![]() This is not the logical conclusion of the assumption of an infinite number of gods at all. ![]() This is because, in the infinite set of gods, every possible attribute of a god must occur." Of the infinite set of gods that can possibly exist, there necessarily is a god that fits any and every system of rewarding/punishing people in the afterlife. "If one is willing to accept that an infinite number of deities exist, then Pascal's Wager leads to a very interesting conclusion. Just wanted to point out this part is wrong or poorly phrased: Unsigned, by: YR / talk / contribs Anti-Gods ![]() I argue in the above that he should really follow the typical utility, which is not really affected by low-probability events.ģ) The 'guillability problem' should be emphasized, too - the same argument could be used to sell snake oil, or any other 'conclusion', clearly indicating that it is not an argument that should convince a rational agent. This could be left as-is, and another "Assumption" added that says the argument assumes a finite probability for the Christian God's existence, and an infinitely small one for others.Ģ) Another assumption made is that a rational agent should maximize the average utility. As it stands, the formulation of the argument is insufficient as it doesn't mention these. I'd like to point to 's_Wager, which I partly wrote and from which I'm putting forward the following:ġ) As mentioned above, the probabilties for believing in various Gods are critical here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |