Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mark
From: mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager
Message-ID: <3435@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Dec-83 13:06:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3435
Posted: Sat Dec 31 13:06:07 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Dec-83 13:06:07 EST
References: <722@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 10

pascal's wager (leading a pious life gets you into heaven if there is
a god, and loses you nothing if there isn't) contains a feature which 
seems to be very common in existence-of-god arguments:  the choise is
between no god and some particular god.  this can save the god's advocate
a great deal of trouble, since he need prove only that SOME god exists,
and then allow it to be assumed that it is HIS god that exists.

it reminds me of the von daniken style of argument:  here is something
strange.  the only explanation i can think of is such-and-such, therefore
this must be the case.