[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Well, I gave this an honest listen. I downloaded and listened to both parts, and as should surprise no one, I was greatly unaffected.

Well, I think it’s great that you listened. You’re a fair man, Brian. Actually, these statements are really honest. I mean really honest. It's appreciated.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Law can be debated endlessly. As I previously stated and argued, laws can be based on something other than God. Those who believe in God disagree. It is as simple as that and you can make no compromises to that.

It actually isn’t a disagreement, it’s a matter of fact. Without a God, you can do whatever you want. His point was a moral law, not laws in general. He actually draws a contrast between cultural laws and a moral law. For example, remember the Nazi trial point he made. If there is not moral law, then what did those men do wrong?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No hope (infering, no hope after death). Correct, for the atheist does not believe in life after death, so why is that a compelling argument?

I thought this was surprisingly compelling. What do you do with justice that is not carried out, etc? And it is extrapolated to be no hope for this life. Those who have no hope in the next life have no hope in this one, and without hope, what is the point?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No meaning? Well, personally, I don't think there is this great meaning to life universal to all.

I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all, I truly don’t. I don’t know you real well, other than what’s been discussed here, and a few pictures of your boys, but this is a sad statement. I don’t know what I’d do if the things that came my way did not have meaning, that he experiences, and the emotions, the thoughts and vitality that come my way and pass through my life just hit a point and stop without carrying out through to meaning, to someone other and outer than myself. I wouldn’t know where to place the emotions and feelings I have towards my wife and kids, how to deal with them on that level, to explain to them that they are valuable, and their lives are meaningful. What on earth do you say to them if not.

Again, I’m not trying to take a higher ground and look down on you point, or intellectually get one up on your or anything like that. I mean, man to man, what do you do?

Ravi made the exact point I’ve made before (which you guys seemed surprised at). If this is all there is, why do what you are doing? Why keep going? Why not just spend all you can out of your body and cash out? Or do you not hold to account those that do? Are you simply just "rolling the stone to the top of the hill" without asking why?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I do agree with the speaker there could be a hint at the meaning of life in kids. Unfortunately, that meaning can be gleaned separately by spiritualists as well as evolutionists. It could very well be that my feelings that my kids give my life meaning is a inherited trait, because that very feeling increases the chances that my kids will thrive and survive, and therefor pass that trait on. Not entirely unplausable.

On this point, his kid story was simply the 3rd level, and he was using it to make a point. If there is something going on their, what is it. Can a man like Bertran Russell say the biggest longing of his life never achieved was love if it is simply some left over trait of some primate ancestor? What about the deaths we as men all go through, burying parents, brothers, sisters, and for some children? What about the unmet longings those deaths bring?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

The last item is Pascal's wager. To a person without faith, this means nothing. If I suppose for a minute there is a God, I would suppose that he can understand my heart, and he would know that even if I pretended for my life I believed in a God, he would know when I got to the pearly gates that I lied to myself for my entire life, because I do not actually believe in a God, and therefor faked it in hopes of eternal life. Do I think that would be rewarded? No, I do not. So I am still where I started with no motivation, or convincement there is a God.

Ah, I think you missed his point slightly. He's not making the point to just do it anyway, whether you believe it or not. (God like you, doesn't appreciate phony facades.) Remember, he says Pascal meant it existentially. Meaning that for the atheist, he has no compelling argument as to why the theist is incorrect, because if all there is in this life is this life, and the theist is happy being a theist, then what is the problem with his point of view. He couldn't be a lose by mistake. I thought it was noteworthy too that the atheist has to make himself think it through, to be sure of himself, because there really is no recovery if he is incorrect.