/lit/ - Literature

Pascal utterly BTFO modern science and its atom theory in Pensees.

His argument is:

Let an atom be defined as an indivisible unit.

Then, it has no parts; for this is the definition of indivisibility.

Now consider two atoms placed on top of each other, composing some object.

These two atoms must touch at some point, and the point at which they touch is a part of the atom.

If it were not a part of the atom, but the whole of the atom, then the two atoms would touch at all points; ie., they would be the same atom.

Hence, no indivisibles (atoms) can compose anything.

What am I in for?

>>20221949
Also picrel

Wikipedia summary: "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)"
Could the same argument not be used to justify any action, as long as someone claims that there are infinite gains?
For example, if someone tells me they are part of a cult which believes the only way to heaven is cutting my dick off, according to pascal's argument, it is rational search for the nearest knife because it is only a finite loss (my dick), whereas I stands to receive infinite gains (eternity in Heaven).
Am I missing something?