Then there’s a HUGE hole in the scenario right where all the load-bearing assumptions are.
What sort of evidence convinced the person in the scenario that Christianity is actually with probability greater than 0.99 correct, and definitely less than 1% chance of every other scenario combined? How do you distinguish this from the whims of a powerful being who can read minds and do lots of other stuff, forcing people to accept that it is correct on pain of eternal death or torture? The only difference here from literal Christianity seems to be the idea that the powerful being is good and just in doing that, so what evidence made the person accept that?
I’m assuming that the powerful being can’t (or won’t) write minds as well, since being mind-probed into belief is not really that interesting.
Then there’s a HUGE hole in the scenario right where all the load-bearing assumptions are.
What sort of evidence convinced the person in the scenario that Christianity is actually with probability greater than 0.99 correct, and definitely less than 1% chance of every other scenario combined? How do you distinguish this from the whims of a powerful being who can read minds and do lots of other stuff, forcing people to accept that it is correct on pain of eternal death or torture? The only difference here from literal Christianity seems to be the idea that the powerful being is good and just in doing that, so what evidence made the person accept that?
I’m assuming that the powerful being can’t (or won’t) write minds as well, since being mind-probed into belief is not really that interesting.
I suppose you’re right. I really have just written Pascal’s wager all over again.