In article <6dfb1603.0112101113.3acc5882@posting.google.com>,

kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:

<snip>

> PMD responded to this assertion by saying that it was a different

> matter to call out to a potential rescuer in the woods then it was to

> call out to God to rescue us from future crises. I believe he said

> that potential woods wanderers exist, whereas it wasn't clear to him

> that God existed. This didn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me,

> because even though we don't know whether God exists or not, the

> chance of God's existence and of God's willingness to help us survive

> future crises is still nonzero,

That's called assuming one's conclusion. No E V I D E N C E. Nothing

to even suggest that such a belief is a useful thing - nothing, *except*

for religious dogma.

> and as far as we can tell that chance

> is at least as small as the chance that a rescuer might come wa

You're *still* making assumptions. Other people exist. Proven fact,

easily falsifiable via experimentation. You cannot even *define* your

deity in a meaningful enough way to attempt verification of it's

existence. You still assume that YOUR god is the only one that could

exist, Despite not having a useful definition of same.

It's *still* Pascal’s "we beat this dead horse's carcass so often that

the only thing left is a faint stain" Wager, and it still sucks ass

logically.

<snip rest>