[ExI] give a what?

Dan danust2012 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 4 21:23:37 UTC 2014

> On Friday, October 3, 2014 6:21 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course, this presumes that, if there is a Hell, atheists
>> necessarily go there.
> Not if God were a fan of logic, and if He wasn't it's hard to
> imagine how He managed to engineer some rather large construction
> projects, like the Universe. Perhaps God hides all evidence of
> His existence and then sends everyone that believes he's real
> anyway to hell for the sin of being illogical and only atheists
> go to heaven. Somebody asked Bertrand Russell what he would say
> to God after he dies and he found out that God exists after all,
> Russell responded:
> "Sir, you did not give us enough information"

Yes, I've heard that before. Did you read the part of my statement when I wrote "this presumes that." What was meant by that?

And you trimmed out the part of my post where I gave an example of religious believers who don't believe atheists must needs end up in Hell:

"Some Buddhists have a conception of Hell and you don't go there for being an atheist."

(Buddhists don't necessarily believe in god or gods, and it's not any divine being that sends one to Buddhist Hell, IIRC.)

>> By the way, John raises an interesting issue here that kind of
>> ties in with the diamond/water paradox of economics. Presuming
>> he supervenes on his cells there's that physicalist premise
>> again :) -- then he might not give a hoot about any particular
>> one of them, but all of them together might be another matter.
> If I'm uploaded into a computer (and for all I know I may already
> have been) then I'm still conscious but have no cells at all,
> living or dead, but I feel fine nevertheless.

Understood, but unless and until that's the case, my guess is you wouldn't want all your cells destroyed, no?

>> This is similar to how one might value one diamond more than a
>> glass of water now, but not all the diamonds in the world over
>> all the water in the world now.
> That's no paradox, it's just a matter of value density.

The paradox was resolved in the late 19th century by the marginalists, but not with the notion of value density, but with marginal utility.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141004/2c4a40dc/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list