“All of humanity’s problems,” he wrote, “stem from man’s inability to sit quietly"

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
“All of humanity’s problems,” he wrote, “stem from man’s inability to sit quietly"

“All of humanity’s problems,” he wrote, “stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” The real escape route from ennui and despair, he suggested, is to be found in the famous bet on the existence of God.

These days, the terms of “Pascal’s wager” – basically a “what have you got to lose?” argument – are an object of theoretical curiosity among academics interested in applied probability theory.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...view-on-blaise-pascal-a-thinker-for-our-times
 
Blaise Pascal, the 17th-century French mathematician, physicist, moralist and Christian, knew how to write. For that alone, the Pensées, his most famous work, would make an enjoyable addition to any summer reading list. But as France celebrates the 400th anniversary of his birth this year, there are other reasons for the world to re-engage with the bracing quality of his thinking.
 
BidenPresident said:
“All of humanity’s problems,” he wrote, “stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” The real escape route from ennui and despair, he suggested, is to be found in the famous bet on the existence of God.

These days, the terms of “Pascal’s wager” – basically a “what have you got to lose?” argument – are an object of theoretical curiosity among academics interested in applied probability theory.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...view-on-blaise-pascal-a-thinker-for-our-times
Click to expand...

Its the single weakest argument ever conceived of for the existence of God. .
 
BidenPresident said:
As good as all others.
Click to expand...

That's intellectually lazy since even the most devout atheist can acknowledge some arguments for the existence of God are more intellectually rigorous than others. They may not accept any of those arguments as valid but they know some are more compelling than others. That's been my experience anyway with atheists that can think. Even theists rarely use that argument for God since its such a bad an argument. To say Pascals wager is as good as all other arguments for God is not the opinion of person that thinks.
 
Last edited:
Yakuda said:
That's intellectually lazy since even the most devout atheist can acknowledge some arguments for the existence of God are more intellectually rigorous than others. They may not accept any of those arguments as valid but they know some are more compelling than others. That's been my experience anyway with atheists that can think. Even theists rarely use that argument for God since its such a bad an argument. To say Pascals wager is as good as all other arguments for God is not the opinion of person that thinks.
Click to expand...

You are intellectually a jerkoff moron.
 
Yakuda said:
Its the single weakest argument ever conceived of for the existence of God. .
Click to expand...

I don't think it was intended as a proof of God. It was a thought experiment in probability theory, something that Pascal was supposedly fascinated with. I think he was addicted to cards gambling, but I might be misremembering.

The ontological proofs of God from Descartes, Aquinas, Anselm are very weak.

The best proof of a higher power the holy rollers have is that cosmological argument, in my opinion.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think it was intended as a proof of God. It was a thought experiment in probability theory, something that Pascal was supposedly fascinated with. I think he was addicted to cards gambling, but I might be misremembering.

The ontological proofs of God from Descartes, Aquinas, Anselm are very weak.

The best proof of a higher power the holy rollers have is that cosmological argument, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Pascal was an early contributor to probability theory. I believe the king asked him for advice.

The "wager" is about the immortality of the soul, not about the existence of God.
 
BidenPresident said:
Wrong. It is an argument for life after death, not the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Whichever his argument is, it’s weak. He sets the parameters for that god and then makes his argument. He disregards any other iteration of a god. His argument about faith (or belief) is even worse. Forced belief (or faith) is neither.
 
domer76 said:
Whichever his argument is, it’s weak. He sets the parameters for that god and then makes his argument. He disregards any other iteration of a god. His argument about faith (or belief) is even worse. Forced belief (or faith) is neither.
Click to expand...

It is really a pragmatic argument. Better to believe in immortal soul than not.
 
domer76 said:
Whichever his argument is, it’s weak. He sets the parameters for that god and then makes his argument. He disregards any other iteration of a god. His argument about faith (or belief) is even worse. Forced belief (or faith) is neither.
Click to expand...

Really, any argument about any religion is in the realm of myth.
 
BidenPresident said:
It is really a pragmatic argument. Better to believe in immortal soul than not.
Click to expand...

As I said, forced belief is no belief at all. Why believe that a god, a benevolent god as the Christians portray, would punish one for not believing when they have led an admirable life?
 
BidenPresident said:
“All of humanity’s problems,” he wrote, “stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” The real escape route from ennui and despair, he suggested, is to be found in the famous bet on the existence of God.
Click to expand...

80% of all humanity's problems stem directly from irresponsible procreation.

The other 20% is "contributed" by theocratic religious fundamentalists and people with right wing political values.
Some of these are double counted, however, as they're in the first group as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top