism being true as noted
above, to be comfortable with IDK implies you are assuming that the
probability of God is very low. For example, if you thought the
probability of God (in view the OoL hypothetical) was as little as
10% or 1% or 0.1%, to ignore this option would be irrational given
the personal risk. Most people pay substantial insurance premiums to
protect against risks with have much lower probability and severity.
The problem is, we cannot know the probability of God, and therefore
we cannot assume a very low probability of God. In fact, the
scientific evidence at the end of the 1000 years would have only
increased the probability of God as the explanation.
Therefore, a fixed IDK position as described points to an a priori
commitment to materialism, which is a metaphysical stance, not a
scientific one.
Note too that I'm not implying that anyone should consequently have a
bet each way and profess a token belief; nor am I suggesting that
belief in God is or should be dependent on science; nor that the
question of "which God then?" is easily resolved, etc.
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Out of interest, I've subjected my own post to an AI critique. It
seems reasonable. Does AI render TO obsolete in part?
_______
My argument centres on the indefinite "I don't know position".
It is based on GIGO.-a You refuse to understand what the situation
actually is.-a ChatGPT just accepts the lies and obfuscation of the
Biblical creationists.-a What you need to try to get it to tell you is
why you have to depend on GIGO to produce your "I don't know" position.
You lie to yourself about what you should know by now.-a You know enough
to understand that you do not want your origin of life gap filled by a
non Biblical designer.-a You have known for decades how stupid your evolution denial is, but that has never mattered.-a However life came to
be on this planet whether it evolved or not is not Biblical.-a Just try
to fit what you understand about life on earth with what you want to believe.
Ron Okimoto
ChatGPT:
Is it "decision-theoretically stable given asymmetric stakes"?
"Under uncertainty + potentially infinite stakes, remaining
indifferent may be irrational; need to consider decision theory
arguments, including expected value, asymmetric risk, and probability
vs consequence weighting."
_______
ChatGPT:
Your post is thoughtful, structured, and clearly aimed at pushing
beyond superficial rCLscience vs religionrCY rhetoric. It succeeds in
framing a decision-theoretic challenge rather than a purely evidential
one. That said, there are several philosophical vulnerabilities and
rhetorical overextensions that a careful critic can exploit.
Below is a rigorous critique.
1. What your argument does well
(A) Correctly shifts the frame
You move from:
Is theism proven? raA to raA Is rCLIDKrCY rational under uncertainty + stakes?
ThatrCOs a legitimate move into:
decision theory
epistemic risk analysis
This is more sophisticated than standard apologetic arguments.
(B) Identifies a real tension
You highlight:
Low-probability + high-stakes events still matter (insurance analogy)
This is valid in many domains and forces interlocutors to confront:
practical rationality, not just belief justification
(C) Avoids some common pitfalls
You explicitly avoid:
crude PascalrCOs Wager
claiming scientific proof of God
This strengthens credibility.
2. Core weaknesses
(A) Equivocation on rCLmaterialismrCY and value
You argue:
If materialism is true, life is rCLonly matterrCYrCa meaning, justice, etc. >> are rCLmerelyrCY emergent.
This is rhetorically effective but philosophically weak.
Problem:
You smuggle in a normative downgrade via words like:
rCLonlyrCY
rCLmerelyrCY
But under most contemporary views:
Emergent rea insignificant
Physical rea meaningless
Many philosophers (including non-theists) hold:
robust moral realism or constructivism within a naturalistic framework
Consequence:
A critic can respond:
You havenrCOt shown that meaning is undermined, only that it is grounded
differently.
(B) Overstating the implications of theism
You claim:
If theism is truerCa life matters infinitely more.
This assumes:
eternal conscious existence
moral accountability
heaven/hell structure
Problem:
ThatrCOs not rCLtheismrCY broadlyrCoitrCOs a specific subset (roughly Abrahamic).
You acknowledge this briefly, but your argument depends heavily on it.
Vulnerability:
A critic can say:
Many theisms do not include:
eternal torment
personal afterlife
Therefore your expected-value argument collapses or fragments
(C) The key flaw: decision theory with undefined probabilities
Your central move:
If P(God) is even 0.1%, ignoring it is irrational given the stakes.
Problem 1: You cannot assign even a rough probability
You say:
rCLwe cannot know the probability of GodrCY
CorrectrCobut then:
You still rely on non-negligible probability
A critic can reply:
It could be 10rU+rU|rU# or effectively zero for practical purposes.
Problem 2: Infinite payoff problem
If outcomes are:
infinite reward / infinite punishment
Then standard expected value theory breaks down:
Any non-zero probability raA dominates all decisions
Leads to decision instability
This is a well-known issue in philosophy of religion.
Problem 3: Many-gods problem (major gap)
You briefly acknowledge rCLwhich God?rCY, but your argument depends on
ignoring it.
If there are:
many mutually incompatible theisms
with different salvation conditions
Then:
Expected value becomes indeterminate or contradictory
This is the strongest objection to your argument.
(D) Mischaracterisation of the rCLIDKrCY position
You argue:
IDK implies assuming low probability of God
This is not necessarily true.
Alternative:
A person can hold:
epistemic agnosticism (no justified probability assignment)
combined with decision suspension
Or:
treat the question as underdetermined and non-actionable
Key point:
IDK is a belief state, not necessarily a decision policy.
You conflate the two.
(E) OoL hypothetical is doing hidden work
Your argument relies heavily on:
1000 years of failed origin-of-life research
Problems:
Speculative extreme
Not obviously relevant to current epistemic conditions
False inference
Failure of naturalistic hypotheses rea evidence for theism
Could imply:
unknown natural mechanism
conceptual error
limits of inquiry
Asymmetry
You treat failure of A as support for B
But B (theism) is not independently specified/testable
(F) Hidden assumption: rCLevidence increases probability of GodrCY
You state:
the scientific evidencerCa would have increased the probability of God
This is contestable.
A critic can argue:
It increases:
uncertainty, not
specific alternative hypotheses
Unless you show:
why design is the best explanation, not just a possible one
(G) Insurance analogy is incomplete
You compare belief to:
buying insurance
But insurance works because:
probabilities are estimable
outcomes are well-defined
actions are clear
In your case:
Probability: unknown
Outcome: undefined (which God?)
Action: unclear (what belief/practice?)
So the analogy breaks under scrutiny.
3. Strongest critique in one line
You are importing decision-theoretic reasoning into a domain where
probabilities, outcomes, and actions are all underdeterminedrCoso the
argument cannot function as intended.
4. How to strengthen your argument
If you wanted to make this more robust:
(A) Narrow the claim
Instead of:
rCLtheismrCY
Specify:
a particular model of theism
(B) Reframe IDK critique
Argue:
not that IDK is irrational
but that it is existentially unstable or incomplete
(C) Replace probability with plausibility structure
Instead of numeric probabilities:
argue that:
certain features (e.g. information, fine-tuning)
systematically favour theism
(D) Engage many-gods problem directly
You need at least:
a filtering principle
or hierarchy of hypotheses
(E) Soften the rCLmaterialism raA meaninglessnessrCY claim
Reframe as:
tension or grounding problem
not outright negation
5. Bottom line
Your post is:
conceptually interesting
strategically framed around risk
more sophisticated than typical forum arguments
But it is weakened by:
overextension on materialism
underdeveloped decision theory
insufficient handling of competing theisms
conflation of epistemic and practical rationality
Final concise verdict
The argument succeeds as a provocationrCoforcing reflection on epistemic
riskrCobut does not yet establish that rCLIDKrCY is irrational, because its >> decision-theoretic core depends on undefined probabilities, ambiguous
outcomes, and unresolved competing hypotheses.
What's your point? Different LLMs give different output?
Thoughtful use of AI to complement discussion like this I think should/--
will become best-practice, which is quite different to "misguided faith".
I'm interested in fair-minded critique and debate. Hence my posting an
AI assessment of my original post. ShyDavid's response, for example, is
the antithesis of fair-minded or even coherent, which AI pointedly identified.
On 10/04/2026 02:27, MarkE wrote:
What's your point? Different LLMs give different output?
That taking advantage of the built in sycophancy of ChatBots to use them
as sock puppets is not the flex you think it is.
Thoughtful use of AI to complement discussion like this I think
should/ will become best-practice, which is quite different to
"misguided faith".
I'm interested in fair-minded critique and debate. Hence my posting an
AI assessment of my original post. ShyDavid's response, for example,
is the antithesis of fair-minded or even coherent, which AI pointedly
identified.
On 11/04/2026 3:54 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/04/2026 02:27, MarkE wrote:
What's your point? Different LLMs give different output?
That taking advantage of the built in sycophancy of ChatBots to use
them as sock puppets is not the flex you think it is.
My ChatGPT output was a bit more sympathetic, granted, but I shared it because it nevertheless highlighted flaws and weaknesses in my arguments.
However, what AI also did was recognise and tease out the core of my proposal, namely thinking around decision theory and epistemic risk analysis, and its application to the "I don't know position".
No-one here has done that.
Thoughtful use of AI to complement discussion like this I think
should/ will become best-practice, which is quite different to
"misguided faith".
I'm interested in fair-minded critique and debate. Hence my posting
an AI assessment of my original post. ShyDavid's response, for
example, is the antithesis of fair-minded or even coherent, which AI
pointedly identified.
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness, love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent properties or epiphenomena of meat machines: [big snip]
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it was,
and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
On 4/7/26 12:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others.
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness,
love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent
properties or epiphenomena of meat machines: [big snip]
If spiritualism is true, it still may be true that your life is only matter.-a Maybe the spirit is somewhere else.
More likely, and worse, it may be that the spirit is immoral, and that
your life really does matter, but in a purely negative way.
But more to the point, you misuse the word "only." Matter can and does matter (even without the pun (although puns matter, too)). Epiphenomena matter. Consciousness, love, justice, etc. don't magically go away just because they are formed from smaller parts. In fact, the best way to convince me that they *don't* matter is to tell me that they are
governed in their entirety by some spirit that cannot be demonstrated, defined, or interacted with in any way.
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Nobody claims that "I don't know" is safe. But it is a heck of a lot
safer than "Lacking any knowledge on the subject, I'm going to make something up."
On 13/04/2026 12:48 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/7/26 12:52 AM, MarkE wrote:
Your life matters - at least for a short while, to you and a few others. >>>
But if materialism is true, then your life is _only_ matter: a
particular aggregation of matter in a wisp of time. Consciousness,
love, justice, meaning and purpose are merely transient emergent
properties or epiphenomena of meat machines: [big snip]
If spiritualism is true, it still may be true that your life is only
matter.-a Maybe the spirit is somewhere else.
More likely, and worse, it may be that the spirit is immoral, and that
your life really does matter, but in a purely negative way.
But more to the point, you misuse the word "only." Matter can and does
matter (even without the pun (although puns matter, too)).
Epiphenomena matter. Consciousness, love, justice, etc. don't
magically go away just because they are formed from smaller parts. In
fact, the best way to convince me that they *don't* matter is to tell
me that they are governed in their entirety by some spirit that cannot
be demonstrated, defined, or interacted with in any way.
How do regard Dawkins's "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference"?
Do you agree with this, or how would you express your position? Atheism
(no God) raA risk of nihilism raA existentialist response (create meaning) raA
humanism (institutionalise and moralise that meaning).
My point is simply that "I don't know" may not be the indefinitely
safe (personally) and defensible (rationally) position you thought it
was, and in some cases have been asserting here as such.
Nobody claims that "I don't know" is safe. But it is a heck of a lot
safer than "Lacking any knowledge on the subject, I'm going to make
something up."
Do you believe that is an accurate characterisation of all religious
belief; of any belief in God?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:27:39 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
116 files (247M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,444 |