Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    After completing that sequence, Monton's argument implies... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If there are uncountably many times at which one implements a mixed strategy with non-zero probability of wagering for God, then with probability 1 one ends up wagering for God at one of those times.

    After completing that sequence, Monton's argument implies one should roll again.

    Modality & PossibilityNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyModality & Possibility

    Related

    A mathematical result shows that uncountably many independent trials each with n...If there are uncountably many times at which one implements a mixed strategy wit...With a continuum of times available, Robertson's proposed sequence of rolls can ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    With a continuum of times available, Robertson's proposed sequence of ...71%The Thesis and Antithesis cannot both be true of a completed or comple...69%Clifton's reasoning yields a valid Kochen-Specker argument establishin...68%The reasoning parallels the Third Man argument's conflict with Oneness...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: pascal-wager
    View source passageHide passage
    Monton 2011 defends Pascal’s Wager against this line of objection. He argues that an atheist or agnostic has more than one opportunity to follow a mixed strategy. Returning to the first example of one, suppose that the fair coin lands tails. Monton’s thought is that your expected utility now changes; it is no longer infinite, but rather that of an atheist or agnostic who has no prospect of the infinite reward for wagering for God. You are back to where you started. But since it was rational for

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective