Pascal's Wager

[Jason Jarred]

I'm not sure that its more that theist claim that God exists rather than that's what they believe. In my case its the later. But I don't see the need for proof myself. For example I know that the laws of nature can never be proved. Our own justice system makes life and death decisions based on other than proof. In that sense I'm not sure of where the need for proof comes in. Certain things in this universe are simply not subject to proof.

In the end it boils down to epistemology, i.e. what one accepts as evidence.

I generally don't care what others believe, but personally I like my beliefs to be based on fact (ie observable, demonstrable, replicable evidence. Scientific!).
However, at the point at which others beliefs begin to affect my life adversely, is the point at which I begin to ask those people to justify that their beliefs are also based on fact, particularly when their beliefs contradict mine. It is disturbing that when many of those people are questioned, they refuse or are unable to answer the questions, and are unwilling to question their own beliefs (though many people fall into this category, not just theists).
Pascal's wager however, well I don't really care if people decide to buy into that, but again - as long as they don't go on to push their beliefs in my face.

As far as I'm aware we have theories, based on observable scientific fact, demonstrable and replicable evidence to explain many of the 'laws of nature'. Isn't the term 'law of nature' another way of describing the theories that have become accepted due to the overwhelming amount of evidence presented? funny how you would claim that a theory/law cannot be proved, when the very definition of a theory or law (in the sense you have used it) is that it is proved, and keeps reocurring each and every time it's tested!