Almost everyone keeps repeating exactly what I'm trying to say, but not seeing the next step that I'm trying to conclude 
Let me itemize this, perhaps I can explain things better:
1. Lets assume x1, x2, x3 ... xN to represent a total of N possible deities
2. Lets assume that the x's have no evidence for or against their existence
3. Lets assign to each x a cost function f(x) that evaluates the cost/risk of ignoring that particular x
all am saying is, its pragmatic to pick something that minimizes the cost function f(x), in order to hedge the risk. that's all!
Let me itemize this, perhaps I can explain things better:
1. Lets assume x1, x2, x3 ... xN to represent a total of N possible deities
2. Lets assume that the x's have no evidence for or against their existence
3. Lets assign to each x a cost function f(x) that evaluates the cost/risk of ignoring that particular x
all am saying is, its pragmatic to pick something that minimizes the cost function f(x), in order to hedge the risk. that's all!
