Question

There is change and succession in all things.' 'You are wrong, there is . . .' 'Why, do you not say yourself that the sky and the birds prove God?' - 'No.' - 'Does your religion not say so?' - 'No. For though it is true in a sense for some souls whom God has enlightened in this way, yet it is untrue for the majority.'

The conclusion seems to be a rejection of a certain argument in natural theology to prove the existence of God. What might Pascal be referring to in the question in the second sentence -- You are wrong, there is . . .? My first inclination is that the putative interlocutor would insist that the divine is not subject to succession and change. But Pascal seems to be probing a particular argument for the existence of God, and in such a context it doesn't make sense for the interlocutor to jump ahead to some divine attribute (when the every existence of God is under consideration). Might Pascal be suggesting that some things are not subject to change and succession? What might those be? Laws of logic, mathematics, or physics? Moral truths? Platonic forms or essences of some sort? Some more concrete physical entity that was understood to be static?

Answer 1

Pascal's point seems to challenge the constancy of divine attributes and the use of immutable concepts like laws of logic, mathematics, and moral truths in arguments for the existence of God.

Step-by-step explanation:

When Pascal refers to 'You are wrong, there is ...' he may be directing the conversation toward the idea of things that are perceived as unchanging or eternal. In the exchange, it appears the interlocutor initially challenges the constancy of divine attributes. Pascal might be probing the arguments for the existence of God, specifically against the concept that the divine is immutable by nature, contrary to the phenomena of change and succession present in the universe.

In the given context, Pascal could be alluding to concepts that are generally considered unchanging such as laws of logic, mathematics, and certain moral truths. These abstract concepts, unlike tangible entities, are often regarded as immutable, suggesting a potential parallel with divine constancy. However, Pascal's skepticism possibly indicates that even these may not serve adequately in arguments for the existence of God, for they may not resonate with the majority who rely on sensory experience rather than abstract reasoning.