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
    Once one wagers for God there is no going back, so the te... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→An agent should wager for God outright rather than continuing to pursue an indefinitely iterated mixed strategy.

    Once one wagers for God there is no going back, so the terminal action is wagering for God.

    Natural 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 Theology

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility2 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Related

    An agent should wager for God outright rather than continuing to pursue an indef...An idealized version of the agent who can perform uncountably many mixed-strateg...One should act as an idealized version of oneself would eventually act.

    Similar

    You should wager for God.78%The gain from wagering for God is certain (not contingent on God's exi...75%Pascal claims that if you wager that God exists and lose, 'you lose no...74%The worst outcome associated with wagering for God (gain in earthly li...74%

    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