This is Pascal's wager. We've already discussed the problems with its premise, and you are not answering them.

The fact that science is always changing is what makes it so powerful, and so much more likely to be correct. Imagine two people, Rob and Job. Rob is willing to change his opinion based on new discoveries, whereas Rob insists that his original belief has to be correct.

The two are shown ten blue blocks. Both Rob and Job agree: blocks are blue.

Suddenly, a green block is introduced. Rob says: ah, it would appear that not all blocks are blue after all. At least one of them is green. Job, of course, still insists that all blocks are blue and the it's just the light falling on the blue block differently, making it appear green. Rob says it's possible that you are right, let's wait and see.

At this point, red, orange and pink blocks are introduced. Moreover, Rob and Job are now given equipment that allows them to observe the blocks with great precision. It's clear to Rob: blocks come in all shapes and colours. Job, on the other hand, still insists that all blocks are blue, and comes up with a thousand excuses for the other blocks.

Who's method is superior? Who is to be trusted?

That's true, and they are wrong as well.


It is very relevant. Your entire premise was based on the idea that there is one God, and one way to believe in him. But this is merely an assumption: what if Zeus was the one true god all along? This means that you were wrong in believing in the Christian God, and will spend eternity in Hades for your blasphemy.

So, if the insurance company is not willing to pay you the money, why should you buy the insurance?


I'm pretty sure that the question has been answered.


Ok, I'll refrain from using Wikipedia. I just thought that you'd find its summary to be simpler than the formalism of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.