Do you think it might help to mention the idea of "if you roll a die, what are the chances of a 6 or a not-6?" which seemed to be a good way to get the point across that the argument is unbalanced? Obviously this would need to be inserted at the correct point and explained a little more eruditely than what I've just described. Blu Matt 17:50, 31 July 2006 (MST)
Is there a need to mention the possibility of a god who rewards unbelievers and punishes believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians "we cannot understand the ways of god", so it is feasible that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolant, merely inactive (mirroring deism with regards to creation), and wanting to reward those who take a rational approach to their beliefs.
The new table would thus be the following
|Table of Payoffs||Believe in God||Don't believe in God|
|God doesn't exist||0||0|
|Legalistic religious god exists||+∞ (heaven)||−∞ (hell)|
|Anti-conventional god exists||−∞ (hell)||+∞ (heaven)|
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal. Gary 21:35, 11 September 2009 (CDT)
I guess its really up to the IronChariots administrators like Dcljr, but I'm not sure i agree with your rewording. Despite being in the form of a wager, the argument still consists of premises, and leads to a conclusion. And it can be expressed in a syllogism. For instance (and bear with me, i'm sure it could be worded better.
- p1. payoff is good, punishment is bad.
- p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief
- a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.
- b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.
- p3. if god is not real you don't really loose or gain anything.