Actually I don’t understand your objection, did you base it only on those two words.. or did you take into account what I said? I still think what I said refutes Phil’s argument. Maybe Phil can comment.
I your comment the first time that some of your arguments do deal with some of the issues that Phil raised. But when I read it the first time it seemed parts of your response and primary criticism seem to address the version of Pascal’s wager where one ignores the actual probability in question because the reward is infinite. But Phil’s version tries to make actual estimates of the probability and essentially deals with the problem of all the unknown hypothetical religions but giving an argument that assigns them a low probability compared to the believed religions.
Actually I don’t understand your objection, did you base it only on those two words.. or did you take into account what I said? I still think what I said refutes Phil’s argument. Maybe Phil can comment.
I your comment the first time that some of your arguments do deal with some of the issues that Phil raised. But when I read it the first time it seemed parts of your response and primary criticism seem to address the version of Pascal’s wager where one ignores the actual probability in question because the reward is infinite. But Phil’s version tries to make actual estimates of the probability and essentially deals with the problem of all the unknown hypothetical religions but giving an argument that assigns them a low probability compared to the believed religions.