Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyGuy86
He doesn't say we can prove the existence of God, he says we can't either prove it, nor disprove it. "According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions".
The first part (where he mentions the possibility of proving something exists without knowing its nature) is dedicated to showing how the strongest argument against the existence of God (that is, that saying "you cannot describe the nature of God, therefore God doesn't exist) is a flawed argument. Therefore he shows you can't disprove the existence of God.
Then, by simply pointing out how completely different from our perception of the world (space, time, extension) God is, he shows how it's also impossible to prove the existence of God.
Therefore, the existence of God cannnot be proven, nor disproven.
The choice of whether to believe or not is therefore unliked to whether He exists or not, and it's a decision that should be taken considering the consequences of believing or not believing, in Pascal's opinion.
|
I see, thanks for clarifying
. But I think he's losing me with explaining what exactly these consequences are
. And when I said he was proving god exists I was referring to when you said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyGuy86
He then says that it would be possible to prove God's existence, and still not know what he is. He says it's possible, but he doesn't actually go ahead and provide any kind of proof.
|
I was just saying if he thinks this is true then the clear choice should to believe in God because you can prove his existence right? But if he never says you can prove god's existence then nevermind.