| ▲ | anonymous908213 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> by appealing to the asymmetry between infinite reward and finite cost The supposed asymmetry only holds in a framework that assumes the Christian God as the only possibility. The point is that it's possible for there to be a god that isn't Yahweh, and that god might sentence you to eternal torment for believing in Yahweh, so in fact believing in Yahweh can result in infinite cost, destroying the value of the wager. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Maxatar 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not at all. The asymmetry holds whenever the other possibilities don't introduce an opposing infinite penalty for belief. There could be countless other gods who are indifferent to Christian belief, reward it, or impose only finite penalties, and the asymmetry would remain intact. The hypothetical god who punishes believers of a Christian God is a legitimate objection to Pascal's wager, but it doesn't establish the original assertion I objected to. You're confusing demonstrating that the asymmetry isn't guaranteed with demonstrating that it requires Christianity to be the only possibility. Those are two entirely different claims. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||