Pascal’s famous Wager has been heavily debated in the philosophy world. For the most part, criticism falls on Pascal’s idea that you should choose to believe in that which offers you the greatest reward (which in his view is Christianity and the resulting reward of eternal life in heaven), rather than out of a genuine conviction, appreciation, and faith.

However, I’d like to comment on Pascal’s initial reasoning that he develops leading up to the wager – in particular, his argument that we cannot know God’s existence nor his nature. Two important concepts he uses in these arguments are “existence" and “nature.” He defines “existence” as being “extended in space.” For example, a tree exists because it takes up a certain amount of physical, observable space – just as a person or any other tangible object does. Pascal defines “nature” more vaguely, but it appears that Pascal is defining nature by limits: if something has limits, then we can know its nature. It’s difficult to understand what exactly he means, as Pascal never further explains this idea. But it seems most likely that this concept of “without limits” means “without limits in time or space,” which comes from the definition of the word infinity. A tree is limited because the physical space it occupies has a distinct beginning and end – just as a person or any other tangible object – and thus we can know its nature. His four initial arguments that use these two concepts of existence and nature are:

ARGUMENT A:
1. “It is quite possible to know that something exists without knowing its nature.” (Pascal, 122)
2. God is something.
3. “Therefore, we may well know that God exists without knowing what he is.” (1, 2 MP)


ARGUMENT B:
1. If we are finite and extended in space, then we can know the existence and the nature of the finite. 
2. “We too are finite and extended in space.”
3. Therefore, “we know the existence and nature of the finite.” (1,2 MP)


ARGUMENT C:
1. If, like us, infinity has extension, then we can know its existence.
2. Infinity has extension.
3. Therefore, we can know its existence. (1,2 MP)
4. If, unlike us, infinity has no limits, then we cannot know its nature. 
5. Infinity has no limits.
6. Therefore, we cannot know its nature. (4,5 MP)
Therefore, “we know the existence of the infinite without knowing its nature.” (3,6 Conj.)


ARGUMENT D:
1. If God has neither extension nor limits, then we do not know either the existence or nature of God.
2. God “has neither extension nor limits.”
3. Therefore, “we do not know either the existence or the nature of God.” (1,2 MP)


I’d like to object to Pascal’s central idea that if we cannot see something via spatial extension, then we cannot prove its existence through reason. He uses this idea when discussing the nature and existence of the finite, infinity, and God. My claim is: Couldn’t there be other acceptable grounds for existence other than spatial extension? For example, abstract concepts like love, time, and mathematics (and really all human emotions) have no physical extension in space, yet they still exist. Even the wind, which seems to be more of a physical concept than the other three abstract examples, still has no physical extension in space, yet it clearly exists. Some philosophers claim that abstract concepts like these don’t exist, but Pascal himself, as a famous mathematician who often discussed the concepts of love and time in his Pensées and other works, clearly did. Therefore, he is contradicting himself, which makes his argument fail.

One might argue that it is possible to observe physical manifestations or results from such concepts, which could serve as a kind of physical extension in space. For example: a loving relationship between two people, change over time as observed in the natural world, and visual manifestations of mathematics, like adding one apple to another to make two apples. But couldn’t the same be argued for God? Aren’t there physical manifestations of God that are an equal amount of proof for his existence as the three examples listed above are proof for love, time, and math? For example, let’s say that there exists a person who is 30 years old and has lived selfishly and immorally for the majority of their life. In their 30th year, they become convinced of the existence of God, commit to changing their life to live wholeheartedly for him, and from that point forward they live a virtually selfless and moral until the day that they die. Couldn’t that be a physical manifestation of the existence of God, because the good actions produced from their life were a result of their commitment to God?

Curious to hear comments on this reasoning.