Pascal’s Wager assumes an afterlife isn’t it?

There is only evidence that this is our only life; no reincarnation or some spiritual realm that persists our identity/ego/soul/consciousness/memory.

Pascal was describing belief in god but I was mainly getting at the logical framework.

Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

> Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

which do you believe is the right default position to have:

a) nothing, unless something is proven, OR

b) something, unless nothing is proven

it seems to me that (a) is the more prudent stance and hence much more likely to be correct.

	▲	kjkjadksj 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		People believe life is out there in the universe based on no evidence and this is a commonly held stance.