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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Outlandish theistic hypotheses should be assigned lower probability than Pascal's God.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic probability should track evidence and coherence, not cultural longevity or institutional backing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A hypothesis endorsed by millions for centuries (e.g., geocentrism) can still be less probable than a newer, better-supported rival.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Privileging Pascal's God via tradition commits the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, confusing historical persistence with epistemic warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Diderot's objection establishes that Pascal's Wager applies with equal logical force to any maximally rewarding deity, including novel ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'outlandish' hypotheses are defined by low prior probability, the Mugger scenario (Bostrom, Yudkowsky) shows that even vanishingly small priors can be overwhelmed by sufficiently large utility multipliers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the wager's dominance structure cannot be stabilized by assigning lower priors to non-traditional deities without independently justifying those priors on evidential, not traditional, grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some theistic hypotheses have no backing of tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hypotheses with no backing of tradition lack epistemic support and may be dismissed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pascal's God has the backing of a long religious tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.