Although some of you are probably familiar with this, I found it to be pretty cool and worth sharing.
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century scientist, mathematician and philospher who was no dummy and has left a very intriguing theory that cannot help but stimulate lots of in depth thought and study.
Quote:
Pascal wrote:
[blockquote] "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."
[/blockquote]
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Although some of you are probably familiar with this, I found it to be pretty cool and worth sharing.
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century scientist, mathematician and philospher who was no dummy and has left a very intriguing theory that cannot help but stimulate lots of in depth thought and study.
Quote:
Pascal wrote:
[blockquote]"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."
[/blockquote]
I have to disagree with Pascal, God Is not incomprehensible to us, for we have the Mind of Christ, who can understand God ? But Us.
He says He has No Affinity to us, yet the Bible Says he created us to His Likeness and Image and that before the foundation of the World he Chose us.
I know what he is so Pascal most be wrong again, The Bible says God is a Spirit and those that seek him must seek Him In The spirit.
God Said Eiyeh Asher eiyeh Iam That Iam so He is, all that is and is to become is by Him and through Him.
We should not throw it up in the air and say well if he exist I gain if He doesn't I lost Nothing, Because he sent his Son to die for humanity is enough to convince a poor fool like me that I have better chances by Faith ,than by wavering. IMO
__________________
The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. Zephaniah 1:14
פרץ
Interesting. I think Pascal's argument was made in response to some 17th century philosophers trying to prove the existence of God to disbelievers. Pascal then took a tact of showing it was foolish NOT to believe in God. In some ways it was similar to Swift's concept in A Modest Proposal. At any rate, it's fun to delve into and watch atheists try to argue against this type of argument. Happy Easter.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Very interesting..
We also may take note that these were the years between 1601-1699,,the era of the Pilgrims. 1620.So this young man did have access to a Bible..The King James was published in 1611.It sounds to me like possibly the beginnings of a man whom is God is dealing with..Hopefully Pascol later came to know The Christ.
These were also years that the church was struggling with tradtions of men.thus the reason why the pilgrims left England to risk their lives coming to the New World.
Pascal is (was) an agnostic. This is evident from the first line, "If there is a God...." He then goes on to say "We are then incapable of knowing what He is or if He is. - We must wager." So he suggests that we bet on the possible existence of God rather than, like the atheists,insist on the non-existence of God.
Pascal's wager goes against the very essence of faith which is the actual reliance on the existence of God. Pascal is merely suggesting a compromise rather than a commitment to the faith. One has everything to gain and nothing to lose by expressing a belief. The fatal flaw in his reasoning is that this is not a belief. It is merely an affirmation of agnosticism, rather than a commitment to atheism. I can't cite a verse, but it says somewhere, "Be hot or cold. If you are lukewarm, I will spit you out."
We are committed, or maybe we should be committed
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Pascal is merely suggesting a compromise rather than a commitment to the faith.
Think about that long and hard. To me, it goes along the exact same lines of believing the Bible isn't infallable and contains error, because it doesn't go along with some "scientific" theories. More faith is put in science than in the Word of God.
Btw, the verse you are referring to is Revelation 3:16.
Back to the original topic.......seems simple to me. Basically, you have nothing to loose if you believe in and follow God, and are wrong. You have everything to loose if you don't believe in and follow God, and are wrong.
I personally cannot fathom omnipotence, or eternity, or infallibility, or perfection. The human mind has trouble comprehending a factthat, to us, is impossible. I believe it, but Ican't picture it anymore than I can picture anything else I've never seen or experienced.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Pascal is (was) an agnostic. This is evident from the first line, "If there is a God...." He then goes on to say "We are then incapable of knowing what He is or if He is. - We must wager." So he suggests that we bet on the possible existence of God rather than, like the atheists,insist on the non-existence of God.
Pascal's wager goes against the very essence of faith which is the actual reliance on the existence of God. Pascal is merely suggesting a compromise rather than a commitment to the faith. One has everything to gain and nothing to lose by expressing a belief. The fatal flaw in his reasoning is that this is not a belief. It is merely an affirmation of agnosticism, rather than a commitment to atheism. I can't cite a verse, but it says somewhere, "Be hot or cold. If you are lukewarm, I will spit you out."
We are committed, or maybe we should be committed
our statement that Pascal was an agnostic comes across as a statement of fact. Is that your intention or final answer? Is this some knowledge you have or information you've gained from studying his works? I am curious and do not wish to misinterpret your post.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Although some of you are probably familiar with this, I found it to be pretty cool and worth sharing.
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century scientist, mathematician and philospher who was no dummy and has left a very intriguing theory that cannot help but stimulate lots of in depth thought and study.
Quote:
Pascal wrote:
[blockquote]"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."
[/blockquote]
I have to disagree with Pascal, God Is not incomprehensible to us, for we have the Mind of Christ, who can understand God ? But Us.
He says He has No Affinity to us, yet the Bible Says he created us to His Likeness and Image and that before the foundation of the World he Chose us.
I know what he is so Pascal most be wrong again, The Bible says God is a Spirit and those that seek him must seek Him In The spirit.
God Said Eiyeh Asher eiyeh Iam That Iam so He is, all that is and is to become is by Him and through Him.
We should not throw it up in the air and say well if he exist I gain if He doesn't I lost Nothing, Because he sent his Son to die for humanity is enough to convince a poor fool like me that I have better chances by Faith ,than by wavering. IMO
Alex, I understand the context you're referring to. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you would be familiar with Pascal's entire works which puts his "wager" into an entirely different light.
Cal
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Although some of you are probably familiar with this, I found it to be pretty cool and worth sharing.
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century scientist, mathematician and philospher who was no dummy and has left a very intriguing theory that cannot help but stimulate lots of in depth thought and study.
Quote:
Pascal wrote:
[blockquote]"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."
[/blockquote]
I have to disagree with Pascal, God Is not incomprehensible to us, for we have the Mind of Christ, who can understand God ? But Us.
He says He has No Affinity to us, yet the Bible Says he created us to His Likeness and Image and that before the foundation of the World he Chose us.
I know what he is so Pascal most be wrong again, The Bible says God is a Spirit and those that seek him must seek Him In The spirit.
God Said Eiyeh Asher eiyeh Iam That Iam so He is, all that is and is to become is by Him and through Him.
We should not throw it up in the air and say well if he exist I gain if He doesn't I lost Nothing, Because he sent his Son to die for humanity is enough to convince a poor fool like me that I have better chances by Faith ,than by wavering. IMO
Alex, I understand the context you're referring to. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you would be familiar with Pascal's entire works which puts his "wager" into an entirely different light.
Cal
Yes I'm Familiar with all his writings , you cannot philosophize the Spiritual ,Faithis not a Gamble otherwise is not Faith.
Shalom
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
We can live the Christian life successfully because He has put the "Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" in us. As Christians, we have His Spirit within us and, thus, "we have THE MIND OF CHRIST." Paul tells us quite clearly, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." And Paul tells us in 1Corinthians 2:16, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
How can a mere man know the mind of the Lord? How can any natural man communicate that knowledge which he has never acquired, and which is foolishness to him? (v.14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.") That knowledge is spiritual, and the natural man is of the flesh?
"But we have the mind of Christ." He has endowed us as Christians with the same disposition, being born again by His Spirit; therefore we are capable of knowing His mind and receiving the teachings of His Spirit. These teachings we do receive, and therefore are well qualified to convey them to others.
__________________
The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. Zephaniah 1:14
פרץ
Daddyslittlegirl, something from Thomas Aquinas, who is a Doctor of the Church, might be helpful to you. Strictly speaking, faith is about things beyond what our reasoning can tell us. Faith is about things that we can only know because God gave us special knowledge about them. God's existence isn't one of those things because a person can use their own brainpower to conclude that he is real. Surprisingly, though you can certainly believe in God by faith, his existence is not an article of faith because we can know it by reason.
Now, what Pascal was trying to do was show why we SHOULD believe. His answer is basically that we have everything to gain by believing and everything to lose by not believing. This is actually very good for agnostics. Even if they can't say for sure why they believe God is real, they have in Pascal a reason to believe even without convincing evidence. If they follow Pascal, they don't need it.
To address the thread more generally, I've encountered three general critiques of Pascal in my studies:
1.) Pascal can tell someone why they should believe, but his argument doesn't show them what to believe. They might decide the best option is to believe in God, but it doesn't tell if a person should be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever else.
2.) A person should ultimately believe a religion because they've thought about it and decided it is true. With Pascal's argument alone, a person doesn't do that.
3.) As I was saying to daddyslittlegirl (who for her age is darn impressive as a religious thinkier), Pascal is good for people who aren't finding a convincing argument for God. He gives a reason to believe anyway.
Pascal's Theory about God
We are committed, or maybe we should be committed
