[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Case]

[Ham]
Try to focus on what I said.  (I didn't even mention experience.)  I'll try
to simplify it.  We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality.
Therefore, we have a choice.  We can either believe that ultimate reality is
Nothingness -- which is to deny an ultimate reality, or we can believe that
it is Absolute -- which is to believe in a primary source (i.e., Oneness,
Essence, Being, or God).  In the theistic language of Pascal, the winning
bet is that God is.  What is so difficult about Pascal's wager?  He's saying
that if we believe in a transcendent God, we have everything to gain and
nothing to lose; conversely, if we believe in nothing, we have nothing to
gain and everything to lose.


[Case]
Ok, Ham, lets focus on what you say here. It is a beautify illustration of
how you apply reason.

You state:
"We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality."

You conclude:
"Therefore, we have a choice."

How does this conclusion follow from the statement? What in the statement
even asks for a conclusion?  

Now based on a conclusion that unconnected to your premise you go on:

"We can either believe that ultimate reality is Nothingness -- which is to
deny an ultimate reality, or we can believe that it is Absolute -- which is
to believe in a primary source (i.e., Oneness, Essence, Being, or God)."

You construct a dichotomy out of thin air asserting them to be the only
possible choices. Next you drop a name.

"In the theistic language of Pascal"

Then you imply expertise in the works of the dropped name:

"He's saying that if we believe in a transcendent God, we have everything to
gain and nothing to lose; conversely, if we believe in nothing, we have
nothing to gain and everything to lose."

So to review: 
1. Your premise is drawn from thin air.

2. Your conclusion is unrelated to the premise 

3. The dichotomy you construct has little to do with the conclusion or the
premise.

4. You drop a name to lend some needed weight.

5. Mix and stir.

This same pattern is repeated many times in your online term paper. I
frankly admit that I quit reading both it and your posts after the third
time you insist on this technique. 

I chose this simplified example because at least it spared us all a review
of how you define terms.