> Brent Allsop wrote:
>
> > comonly point out the falacy of "Pascal's wager" as an argument for
> > believing in God, that also claims such a "A long shot is better than
> > no shot." is the same invalid argument?
Oh yes, another more important point. In Pascal's wager is the
unstated assumption that you can actually control what you
believe. The notion is that to be saved by god, you must believe
in him/it. Well, what if you decide the evidence is lacking? Have
you any choice, can you choose to believe? I believe we cannot
control what we believe. No choice. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT