Confused by Philosophy Assignment trying to prove (I think) the existence of God

[Hopeful25]

Yet again, this jumbled and utterly confusing language baffles me

Can anyone translate this into something that makes sense? (coming straight from my textbook): Blaise Pascal's "The Wager"

231

Do you believe it to be impossible that God is infinite, without parts?-- Yes, I wish therefore to show you an infinite and individual thing. It is a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all places, and is all totality in every place.

Let this effect of nature, which previously seemed to you impossible, make you know that there may be others of which you are still ignorant. Do not draw this conclusion from your experiment, that there remains nothing for you to know; but rather that there remains an infinity for you to know.

232

Infinite movement, the point which fills everything, the moment of rest; infinite without quantity, indivisble and infinite.

233

Infinite--nothing.-- Our soul is cast into a body where it finds number, time, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presense of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God, as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast, and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what he is (Huh??? ). Is there not substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite, and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence or the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature (by making one numbers analogy??? No math can be applied to the existence of an onmnipotent/onmipresent supernatural being.).

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

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 (didn't he just say that we can? "we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature"). This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for that belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expanding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it? If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proffs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who recieve it." (<<<< what does that mean???) Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which seperated us (???). A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

This is just a part of it, or at least the part of it that I read so far and I'm already pretty confused by his opening statements (I hate philosophy related to religion and proving the existence of god). I'm gonna finish reading the rest and if I have more trouble I might post the rest of it

[ShyGuy86]

Pascal's Wager is less about proving God's existence, and more about chosing whether it's wise to believe in His existence or not, given what we know.

First, he proceeds to prove that it is possible for us to prove and to believe in the existence of something, without knowing what that something is (without knowing its nature). The (grand)father of calculus uses a somewhat flawed argument to prove this, be he can be given some leeway, considering there are other more fitting examples to prove the existence of something of which we do not know the nature. He considers "infinite" to be a number of which we know the existence, but we cannot know if it's even or odd. As I was saying, this is a somewhat informal statement, as "infinite" (Or aleph-0, as it's known in modern set theory) is not considered a Real number, and is therefore neither even nor odd. But stilll, the statement "it is possible to prove the existence of something, without knowing its nature" is something I'd be willing to accept Pascal's word for, even given a flawed proof.
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. Nor does he want to, because the point he is making is not to prove the existence of God, but to say that "you cannot describe God's nature, therefore God cannot exist" is not a valid argument to disprove the existence of God.

He goes further and claims that alhough the above argument cannot disprove the existence of God, we are incapable to do so due to how different He is from us. We have extension (that is, we occupy a limited space, at a certain time), whilst instead God's extension would be limitless, as he would occupy all space at any time.

At this point, come the key of Pascal's argument. We cannot disprove, nor prove the existence of God. Therefore, is it wiser to believe in His existence, or not to?

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by ShyGuy86

Pascal's Wager is less about proving God's existence, and more about chosing whether it's wise to believe in His existence or not, given what we know.

First, he proceeds to prove that it is possible for us to prove and to believe in the existence of something, without knowing what that something is (without knowing its nature). The (grand)father of calculus uses a somewhat flawed argument to prove this, be he can be given some leeway, considering there are other more fitting examples to prove the existence of something of which we do not know the nature. He considers "infinite" to be a number of which we know the existence, but we cannot know if it's even or odd. As I was saying, this is a somewhat informal statement, as "infinite" (Or aleph-0, as it's known in modern set theory) is not considered a Real number, and is therefore neither even nor odd. But stilll, the statement "it is possible to prove the existence of something, without knowing its nature" is something I'd be willing to accept Pascal's word for, even given a flawed proof.
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. Nor does he want to, because the point he is making is not to prove the existence of God, but to say that "you cannot describe God's nature, therefore God cannot exist" is not a valid argument to disprove the existence of God.

He goes further and claims that alhough the above argument cannot disprove the existence of God, we are incapable to do so due to how different He is from us. We have extension (that is, we occupy a limited space, at a certain time), whilst instead God's extension would be limitless, as he would occupy all space at any time.

At this point, come the key of Pascal's argument. We cannot disprove, nor prove the existence of God. Therefore, is it wiser to believe in His existence, or not to?

But if he says we can prove the existence of god (without any proof apparently), but then goes to show we can't prove the non-existence of god, shouldn't he think believing in god is the more rational choice?

I'm about to post some more stuff he says that's confusing me

[ShyGuy86]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

But if he says we can prove the existence of god (without any proof apparently), but then goes to show we can't prove the non-existence of god, shouldn't he think believing in god is the more rational choice?

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.

[Hopeful25]

233 (continued)

Do not then reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it (?). "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes, but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must out of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and 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, that He is (<<< What?? What exactly are we gaining and losing?).-- "That is very fine (NO, it is NOT very fine ). Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." (I'm completely lost at this point.. )-- Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain.

I'll stop there for now. I have no idea what's being wagered and what's being gained or lost..

[Hopeful25]

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:

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.

[ShyGuy86]

I think the reason you're confused is that Pascal doesn't make explicit exactly all the possible combinations of the wager. When he says "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.", he is considering the situation where you believe in God, and analyses the outcomes in the cases that God exists or not.

If you "gain", that is, if you win (because you decided to believe in God, and he exists), you gain all, because you will have been granted access to heaven. But if you lose (that is, you believe in God, but he doesn't exist) you will have lost nothing, because heaven and hell don't exist, and what you believed is immaterial.

As you can see, Pascal reasons in terms of consequences, rather than attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, because he knows both things are impossible.

[ShyGuy86]

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.

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

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.

That was a horrible choice of words on my part. What I meant to say is that Pascal shows how the argument "you can't describe God's nature, therefore He does not exist" is a flawed attempt at disproving His existence.

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

Can anyone translate this into something that makes sense?

Do you believe it to be impossible that God is infinite, without parts?-- Yes, I wish therefore to show you an infinite and individual thing. It is a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all places, and is all totality in every place.

Let this effect of nature, which previously seemed to you impossible, make you know that there may be others of which you are still ignorant. Do not draw this conclusion from your experiment, that there remains nothing for you to know; but rather that there remains an infinity for you to know.

He begins by asking the reader a rhetorical question - do they think it is possible for God to be infinite. He proceeds to argue that God is both infinite and individual: 'It is a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all places, and is all totality in every place' - Basically, God is everywhere, or at least he moves between places independently of time, so he might as well e everywhere. He asserts that this sounds impossible to you, the ignorant reader, but it's totally true, so there are probably a whole load of other truths you are ignorant of.

Infinite movement, the point which fills everything, the moment of rest; infinite without quantity, indivisble and infinite.

- God is everywhere, isn't he great!

Infinite--nothing.-- Our soul is cast into a body where it finds number, time, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presense of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God, as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast, and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what he is (Huh??? ). Is there not substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite, and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence or the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature (by making one numbers analogy??? No math can be applied to the existence of an onmnipotent/onmipresent supernatural being.).

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

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 (didn't he just say that we can? "we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature"). This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for that belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expanding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it? If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proffs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who recieve it." (<<<< what does that mean???) Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which seperated us (???). A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

The numbers analogy works like this: We know there is an infinite amount of numbers; but we don't know what the last (yeah, he doesn't quite get infinity) one is, because if the 'last' number in an infinity were odd, adding 1 to it would make the 'last' number even, so we can never say with certainty what the 'last' number is. The same applies to God...we cannot be certain of his nature, but we know he exists, much as we know numbers are infinite.

There isn't a contradiction in his saying we can't know whether God exists and also that we can know a thing exists without knowing its nature. We know infinity exists in numbers because numbers have parts that we are aware of - i.e. individual units - 1,2,3 etc. We do not know anything of the parts of God, however, so we cannot know his nature.

"Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who recieve it." (<<<< what does that mean???)

Basically, Christians who preach their religion lack proof, not reason....i.e. if you think, God might throw you into hell, its reasonable (according to Pascal's wager) to believe in him even without proof. He may be infinitely unlikely, but the risk of not beliveing in him is infinitely bad. This quotation is saying that the defence I just gave excuses preachers any guilt of preaching something that has no evidence, but it does not excuse those who choose to accept these preachings as truth.

Do not then reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it (?). "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes, but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must out of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and 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, that He is (<<< What?? What exactly are we gaining and losing?).-- "That is very fine (NO, it is NOT very fine ). Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." (I'm completely lost at this point.. )-- Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain.

The first sentence here is saying you shouldn't criticise Christians for believing in something they can't prove, because you can't prove it is false either. The quotation afterwards is a suggestion from some imagined antagonist saying "I can criticise both Christians an Atheists then, since both have made a choice about something they know nothing of, the rational person must be agnostic".

The author responds to this antagonist by saying that it is not optional to make a choice, everyone must decide whether they believe or do not. He suggests that we should choose to believe that God exists, because we would lose nothing from this if he didn't, but if God did exist we'd get heaven, which would be cool.

The long and short of all of this bollocks is, well, Pascal's Wager:

There are two paths in life, which are as follows:

1. Faith
2. Atheism

There are two possibilities of the divine:

A.There is a God
B.There is no God

This leads to 4 possible outcomes:

1A: Faith+God=Heaven (yay!)
1B: Faith+No God= Death (meh)
2A: Atheism+God=Hell (Nooo!)
2B: Atheism+No God= Death (meh)

Thus those with faith have a chance of either YAY or MEH results, whereas atheists have the chance of NOOOOO or MEH....and it's better to be on the side that has the YAY in it and doesnt risk the NOOOOO.

This is., of course, BS...because if you have faith you have to choose what to have faith in, i.e. Thor or Allah or Zeus or whatever. And there an infinite number of possible Gods, so it is infinitely likely you have chosen the wrong one, and thus are just making him angrier and angrier every second. So the best of course of action is really atheism by Pascal's Wager logic: Don't ally to any God, that way you have no chance of praying to a false God and angering the real one.

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by ShyGuy86

I think the reason you're confused is that Pascal doesn't make explicit exactly all the possible combinations of the wager. When he says "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.", he is considering the situation where you believe in God, and analyses the outcomes in the cases that God exists or not.

If you "gain", that is, if you win (because you decided to believe in God, and he exists), you gain all, because you will have been granted access to heaven. But if you lose (that is, you believe in God, but he doesn't exist) you will have lost nothing, because heaven and hell don't exist, and what you believed is immaterial.

As you can see, Pascal reasons in terms of consequences, rather than attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, because he knows both things are impossible.

Ah, I see, again, thanks for clarifying . I wish he'd just state clearly what it is we're gaining instead of using "gain", "loss", "risk" and other vague terms describing exactly what's being wagered. It's just kind of frustrating that he isn't being clear in something that's supposedly so logically valid. But I'll try to fill in "heaven/eternal life and happiness" for wherever he uses those words I suppose.

[ShyGuy86]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

I wish he'd just state clearly what it is we're gaining instead of using "gain", "loss", "risk" and other vague terms describing exactly what's being wagered.

Haha. You're being unfair! To Pascal's contemporaries, his words were just as clear as to you a modern newspaper is.

Let me just add one thing. An important element of Pascal's wager is that the combination "existence of God"+"belief of God" yields an infinite gain (heaven). His virtual counterpart argues "but I may perhaps wager too much". But that, he means "what if I live my life (the stakes) according to God's teachings, and then what I gain does not make up for it? Wouldn't I be perhaps better off by living a dissolute life, and hoping God doesn't exist?". The fact that heaven counts as an infinite gain is key to this, making any kind finite stakes (eg. one life) only worth playing on the "God exists" hypothesis. That is, according to Pascal, you are not wagering too much.

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by Resonance

He begins by asking the reader a rhetorical question - do they think it is possible for God to be infinite. He proceeds to argue that God is both infinite and individual: 'It is a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all places, and is all totality in every place' - Basically, God is everywhere, or at least he moves between places independently of time, so he might as well e everywhere. He asserts that this sounds impossible to you, the ignorant reader, but it's totally true, so there are probably a whole load of other truths you are ignorant of.

That's assuming that god exists, which we have no way of knowing, but ok. Thanks for the translation anyways lol.

The numbers analogy works like this: We know there is an infinite amount of numbers; but we don't know what the last (yeah, he doesn't quite get infinity) one is, because if the 'last' number in an infinity were odd, adding 1 to it would make the 'last' number even, so we can never say with certainty what the 'last' number is. The same applies to God...we cannot be certain of his nature, but we know he exists, much as we know numbers are infinite.


There isn't a contradiction in his saying we can't know whether God exists and also that we can know a thing exists without knowing its nature. We know infinity exists in numbers because numbers have parts that we are aware of - i.e. individual units - 1,2,3 etc. We do not know anything of the parts of God, however, so we cannot know his nature.

Wait, so how is that not a contradiction to his "infinite numbers" analogy he just used? We don't know any of his parts so how do we know that this all-knowing being exists? It's not like we can prove he's there, but we just don't get it. We can't prove anything.

"Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who recieve it." (<<<< what does that mean???)


Basically, Christians who preach their religion lack proof, not reason....i.e. if you think, God might throw you into hell, its reasonable (according to Pascal's wager) to believe in him even without proof. He may be infinitely unlikely, but the risk of not beliveing in him is infinitely bad. This quotation is saying that the defence I just gave excuses preachers any guilt of preaching something that has no evidence, but it does not excuse those who choose to accept these preachings as truth.

I see

The first sentence here is saying you shouldn't criticise Christians for believing in something they can't prove, because you can't prove it is false either. The quotation afterwards is a suggestion from some imagined antagonist saying "I can criticise both Christians an Atheists then, since both have made a choice about something they know nothing of, the rational person must be agnostic".


The author responds to this antagonist by saying that it is not optional to make a choice, everyone must decide whether they believe or do not. He suggests that we should choose to believe that God exists, because we would lose nothing from this if he didn't, but if God did exist we'd get heaven, which would be cool.


The long and short of all of this bollocks is, well, Pascal's Wager:


There are two paths in life, which are as follows:

1. Faith
2. Atheism


There are two possibilities of the divine:

A.There is a God
B.There is no God


This leads to 4 possible outcomes:

1A: Faith+God=Heaven (yay!)
1B: Faith+No God= Death (meh)
2A: Atheism+God=Hell (Nooo!)
2B: Atheism+No God= Death (meh)


Thus those with faith have a chance of either YAY or MEH results, whereas atheists have the chance of NOOOOO or MEH....and it's better to be on the side that has the YAY in it and doesnt risk the NOOOOO.


This is., of course, BS...because if you have faith you have to choose what to have faith in, i.e. Thor or Allah or Zeus or whatever. And there an infinite number of possible Gods, so it is infinitely likely you have chosen the wrong one, and thus are just making him angrier and angrier every second. So the best of course of action is really atheism by Pascal's Wager logic: Don't ally to any God, that way you have no chance of praying to a false God and angering the real one.

I knew this was an argument for why we should believe in god lol. Thanks a lot for the translation though (again). Yeah there are plenty of "gods" so that argument is flawed, but it's an interesting one that I honestly haven't heard before.

[ShyGuy86]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

Wait, so how is that not a contradiction to his "infinite numbers" analogy he just used? We don't know any of his parts so how do we know that this all-knowing being exists? It's not like we can prove he's there, but we just don't get it. We can't prove anything.

Don't take the numbers thing too literally. He's just trying to show you how an argument based on the fact that you cannot say anything about God's nature is not a good argument against God's existence.

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by ShyGuy86

Haha. You're being unfair! To Pascal's contemporaries, his words were just as clear as to you a modern newspaper is.

Let me just add one thing. An important element of Pascal's wager is that the combination "existence of God"+"belief of God" yields an infinite gain (heaven). His virtual counterpart argues "but I may perhaps wager too much". But that, he means "what if I live my life (the stakes) according to God's teachings, and then what I gain does not make up for it? Wouldn't I be perhaps better off by living a dissolute life, and hoping God doesn't exist?". The fact that heaven counts as an infinite gain is key to this, making any kind finite stakes (eg. one life) only worth playing on the "God exists" hypothesis. That is, according to Pascal, you are not wagering too much.

Yeah I guess that's true, I still don't like it though lol.

I see, so "one measly life is nothing to eternal happiness, so you might as well believe , or at least not criticize those that do for making that choice when there's no evidence for either side", that's basically what he's saying?

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

That's assuming that god exists, which we have no way of knowing, but ok. Thanks for the translation anyways lol.

Yes, but here Pascal is not saying we believe in God, only that the way the bible describes God, if he did exist he would be infinite - and therefore we can never prove either way if he does exist or not, because we can't understand infinity.

Wait, so how is that not a contradiction to his "infinite numbers" analogy he just used? We don't know any of his parts so how do we know that this all-knowing being exists? It's not like we can prove he's there, but we just don't get it. We can't prove anything.

This is kind of Pascal's point - namely we can't prove God is there, but we can't prove he is not, because God (if he exists) is so infinite and mysterious, we will never be able to prove either way, but since you have to decide whether or not to believe in him, it is ultimately best to believe.

Right now I feel like I'm coming across as a little pretentious and condescending, so I should point out that when I first started explaining why the whole numbers thing wasn't a contradiction, I stopped and spent 5 minutes thinking "Oh, wait, no, it is a contradiction!"...it's pretty confusing.

If I may indulge my penchant for ranting on minor nuances:

It looks like a contradiction because Pascal says we can understand numbers despite their being infinite, and then goes on to say we can't understand God because he is infinite. And I looked at this at first and thought "WTF!? "

But if you look at all that crap he writes about parts, he seems to be saying that we can understand numbers because we understand their constituent parts, but we don't understand God's constituent parts (if he exists). This of course, proves nothing, but that doesn't change his conclusion that it is more rational to believe in God to protect us from possibly going to hell.

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

I see, so "one measly life is nothing to eternal happiness, so you might as well believe , or at least not criticize those that do for making that choice when there's no evidence for either side", that's basically what he's saying?

Exactly

[ShyGuy86]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

I see, so "one measly life is nothing to eternal happiness, so you might as well believe , or at least not criticize those that do for making that choice when there's no evidence for either side", that's basically what he's saying?

Basically, yes.
Note, though, that alone with the inconsistent revelations flaw Resonance pointed out, there is also the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient God would easily see past this kind of superficial faith that is based solely on the calculation of probabilities weighed against an infinite gain.
Basically, God would want you to live a moral life because you have faith in Him, not because you might as well do!
Because of this, and because of the fact that Pascal was by no means an idiot, I do believe Pascal may be making this kind of reasoning only because this is his only chance to review a real-world situation where an infinite gain is involved. He performs a purely a mathematical analysis, using the only case he can think of where an infinite gain is involved (or might be involved) in real life. I do not believe Pascal is actually suggesting people to believe in God beause... "heck, why not?".

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by Resonance

Yes, but here Pascal is not saying we believe in God, only that the way the bible describes God, if he did exist he would be infinite - and therefore we can never prove either way if he does exist or not, because we can't understand infinity.

Oh ok. So here he's saying even if he did exist we wouldn't be able to prove it or explain it anyway.

This is kind of Pascal's point - namely we can't prove God is there, but we can't prove he is not, because God (if he exists) is so infinite and mysterious, we will never be able to prove either way, but since you have to decide whether or not to believe in him, it is ultimately best to believe.


Right now I feel like I'm coming across as a little pretentious and condescending, so I should point out that when I first started explaining why the whole numbers thing wasn't a contradiction, I stopped and spent 5 minutes thinking "Oh, wait, no, it is a contradiction!"...it's pretty confusing.


If I may indulge my penchant for ranting on minor nuances:


It looks like a contradiction because Pascal says we can understand numbers despite their being infinite, and then goes on to say we can't understand God because he is infinite. And I looked at this at first and thought "WTF!? "


But if you look at all that crap he writes about parts, he seems to be saying that we can understand numbers because we understand their constituent parts, but we don't understand God's constituent parts (if he exists). This of course, proves nothing, but that doesn't change his conclusion that it is more rational to believe in God to protect us from possibly going to hell.

But don't we need to know God's constituent parts to know that he's there? So he's only using that analogy to give a random example of something that's proved to be infinite and exist but not be explainable, so he can say: "See! God can be like the infinite number!" even though we can't see any of god's parts like we can see infinity's parts (numbers). Ok, I think I got it, this doesn't prove much other than something that's infinite and unexplainable can exist mathematically speaking.

Originally Posted by Resonance

Exactly

Originally Posted by ShyGuy86

Basically, yes.
Note, though, that alone with the inconsistent revelations flaw Resonance pointed out, there is also the fact that an omnipotent God would easily see past this kind of superficial faith that is based solely on the calculation of probabilities weighed against an infinite gain.
Basically, God would want you to live a moral life because you have faith in Him, not because you might as well do!
Because of this, and because of the fact that Pascal was by no means an idiot, I do believe Pascal may be making this kind of reasoning only because this is his only chance to review a real-world situation where an infinite gain is involved. He performs a purely a mathematical analysis, using the only case he can think of where an infinite gain is involved (or might be involved) in real life. I do not believe Pascal is actually suggesting people to believe in God beause... "heck, why not?".

It looks a lot like that's what he's saying, but ok lol. So you think it was for mathematical purposes rather than a missionary "I want to use logic to spread the gospel" mission.

[ShyGuy86]

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

But don't we need to know God's constituent parts to know that he's there? So he's only using that analogy to give a random example of something that's proved to be infinite and exist but not be explainable, so he can say: "See! God can be like the infinite number!" even though we can't see any of god's parts like we can see infinity's parts (numbers). Ok, I think I got it, this doesn't prove much other than something that's infinite and unexplainable can exist mathematically speaking.

The fact that God is infinite and that Pascal uses infinite numbers to prove his point of the un-disprovability of God's existence is just an unfortunate coincidence. The way God is infinite and the way numbers are infinite are two very different things. Numbers are infinite in that their cardinality is infinite, that is, no matter what number you pick, there is one after that. God is infinite in that he has infinite extension, both in space and time (that is, He is more than simply volumetrically infinite). He's not simply infinitely big, or made up of infinite parts. His infinity is therefore beyond our comprehension.
Again, his usage of infinite numbers is simply to point out that not being able to say anything about the nature of somthing is a bad argument against the existence of that thing.

Originally Posted by Hopeful25

So you think it was for mathematical purposes rather than a missionary "I want to use logic to spread the gospel" mission.

Absolutely.

[Hopeful25]

Originally Posted by ShyGuy86

The fact that God is infinite and that Pascal uses infinite numbers to prove his point of the un-disprovability of God's existence is just an unfortunate coincidence. The way God is infinite and the way numbers are infinite are two very different things. Numbers are infinite in that their cardinality is infinite, that is, no matter what number you pick, there is one after that. God is infinite in that he has infinite extension, both in space and time (that is, He is more than simply volumetrically infinite). He's not simply infinitely big, or made up of infinite parts. His infinity is therefore beyond our comprehension.
Again, his usage of infinite numbers is simply to point out that not being able to say anything about the nature of somthing is a bad argument against the existence of that thing.



Absolutely.

Ok. So he's not making a direct comparison, he's just making a point about infinite phenomena being incomprehensible and unexplainable, but nonetheless real. All right, I think I got it (or at least I hope I do lol).

This is only half of it, but if the next half is as confusing as the first I might just skip it honestly, this is too much for me: . Thanks for the help