Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Pascal's wager is restated to argue a different point:
> > One: if you do not believe in christian god there are two
> > possibilities, if christian god exists you will go in hell,
> > if it doesn't nothing happen. Two: if you do believe in god,
> > and it doesn't exist, then there is no consequence, but if
> > it does (finally) exist, then JackpoT!!! you go in heaven.
> Poster contends that the fallacy is lack of probabilities,
> but it is actually quite a bit simpler and more obvious than
> that: the premises of the argument are simply false. There
> /is/ a cost to belief, and there /is/ a benefit to non-belief,
> and both the costs and benefits of both choices must be
> evaluated to make a rational choice.
> Indeed, I personally think that it is not possible for a
> person who honestly believes in God to be a moral person or
> lead an effective, worthwhile life, so the cost of belief
> is very high--the sacrifice of this life for the false hope
> in the next.
> The same logical fallacy is often used to argue for cryonics.
> (replace "belief" with "cryo-contract", "heaven" with
> "survival", and "hell" with "death"). The fallacy is the
> same: there /is/ a measurabe cost to cryonics (in hard cash)
> and possible benefits to abstention (though these are more
> speculative: perhaps the money you save will be invested in
> better immortality technologies). On balance, I think
> cryonics is the right choice to make (it is for me), but not
> because of such weak arguments.
What could be the principal killer arguments for cryonics then ?