and Pascal was that Descartes thought that through reason he could prove gods existence, while Pascal saw it as not being a matter of reason. Both men saw reason as a legitimate and useful tool. However Descartes, through his process of doubting sought to prove undeniably that god existed. Through his destructive and constructive processes he came up with a logical method that would prove God's existence with 100 percent certainty. This is another point on which Pascal would totally disagree. As Pascal's metaphor of a wager shows we have to make a best guess and take our chances. Reason cannot prove undeniably that god exists, nor that he does not exist. Pascal's view is that we can know only through our heart. For Pascal this is the way to know the universe best. Descartes thought that we could trust our reason because it was God given. Because Descartes recognized God, who is not a deceiver, he feels he can perceive clearly. Pascal would disagree, as he feels that important truths cannot be known by reason for the heart has reasons that reason cannot know. Pascal says the senses deceive the reason, and the reason in turn deceives them back. Pascal would say that we can know the universe best by the heart which contrasts with Descartes view that we know best through certainty. Personally I would have to agree with Pascal. There is simply a huge fault in the logic of Descarte. His logic jumps to God exists without actually proving it. To say that we cannot conceive God without existence, and so we cannot exist without God is lacking any real logical basis. This leads to the Cartesian Tragedy and this destroys all further credibility to all further assumptions contained in his logical process. Pascal I can agree with a little more. He is straightforward in saying that we just have to follow our heart. He shows how proving through reason whether God exists would be difficult one way or another, which it is. I can appreciate his wager of f...
