Hi All.

Yes this add campaign is very sad indeed, but to me it has a twist if you read the words as they are presented. ( There is probably no God ) now that to me reads that as they have used the word ( probably ) that they have not got no ever could get absolute proof for there claim. So going off that little fact I think that if it is read as its presented, there add means absolutely nothing at all. They are saying there is probably no God, but any believer could answer that with, but you can not be sure as you as stating probably. Therefor it can also be stated then using there own logic, that there on the other hand could probably be a God & so to carry that on. If there could probably be a God, then it stands to reason that if there could well be a God, then its a good idea to accept him as such.

To me its Pascals wager all over again, for those who do not know of this here it is. ( Pascal wrote:

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is." )

So as you can see by reading this wager, the adds that have been placed by these people mean nothing at all, but by using there own logic against them. They are in fact making the point that therefor there could probably by a God & if that is the case it puts you in a better position to believe in him than to not. As if you do believe in him you have everything to gain, but to not believe in him, you have everything to lose.

God Bless all
VoT

Sorry for this its just the way my mind works at times, kind of twisted as such. But it works for me!