To me, the most underrated counterargument to the Pascal's Wager is that it ignores that your actions can have consequences on either side of zero. Once you take that into account, many things move from "seeming no-brainer" to "totally undecidable omg what the heck do I do"

My favourite interpretation of an ‘antigod’ is a god that has set up religion as a test to determine which of its creations will not live life more or less like an automaton, despite being instructed to do so.

Physicist, quant, & Art Deco advocate |                                        

Moderating /science and /artdeco |     

instagram.com/johncamkiran

website: sean07.com; play dig in /anthropology

Indeed, it would be the prevailing god in actuality but not the one it is commonly supposed to be, hence the anti.

A point well made, though, that the definition of an antigod as ‘a divine being opposed to devine beings’ is logically troublesome.

To play devils advocate, the antigod in this interpretation would still be a god right?