Originally Posted by tiptap
Let's remember Pascal was born at least a decade before Isaac Newton. Science was still in its infancy. Probability was barely introduced by Pascal. We are more enamored and successful with Bayesian statistics (Nate Silverman). Our understanding of the size of the Universe is much better. Pascal had no notion that science could gain an understanding of biology. Much less other fields like geology, astronomy, chemistry and such. No idea about atoms.
My first position is I don't know WHAT god is. When you say "who" you have already restricted god to a human scale and ignore the universe's size and diversity.
I am good with a statistical understanding. So the statistic I will sight is there is no little Christ, you know Christian, that has died and then becomes reanimated 36 hours later, capable of normal interactions for 40 days and then rockets off into space toward heaven. I really don't care if Jesus can make this claim since he is stated to be unique in that he IS god or the first created item, being. So nothing is in evidence for those born just human to be able to put in evidence a claim to anything suggesting something eternal. To claim otherwise without evidence and consistent and repeatable evidence, is too much like a bait and switch notion. We have billion of humans die and no evidence of a consistent norm to reanimation. (That includes Zombies and undead or virus infused existence). It is a much harder problem to say reincarnation doesn't take place since all those people were born. But there is no evidence of the machinery that moves souls around.
Now if you want to learn French, read Pascal in french. But not so much mathematics or science. His understanding was curtailed by the accumulation of understanding of his time. We know much which he could not imagine. He was left to imagine what he could.
Just wondering...is your name Will Hunting?
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. Hitch~