update paper1

work/2024/phil-1/paper-1/main.typ

@@ -11,6 +11,20 @@
 
 #show: word-count.with(exclude: (heading, <wordcount-exclude>, table))
 
+#align(
+  center,
+  table(
+    columns: (auto, auto),
+    [
+      Perm: A2V4847
+    ],
+    [
+      Word Count: #total-words #footnote[Discounting content in tables and the AI contribution statement]
+    ],
+  ),
+)
+
+
 = Introduction
 
 The argument for Betting on God, or better known as Pascal's Wager, says that
@@ -187,7 +201,7 @@ Since the author uses this decision matrix approach to justify BG2, it now
 fails. Once negative infinities are introduced, calculating expected utilities
 in the usual method becomes meaningless. It is not that BG2 is necessarily
 _wrong_, it just cannot be decided either way with the decision matrix. If BG2
-cannot be determined, then BG3 is also indeterminate.
+cannot be determined, then we cannot claim that BG3 is true.
 
 = Addressing Objections
 
@@ -244,12 +258,7 @@ not believing. We can no longer say that BG2 is universally true for
 _everyone_, so it no longer holds.
 
 #[
-  = Paper Logistics
+  = AI Contribution Statement
-
-  There are #total-words words in this paper, discounting this section as well
-  as any content in tables.
-
-  == AI Contribution Statement
 
   #quote[I did not use AI in the writing of this paper.]
 ]<wordcount-exclude>