03-26-2004, 03:02 PM
You have a point, but you are ignoring context. Pascal's question is of course based on the unwritten assumption, that the God in question is the God known to the Christians. That frames the question, so no, I disagree with you, the question is NOT an open ended one.
Yes, the truth table is quite simplistic, and of course it ignores "what if there is a third thing" but given the bounds of the question, it makes sufficient sense. It can indeed, for the choice considered, be boiled down to a digital on/off case of existence or not existence.
Your assertion that about what the question is not is a red herring. You can apply paralysis via analysis to any question by adding to it.
Yes, the truth table is quite simplistic, and of course it ignores "what if there is a third thing" but given the bounds of the question, it makes sufficient sense. It can indeed, for the choice considered, be boiled down to a digital on/off case of existence or not existence.
Your assertion that about what the question is not is a red herring. You can apply paralysis via analysis to any question by adding to it.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete