Is "you can't DISprove god" a good, logical reason to believe in god, and do some people believe based simply upon this?
What about "better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong"? Even if Pascal's Wager actually had some merit (50/50 chance, hypothetically speaking)- would this even be an honorable position to hold?
Both "reasons" just seem like knee-jerk reactions to a challenge to one's faith. How strong would a person be to that faith if it was one of those two things their faith clung to?
2007-12-26
04:06:51
·
26 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Religion & Spirituality