What's the meaning of life, even with God, any God, wouldn't it still be meaningless?

[PRmerger]

Annnd, here it is folks.

Example # 780708025870 of “Why Theists Read Atheist Posts and Respond Like This”

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

CuriousCat: * “I don’t care one bit if someone believes something that’s not true, as long as it makes her happy”.*

CuriousCat, not even 24 hours later: *“I tried to convince someone that what she believed isn’t true”.
*
Bye, CuriousCat.

I don’t dialogue with people who can’t get their ideologies straight.

Pick one, and then go with it.

Reminds me of a conversation with an anti-vaxxer:

Anti-vaxxer: “I believe we should let our children choose, when they’re old enough, if they want to be vaccinated”.

And then, not even 24 hours later: “I don’t think children can decide whether they should take their Amoxicillin for their ear infection”.

What the whut???

Clearly I am in conversation with someone who can say “A” and “Not-A” in the same breath without blinking an eye. That’s when I say Buh-bye to discourse.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, sorry. It doesn’t work like that.

Of course it does.

PW is not the one and only reason to believe in God.

And BW would not be the one and only reason to believe Elvis is alive.

You don’t make the bet if you have examined the evidence and then decided that Elvis lives.

Sorry, but that’s how PW ought to be taken. And that’s how BW will be taken.

“The Wager cannot—or should not—coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguments that seek to show that there is Something—or Someone—who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life”–Peter Kreeft peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, sorry. It doesn’t work like that. There’s no option to investigate. Pascal’s wager (and Bradski’s) are examples of probability theory, of which Pascal’s was a forerunner. So, as Blaise says, reason plays no part in this wager. You don’t make the bet if you have examined the evidence and then decided that Elvis lives. There would be no point in making the bet. Reason cannot make the decision, so you have to decide based on the potential outcomes. From pensee part III (revised version):

Elvis is alive, or Elvis is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

And as he notes, acting as if you believe will help. So if you find some difficulty in accepting that Elvis lives (and granted, that could be difficult for some people), then you need to listen to those who do believe and : ‘…follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed…’

So again, as Pascal himself says, you don’t make the wager on evidence, you make it on the probability of outcomes.

Any takers?

So, send me your proofs of Elvis’ existence and I’ll consider.

Evidence of people who have been willing to die for this truth rather than recant would be greatly persuasive.