On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1st of all as usual besides the argument. 2nd took one of those at random ( well more or less) Blaise Pascal : "Pascal's "wager" has engendered fierce criticism over the years from the likes of, for example, William James. The "wager" argument holds that, given the choice between a belief in Christianity and non-belief, it is more reasonable, given the potential outcomes, to believe in a Christian God. Despite the potential outcome, that either God does nor does not exist, the believing Christian "wins" in that, if God does exist, he or she will share in infinite life. If God does not exist, both the believer and the non-believer suffer the same fate; whereas, if God does exist, the unbeliever loses infinite life. In the case of James' criticism, Pascal was attacked in that his "wager" applies equally well to all other religions which promise infinite life. However, this criticism has often been defended by arguing that Pascal was not comparing Christianity to other religions, but, rather, he merely showed how a belief in Christianity holds an advantage over non-belief." BTW how much choice do you think the others had in the matter of religion..? A+ jml _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/a2b0cc710903021254y3beb7e94y796fd22bb9bad...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
