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
    Each repeated tails result constitutes new evidence that ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is rational for an atheist or agnostic who initially follows a mixed strategy (e.g., tossing a fair coin to decide whether to wager for God) to repeat that mixed strategy indefinitely after each tails result, because with probability 1 the coin will eventually land heads and the agent will wager for God.

    Each repeated tails result constitutes new evidence that the agent is disinclined to wager for God, rationally updating the prior that the mixed strategy will converge to wagering for God.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Converge(describing how existence and essence might relate for necessary beings)
    Come together or merge into the same thing; stop being separate.
    Disinclined(in general philosophical discussion)
    Unwilling or reluctant to do something.
    Evidence(Distinguished from prior/intrinsic probability in the context of the low priors argument)
    Factors extrinsic to a hypothesis that raise or lower its probability
    Prior(in Bayesian reasoning)
    Your initial beliefs or probability assignments about something before you receive any new evidence or information.
    Rationally updating(in epistemology and Bayesian reasoning)
    Changing your beliefs in a logical way when you receive new evidence, following the rules of probability.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Wager for God(a famous philosophical argument about faith and probability)
    A reference to Pascal's Wager, the idea of choosing to believe in and live as if God exists because the potential benefit (eternal reward) outweighs the cost of being wrong.
    agent(Economics terminology applied to medical ethics)
    The party in a principal-agent relationship who is instructed to produce the good or service on the principal's behalf — in the medical context, the doctor
    mixed strategy(The uniform three-way randomization over bridges is the mixed strategy under analysis.)
    A strategy in which a player assigns probabilities over available actions and randomizes according to that distribution.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedNatural Theology1 linked

    Related

    It is rational for an atheist or agnostic who initially follows a mixed strategy...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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