PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Pascal's Wager 

"But what if we've chosen the wrong god? Then every time we go to church, we're just making the real one madder and madder." -Homer Simpson

The lottery ticket analogy doesn't work for Pascal's wager because the lottery doesn't send me to an infinite lottery hell if I don't buy the ticket lol

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. " ~GBS.

Anyone else noticed that the name of the cat was Richard Pawkins? 😂

Einstein: God does not play with dice. Philosopher: What happens if he does?

If you are using a risk management strategy rooted in self-interest to determine the truth, then the actual pursuit of the truth is not important to you. You are just hedging your bets like an after-life long-term investor. There may or may not be an absolute truth, but choosing a belief based on individual payoff just comes off as unenlightened. That being said, Pascal was a genius mathematician.

I heard a Pascal scholar (Tom Morris at Notre Dame at the time) say many years ago that the wager has to be understood in the broader context of the Pensees in which reason has a very important role in faith. Pascal was not an irrationalist or fideist. He certainly didn't believe faith was simply a useful fiction! He believed in God for reasons. Read the Pensees - it is full of reasons. He was trying to convince his atheist and apathetic friends using arguments (not the traditional arguments of natural theology for which he had little time). The Wager was not an admission that there are no reasons! It was meant as a final push for those who might still remain on the fence even after considering all the other reasons Pascal had been providing. The wager was a response to someone who said something like, "I see all your evidence for God, Pascal, but you're expecting me to commit myself 100% and I don't feel like I have 100% confidence. So I remain undecided." Then and only then, he introduces the wager. Thus, the wager is broadly misunderstood and its real brilliance lost.

What if God exists and prefers non believers to believers because he happens to hate kissasses?

I like Pascal's​ wager as a concept in regards to practical things like what do you to lose by having a spare tire in your car. but using it as some legitimate reasoning for lending credence to the existence of a god presupposes a black and white outcome that are equally legitimate. it's not just yes or no, it's many shades of no vs a singular yes

I always thought I was alone in thinking this way. I’m 30 and I’ve only now heard of Pascal’s wager, but I’ve always thought this since I was a kid

I'm searching for the game Pascal's Wager but now I'm learning what the real meaning of those words lol.

there can be a case in Pascal's wager where 1.A rational God exists who likes athiests because they have chosen rational side of arguements rather than lure of a reward.. 2. Or there might be a god who only likes those that have lived a good selfless life. He doesn't care whether you believe on the divine or not.. 3. Or Jainism might be true which doesn't even have a god but only a universal law which judges based on adherence to non-violence.. All 3 above have equal prospect of being true as Islam or Christianity.. there can be millions of possibilities in which afterlife exists but a god doesn't.. and in those possibilities there are millions of criteria on which a human will be judged.. Only a narrow minded person will limit Pascal's wager to belief..

How to make time travel a good idea 1. Invent time machine. 2. Travel to the 23rd century. 3. Invent a device that can change the odds in the 23rd century. 4. Use probability device to make the odds certain that time travel is a good idea.

Richard pawkins lol i was focused on that the whole time

One of the many problems with Pascal's Wager is you can't choose to believe in something you don't believe in. It's completely absurd. It's like asking someone to believe that 2+2=5.

Pascal's Wager is refutable in one sentence. For every possible god that will send you to hell for not believing and heaven for believing, there is a possible god with the opposite rules.

Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).

very articulate in your explanation, the narration was perfect, thank you

Just found your site and have subscribed. Thanks for the cool and short lessons. Imagining that believing in God makes you a happier person than not believing in God, makes the argument that you are somehow a better person for believing. And you take satisfaction and gladness from that. I think the evidence is (in the aftermath of the Renaissance) that man has many, many paths to happiness and the taking on of guilt that many religions offer up as a default existence may indeed make you rather unhappy.

This was a nuanced and informative presentation. Thanks for uploading :)

I think the biggest flaw with Pascal's wager is that one cannot choose what to believe. A claim either makes sense to you or does not. Your mind can change from the presentation of facts and logic, but you can't just simply flip a switch because you want to. No matter how hard I try, I can't genuinely believe that 2+5=9 unless someone was to come along and lay out a very convincing proof.

Pascal is not REALLY believing, though

Thank you for this clear view of the possibilities of Pascal thoughts

what program is used to make this explainer video? thx

3:30 well I wanted to kow about those objections! i hope a video about them will come soon.

Belief isn't voluntary is it?? Do we choose to believe or are we lead to believe??

Thank you. Been meaning to revisit this subject

You also have to think about how the actions of others who believe treat others. What happens when people don't criticize or question beliefs? Can those beliefs get out of hand when there are none to challenge them? You also have to wonder if there really is infinite reward or if it's even possible, which becomes another infinite probability or impossibility in and of itself.

About the second premise in the second version of the argument, 'Even if no god exists you are better off as a believer', that only works within that scenario if the believing majority oppress people who prefer the reality and truth over illusion. Posing the wager this way is nakedly asking another person to consciously join in hypocrisy and tyranny. At least Pascal's original version (that says that it is not possible to know if a god even exists) isn't asking another person to join in oppressing the minority and suppressing the truth.

You forgot about the actually most ingesting point about Pascal's wager: You have to gamble.

There are no "Options." Either you're conviced a God exists or you're not. You can't simply choose to believe. It's a falacy to think otherwise. If God does exist you're not going to fool him by a false declaration of belief.

one of the problem i have with pascals wager, something that alot of other people brought up in the comments, is that what if you choose the wrong god? what religion is correct? i guess the safest route would be to go with the oldest, or the most popular. worrying about religion (to me) is existential, and it places a very large burden on those who are not able to decide whether its a good idea to have a religion or not.

There are a couple of different versions, or variations on "free will". The definition I go with has to do with the concept that a person's thoughts and actions are a combination of environment and genetics aged through the years a person has lived. A person starts out at birth and his first experience is not of his doing. His genetic make-up is not of his doing. There then is a steady, rapid-fire chain reaction of one experience on top of the other, each experience dictated by the previous experiences, starting with that first experience at birth. The other factor is genetic make-up of the person, including I.Q., brain chemistry, physical abilities, etc. If the notion of "free will" is that a person has options throughout life, then yes, there is that type of "free will" too. However, that is not my version of "free will".

The first three objections persist in other versions of Pascal's wager. The problem is that the definition of God and belief is distorted. You can't choose to believe, and you can't know which is the right God. and this refutes all versions of this argument.

I believe that it's as much the internal condition that the individual is under that makes the moment of decision to believe adequate. For this, I refer to Kierkegaard and his spheres of existence. It is when one stands at the edge of the objective that one may actually make the decision to believe or not.

sir /mam can you explain psychological basis of mental life -structure of brain( according to psychology or philosophy subject)

Pascal’s wager may be flawed when used regarding god. But I’ve found the the method in which charted can be used in other arguments. The only difference is that you would need to establish that the positive claim has only ONE counterclaim (X vs not X), and that the consequences and rewards for being right or wrong are worth even considering. If there’s another name for this method other than the Pascal’s Wager method, someone please let me know.

Great video. For me the argument does not come down to how good or bad one's life becomes in belief or non belief. The argument is one of Authenticity which is mentioned in the video of not being able to be a true believer. It becomes a point in which inauthenticity causes negative consequences within a life. If one forces belief by ignoring their own mind, skepticism, or being then they are condemned to live in a self inflicted conflict. I do not see how life can be fulfilling living in authenticity. Pascal, if I remember right, would claim the "fake it till you make it" program in that if one chooses to believe long enough they will eventually truly believe. However I have not been exposed to this being validated. I would more abide to the Heidegger notion of anticipation and resolve through the death of projection of being.

Excellent breakdown of PW’s different angles.

, the social penalties for being a non believer in the 17th century were somewhat different to 21st century England where i am , does that change the context of the question ? am i correct in thinking that at the time atheism was considered an illness ?

The funny thing is I had this thought myself a while ago and I never knew it was a actual theory. Cool to think I’ve had profound thoughts😎. Just the concept of infinity and Probability is actually so ridiculously insane when you break it down. I get lost in my thoughts and get anxiety just thinking about it.

This argument should not be called a theistic argument. It has an implicit assumption that "God" requires you believe in him/her or you will get punished. It's more religious than theistic in my opinion. In fact it's more Abrahamic religion than anything. It also has the implicit assumption that there is life after death. There can be a god but no life after death. That also makes this argument silly. If you keep on asking questions, you begin to see numerous implicit assumptions in this theory that make it much more irrational than you would at first imagine

Maybe I had this explained to me wrong, but I always thought of Pascal’s wager as a counter arguement to agnosticism. The reasoning is very similar to the versions mentioned in the vid, as you might expect. The version I learned goes something like this: either god exists or he doesn’t and if god exists it is better to believe in god and have an eternity of happiness versus not believing and living in eternal damnation. If god doesn’t exist it is worse to believe in god and waste what little time you have on earth preparing for a nonexistent afterlife versus living to the fullest potential otherwise permissible by the circumstances. Pay off and risk of either choice varies based on perspective but one truth remains constant: you are better off picking one or the other rather than none at all. (Then again, this arguement is not infallible because one could make the counterarguement that agostism reaps the benefits of both belief and non belief rather then reaping neither)

But what happens with Agnostic People who died before they could jump to a complusion that whether God exists or not ? They were still in search of an answer but time didn't allow them. What happens to those ?

My response to Pascal's Wager: Give me twenty dollars, or Sithrak the Blind Gibberer will torture you and everyone you love after you die.

Nice explanation, I sent my students to this. I had a thought on the problem of indecision due to the possibility of infinite reward. If you allow infinite utility, it seems like the conclusion that every action and its complement both have infinite utility is unavoidable, given that there is some probability, however small, that they will lead to a conversion experience. And if you allow infinite punishment as well, the same is true for the theist. Every action has, for them, some probability, however small, of leading to a conversion to atheism as a result of some anti-religious experience. So the infinite utility of an action, and the infinite utility of its complement, cancel each other out. At that point, wouldn't we simply revert to making the decision based on the finite utilities of those actions in this world? Sure, this wouldn't solve the problem of answering the question, "What is the ultimate objective expected utility, from a "God's eye POV," of any given action?" But the EU, for the agent, is relative to the agent's information set anyway. Also, on some philosophies of probability, there is no ultimate objective EU, right? (I don't know that much phil of probability, but I thought that was a view, although it does seem like there has to be one to me.) And calculating based only on finite utilities would allow for a decision procedure. Anyway, just wondering what you thought. You probably have a paper on it, yes?

If the nonzero probability of one action is greater than another action's nonzero probability, once combined with the infinite payoff would result in infinite expected values that would be of different sizes. The SIZE of infinities could be compared, as there is sufficient mathematical implications to the size of infinity in higher maths. If the church experience yields a larger infinity, then it has more value than the beach experience Edit: Grammatical error

Does the means by which belief is brought about really have any bearing on the validity of the wager? Since absolute knowledge is very different from faith/belief we must - unless we refuse to entertain the initial premise that God either does or does not exist - choose to believe the one situation or the other. In considering the wager we need go no further than this. We stand at the door and knock or we refuse to acknowledge the existence of the door.

Great video. I think pascal's second premise don't consider de value of life for non believers. To believe in a finite and unique life may let you appreciate it more than living looking for an eternal life restricting things you do in this terrenal life. Sure, religion isn't a bad thing if you apply it to a reasonable life that allows everyone to live in community, but it can also be twisted and make you don't enjoy your life (that could be just one, and not eternal) or even affect life of others like in extreme radical religions. Then, if God doesn't exist and you believe and end up being unhappy (waether you accept it or not), you will lose your only chance to be happy in all eternity (if there is no afterlife)... that seems to me like a infinit bad outcome.

At 5:24,the 1st premise is clearly false,because it presents a false dichotomy.It assumes that the only possible options are "either god exists and he'll reward me infinitely if I believe in him" or "god doesn't exist",which is not necessarily the case.What makes you believe that if God exists,he's good?If you say something like"all the good in the world proves God is good" I could easily reply "all the Evil in the world proves God is Evil".There's the chance that if there is a god,he is evil and punishes infinitely believers,but rewards non-believers,meaning that the expected value of believing in God wouldn't be infinite,as Pascal claimed.

Thisbwas very well done ..thank you

One thing people don’t consider for the cost of theism is *time*. Imagine how much time you’d spend going to church, reciting prayers, and other religious activities. If there really isn’t a god, then all of that went to waste.

I'm gonna wager a belief in the Norse God Ra. Wish me luck!

Just think: who has it worse in the end if they're wrong, the atheist or the Christian?

Check @ 4:38 I would argue that this theory may give some clarity about the My church/Your church debate Or Not....Up to you

Your channel is great and the content is fantastic but all of you professors need to invest in a good quality mic, It would drastically increase the production quality. You can go buy a Blue Yeti mic for fairly cheap and it will make a world of difference.

I would have enjoyed this break down of Pascal's Wager years ago(it appears knowledge is timeless,lol). Excellent layman's approach,many thanks...

Random indoctrinated person: Unicorns exist Skeptic: Prove it

the one exception in the world of having an absolute zero chance,😭 thus annulling the infinite exponent is manually doing your taxes.

The largest fault in your "mathematical" premise is that some infinities are larger than other infinities. Therefore, even though the expected payout appears the same for different actions. If there is a larger likelihood going to church would invoke belief the expected payout is higher

O St. Blaise, pray for us!

When I was around 14, Jehovah's Witnesses tried to convert my mom who was a bit depressed at the time and I stepped in to answer the door so that I could talk to them instead - I didn't let them in. We had a nice chat about what heaven means, since they kept pushing this similar idea that if you just believe, you will have eternal happiness. When I asked what would happen to all the non-believers that I know, they said they wouldn't be there - so I declared that it wouldn't be paradise for me then - I'd be miserable without these people. They stood there quietly without an answer for around 15 minutes until I closed the door, wishing them a nice day. I think the argument that you're better off believing is flawed in many ways, but since for most of us even the reward itself is impossible, it makes Pascal's original idea seem even more silly.

Ever since I read this wager it is my favorite philosophical inquiry.

Why is happiness the incentive? What about potential cognitive and emotive resilience in all forms of suffering?

Blaise Pascal was smarter than all the thinkers on RU-vid combined. He didn't publish his wager, rather they were taken from some rough notes found in his room after he died. It is almost certain that he didn't mean for it to be taken as it is today.

Uh..... Which god are we talking about here?

You mentioned that there's a possibility that it u attend a single religious activity u might convert to be religious but you failed to mention which religion though as there are too many religions in the world

What if you believe in the wrong god and worship the wrong god? What will happen if that god is all knowing and that makes your forced belief not valid to enter his paradise? What will happen that god is not something you have in mind?

Pascal is brilliant, and in the comments are just “know-it-alls” idiots, because they did not read the whole book 100% Info

I find it odd, that A simple premise of a coin flip, "there is or there is not" is compared to a lottery with multiple choices. Pascal (although a Christian) doesn't define the Christian God, but defines an eternity to those who believe in God. The educated tend to over think this premise and redefine the terms of Pascals wager. So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct. Malcolm Muggeridge ×

Where is the rest of the video (the part where you debunk pascal's wager as his reasoning is BUNK (assumes just the possibility of 1 god, instead of a constellation of contradictory gods), the part where he assumes the ticket cost is low (which is clearly not if you want to be a true believer) AND the part where you are, essentially, trying to fool a GOD by "believing" in him, when you may NOT?

Why wouldn't you consider the cost of the lottery ticket also.

This is extremely flawed, it's actually safer to be an athiest, why? Because let's say that the Muslim god is the correct one, and an atheist and a Christian are standing in front of the Muslim god, wouldn't the Muslim god be more accepting to the atheist who didn't believe in any god? Rather then the Christian who believed in the wrong god? Same goes for every other religion, what if the Jewish god is the right one, and a Muslim and an atheist are standing before them, wouldn't the Jewish god be more accepting of the atheist who just said "I don't know" rather then the Muslim that believed in a completely wrong god?

If I lived a good life, being kind and fair to the people I knew throughout all my life, but went to hell because I didn't believe in God, then I don't think he's worth worshipping.

Damn, I didn't know Giant Global also made a theory on philosophy! I thought they just made Souls Like games!

"Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy!!!"

This is so cool! I was struggling in my faith a while back, and the reason I am still a Christian, and not an agnostic, is because of Pascal's Wager. I just want to say that I have "decided" to believe, or really to keep believing, and it is possible. I actually wholeheartedly believe. But I do get how other religions cause problems with Pascal's Wager. I guess which religion you choose is a gamble too. I chose the God who saves me so I don't have to fail at saving myself through works.

"Atheists...What if you're wrong??" Ok so I die right and, and much to my surprise I find myself standing before the god of Christianity. What do I do how do I feel about this, what would, I think what should I say what if I’m wrong. When I think about this question, I think about the fact that there are two very interesting characteristics that have always been attributed to this god and ONE is Omnibenevolence optimal love, optimal compassion, optimal mercy, optimal concern for the well-being of others and the other is omniscience, knowing everything that could possibly be known about anything from any point of view at any time in any context and one inescapable conclusion that follows this, is if this being exists it knows me, I mean really knows me, understands me as well as I can possibly be understood. This is not a mystery he is not sitting up in heaven racking his brain trying to figure out why Jeff can’t seem to believe in it. This God would be acutely aware of my history of the causal chain of events and experiences that cumulatively contributed to the development of my entire personality and psyche and outlook on life. This being would understand impeccably that I am nothing more and nothing less than a product of that which I’ve experienced every interaction that I’ve ever had that changed me or forced me to think differently down to the exact moment in my life which caused me to care about philosophy, religion and theology in the afterlife. This being would have a perfect appreciation for that God would understand intimately my reasoning and my thought process and how I arrived at the conclusions I did even if Christians don’t, he would know my views on morality and ethics and understand specifically why I think it’s more virtuous to approach religious claims critically and prudently then to accept them at face value on faith. He would understand why I think I’ve lived a good life. Why I think that I’ve made good choices even if Christians don’t. He would be aware of all the actions and all the characteristics that I’ve seen attributed to him by Christians as well as scriptures and why those actions and characteristics seem undeniably incompatible to me not just with one another but with the observable world, he would know about the time in my life when I actually picked up a bible and made it a point to read the whole thing and he would know the hundreds of verses I came upon which, Which I found Horrifying or absurd or completely incompatible with the notion that this was inspired by a just and loving being concerned with ensuring our salvation even if Christians don’t. So if I found myself standing before this being it goes without saying that my immediate would be one of complete shock complete shock and utter shock. I would be absolutely floored if I found out with certainty that the Christian God specifically exists and the first question, the first thought that would even enter into my mind I know, would be what was wrong with my reasoning. I would beg, I would plead regardless of whether I was on my way to Heaven or Hell just to know what the flaw was in my thinking and reasoning where along the way where the mistakes I made that led me to the wrong conclusion. I would give anything to know that. I would give anything to know the answers. Of course this God would know all too well I took truth very seriously in my life, I never believed anything simply because I wanted it to be true or because I thought it would be beneficial in some way to assume it was true and likewise I never doubted any claims simply because I preferred it not to be true but, I would take comfort in knowing that the being responsible for judging me for evaluating me. Ultimately deciding my fate knows me so perfectly that I don’t have to make any excuses for myself. The omniscience of this being would allow me to feel perfectly represented I don’t have to plead a case I don’t have to persuade anyone that my intentions were pure; these things are already known to this being. It would be known that I never doubted God’s existence out of rebellion or spite or disregard for authority it would be known that I’d have preferred the existence of a loving God all along and would have had no problem obeying the command of this loving God but I just found too many problems inherent in the concept too many Contradictions too many holes too many propositions that require special pleading or circular reasoning or ad hoc speculation and that I simply didn’t observe anything about reality that couldn’t have been the result of natural cumulative processes it would be known that my cognitive faculties do not allow me to choose what I am and am not convinced is true about reality that my disbelief is an involuntary reaction to what I perceived as a deficit of evidence for god’s existence and most importantly it would be known that I thought it insufficient and even immoral to pretend that I believed in this being simply because I feared punishment or sought reward. When I take into consideration of what follows naturally from the knowledge attributed to this being and I combine that with what follows naturally from the compassion attributed to this being it’s difficult for me to conceive that this being wouldn’t be in some sense proud of me and pleased with the way that I’ve employed the intellect and the moral sense with which he would have endowed me even if it turned out that I was wrong. I have a hard time imagining that this God would be offended by me and my thought process. Offended enough to allow for me to endure unbearable torment foe all of eternity and not as a form of discipline or correction or redemption since it would never end. There’s nothing constructive about hell you don’t come out of hell a better person, you don’t come out at all and so the only reason for the existence of hell is vengeance. According to the Bible and according to most Christians hell is exactly where I’m heading, no matter the life I lead the choices I make the intentions that I have, if I don’t at least think that a God exists well, sucks for me and in the meantime, you know extreme rapist, murderers, and Child molesters are welcomed in heaven with open arms so long that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior before their demise and if it turns out that this is the case and that’s okay too because I. I don’t know how I would be able to handle spending eternity alongside of a being whose idea of compassion and fairness makes me sick to my stomach, a beings whose empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity so that’s my answer. Good thing I’m not wrong. By ~ Theoretical Bullshit

If you don't believe then what reason do you have to get up in the morning....

A kind of variation on the counterargument that there are tonnes of different gods is that even if he meant the Catholic God or whatever, assuming this god is benevolent and selfless, he wouldn't absolutely require your belief in order for you to go to heaven and experience infinite happiness.

wow this video brought out all the god haters.

LMAO Richard Pawkins!! love this!

The one fallacy that I see in the argument here is that if God is all-knowing, and your belief in Him is out of fear of going to Hell as opposed to a genuine love for Him , won't God see through the charade, and bar your entry anyway ? Even if He lets you in for fear of going to Hell, does that not make one's love for God an exercise of coercion, hence making the case for free will a sham ??

"Oh Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fount of Mercy for us, I trust in You"

Imagine being convinced by this nonsense. Pascal should've stuck with mathematics, outside of that he had a very narrow-minded view of the world.

This theory seems to be so one-dimensional and It is hard to believe people were buying the story. All the (opportunity-) costs which arise to the whole humanity when people believe in god and god does not exist make it actually so much worse to believe in him. Just imagine the history of the world without religious conflicts... This theory waged people to believe rather than to think and critizise rationally.

What about us who at once did honestly believe, but through the journey of life we no longer believe?

Pascal's wager assumes that "God" could not tell the difference between a true believer and someone just hedging their bets.

Richard Dawkins as a cat makes so much more sense than this wager.

Pascals wager is rather dangerous.

I've never heard someone explain the argument using Pascal's own words. I was expecting it from a scholarly source. It seems appropriate to do so since there are so many versions.

Of corse the model is simplified - like every model by definition. But the video is only developing additional complexity to the branch leading to the authors desired conclusion. May I add: playing guitar has lower chance of finding God than actively searching about Him. So by the premises changed by the video author - the modified wager would not grant value from boolean logic, but of maximizing ones propability of finding out the truth about ethernal life/God.

This is bs god is up there 👍

There is a flaw in your line of thought: not all infinites are the same. How many natural numbers are there? Infinite. Now, how many rational numbers are there? That's right. Also, infinite. But there are more rational numbers then natural ones. So, there are degrees of infinity, so to speak. If an event has a non-zero chance of giving you an infinite reward, and another has a higher chance of yielding that same infinite reward, the second event is more valuable, because the expected return is a higher infinite. Weird, I know. All in all, nice video!

I thought of this when I was, like, 7 and thought “How has nobody thought about this”

One problem is multiplication with infinity... it is not exactly possible, and is very iffy... given that many infinities exist therefore we cannot consider this one infinity...

This is the long way of saying Nothing!! That is Academia for you.... Waste of time

Look, there is no God. Grow up.

Here is a faster version of what she said: If God does exist, it’s better to believe in him either way. If God does not exist, the outcome won’t matter. And the counter point: “what if there is more than one god?”

A lot of punters would take evens as a betting price and put their house on it! How much is your house worth?