Decision matrix for options “believe in god” and “don't believe in god” and outcomes “god exists” and “god doesn't exist” with equal probability, and with finite values in every cell except for the cell corresponding to the option “believe in god” and the outcome “god exists.” An additional column shows the expected value to be positively infinite for belief in god and finite for disbelief in god. Scrawled in the upper lefthand corner is “My wager, Blaise Pascal” in a playful light blue cursive meme font. In a red impact meme font, a teacher wrote “INCOMPLETE SEE ME AFTER CLASS” and below the teacher has written a third column corresponding to outcome “Anti-God Exists” with 0.000001% probability, with a negatively infinite utility assigned to “believe in god,” and a positively infinite utility assigned to “don't believe in god” and a corrected Expected Value column showing an indeterminite utility for the first option and a negatively infinite utility for the second. I was just was reading the CC-BY-NC licenced textbook “Learning from Arguments” by Daniel Korman and remembered an old episode of the 80,000 Hours podcast (yes, the show that infamously gave the softball interview to SBF) discussing the problems with allowing infinite utility and figured it would be useful to spread this idea since not all refutations of Pascal’s Wagerare as definitive. The argument defeats itself because even if the probability of an anti-god reversing utilities that god assigns is infimitessimal, Pascal’s Wager shows that it too must be taken seriously. You can only believe in god if you somehow assign a 0 probability to anti-god but not to god or reject Pascal’s argument.