What is infinite? Can it be defined? Can it be put into a category? The answer to those questions is all no. If we live in a body that has a measurable dimension and is finite we cannot understand something that never ends. We cannot fully understand why something could always have been.
We measure things by comparing to another system that is also able to be measured; however this cannot work for a system that is immeasurable. You are unable to add anything to infinite proportions, because that would violate the nature of said proportion. In the same way God’s proportions or greatness is immeasurable. So to say that is impossible that there be a greater being that has always been is ignorant. This is not to say that we do not recognized the infinite exist, but it is more of way to show that we know it is there but cannot conceive the concept fully.
This then brings about another critical observation. If God is incomprehensible, and he does not have limits then how can we say if he is and how can we say that he is not out there. Since we cannot defend either side how can we claim that there is no possible way that a infinite God does not reside or exist. How can someone claim a Christian for saying that he exist. Do we have proof that he does not? If not then we cannot persecute and discourage the beliefs of anyone who believes there is an all-powerful deity. So we cannot tell them to prove it because no one can prove that he does not exist otherwise.
When it comes down to the wire in this way we must understand that we cannot not look at this problem in the same way. We must then make a decision; no we must make a wager. In this situation we must think as believe and not believing as a probability. We must weigh out which side would have better outcome. We can either wager to believe or we can wager not to believe. It is our choice to choose which side is best for us. The wager will decide where we stand in the conflict.
Some may say that wagering that God does not exist is better than believing and he is not there; however, would it better to wager than not to. If you do no and God does exist then you have neglected the truth of his existence. It does not hurt to take the side of the many who believe. We have nothing to lose if we do. We will have lived a humble and just life. It may be best to take the side and try to believe and work towards it. If you do not wager you may be losing out on a tremendous opportunity.
Now I do agree with Pascal because he makes a sound point. We cannot just say something is not real because we do not understand it. I also agree that we would not have nothing to lose. The only thing that I do not agree totally with is the fact that we are wagering. I believe we should not treat as probability, but more of a common sense aspect.
YOU ARE READING
Blaise Pascal's: The Wager
SpiritualThis is a discussion about Pascal's wager scenario. In his writing, he proposed a question of whether it would be better to wager or believe there was an ultimate being. Or would it be best not to beleive nothing at all.
