# Pascal's Wager really is a great argument

**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [March 8, 2024, 7:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479 "2024-03-08T19:22:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 315

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/ichthus77/32/446_2.png) [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2025, 1:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479/315 "2025-06-23T13:01:56Z")

</div>

Well, a life/essence/purpose/function/WHY without such “a binary processing biological machine” (or whatever mode of existence) is incapable of **doing** /HOWing or **being** /WHATing. A why (love) without a how (demonstration) or a what (medium) is impossible to manifest…isn’t & can never be real. So if there is a real why, it does a how and is a what, and always did do, and always will be.

…just as “a binary processing biological machine **[without a WHY]** doesn’t possess life\*\*[/essence/purpose/function]\*\*. It merely exists and doesn’t exist and claims things” without even basing their life around (having faith in) (living by) them.

In other words … works/characters without faith are just as dead as faith without works. That’s so many people‘s point. It’s been made time & again. In _The Republic_, for example—politicians who do things for show, but inside are full of dead men’s bones (OK that last part was Jesus). Kierkegaard saying that if you do it on your own steam (as if your works can save you … rather than the grace/love of the vine and vine dresser), you’re doing it like one of those walking sepulchers.

The fact that we hunger for meaning (a real why that is not handed to us from the outside as if we’re just supposed to accept it without critical examination, but instead a meaning/why that we intuitively grasp because it makes everything make sense) … is evidence that we do have the why in us.

All of that to say it’s pretty fair to wager that there is an answer to that why.

Now, if I could just get you to answer this question, we’d be all set:

> [@Pascal's Wager really is a great argument](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479/311):
>
> You will tell me the answer: You want to tell me the answer.

well, basically this question:

> [@Pascal's Wager really is a great argument](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479/299):
>
> unless you can explain this, we have nothing further to say to each other: [https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2716148/why-is-the-distributive-law-abc-abac-not-true-in-real-algebra](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2716148/why-is-the-distributive-law-abc-abac-not-true-in-real-algebra)

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pascals-wager-really-is-a-great-argument/79479)._