re: #105 Thanos

What if they are only 2 percent likely rather than “very likely”?

Depends on what’s in the rest of the table. Consider: what if the Christian God is 2% likely to be real? Is non-belief worth the 2% risk of hell? If that’s the only consideration, then probably not — but if some other non-compatible god is 80% likely to be real, then avoiding that god’s hell at 80% is much more important than the first one at 2%.

re: #106 LudwigVanQuixote

The science is more than strong enough and settled that the row thinking is utterly dominated by the threat of an oncoming collapse.

As I said in my final paragraph, Pascal’s Wager is flawed, but it can be fixed if you can provide a convincing argument that the “hell” square really DOES dominate the table.

But if you have a convincing argument that your “hell” scenario is really likely, you don’t need to resort to Pascal’s Wager to sell people on avoiding it. That’s why I think the original video is essentially worthless — it provides a classical Philosophy 101 argument that doesn’t actually convince anybody of anything until they’re at the point where they’d be convinced by a much more straightforward argument.