That's a good point... Which God? Paul suggests in Romans 1 that everyone
knows already, and are without excuse. This is called; "inate knowledge".
I usually refer to it scientifically as "instinct". Even if someone has a
Darwinist view, here's my point:
If basic insticts prove usually correct...
And people and cultures seem to have a religious predisposition...
How can one really dismiss religion as a mere dilusion???
It is here that we must employ something else than natural philosophy. It
is here that socratic philosophy allows us to weigh the evidence which is
contained within different religious texts.
And it is here that the Bible wins hands down... :)
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> The problem with Pascal's wager is: Which God should one worship? After all how can YOU be certain that the God you are worshipping is not
deceiving you to ete
> --------------------
>
> If you plan to exercise only "natural philosophy", then you have answered
> your own questions already. But... I would suggest you consider something
> to think about: Pascal's Wager.
>
> Are you willing to risk such an eternal consequence on natural philosophy
> and it's limits within the space-time-continuum?
>
> -----------------
Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> The problem with Pascal's wager is: Which God should one worship? After all how can YOU be certain that the God you are worshipping is not
deceiving you to ete
> --------------------
>
> If you plan to exercise only "natural philosophy", then you have answered
> your own questions already. But... I would suggest you consider something
> to think about: Pascal's Wager.
>
> Are you willing to risk such an eternal consequence on natural philosophy
> and it's limits within the space-time-continuum?
>
> -----------------
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net