Pascal’s Wager is an argument for the existence of God. Pascal’s Wager was written by Blaise Pascal, who was a French philosopher and mathematician during the 17th century. Pascal says that it is in our best interest to believe in God. The wager argues that we should believe that God exists, as it is the best option. The wager attempts to justify the belief in God through an appeal to self-interest rather than an appeal to evidence. Pascal argues that reason and intellect cannot alone decided whether God exists or not. Therefore, it would be the beneficial to us if indeed we just decided to believe that God does exist. Meaning that it is in our best interests to believe in God of Christianity. Pascal’s wager tries to justify Christian faith …show more content…
by trying to explore the various and possible consequences for believing and disbelieving in God. Pascal states that if we believe in God then we will receive an infinite and everlasting reward in Heaven. Yet if we do not believe in the Christian God then we will lose little to nothing. If you believe in God and he does exist, then you gain an infinite reward in Heaven. If you believe in God and he does not exist, then you lose nothing. Pascal argues that we should take the risk of believing in God even if there is no God then taking the chance that God does not exist and losing everything. If you do not believe in God but he does exist then, you will receive an infinite punishment in Hell. If you do not believe in God and he does not exist then, then you gain nothing. The best option is believing in God no matter what even if he exists or not. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain in disbelieving in God. Another option Pascal presents is the option that is if you live a pleasure seeking life, you will be denied eternal happiness because it is not in accordance with how God wants you to live. Therefore, if there is a God, one will not be able to enjoy a happy, eternal life because they did not believe. Another view that Pascal presents is that one may live a holy life believing, but there is actually no God or eternal life so one can live a pleasure seeking life but it would not matter because there is no God. There are three objections to Pascal’s Wager.
The first objection is the entrance criteria for heaven. It says that by disbelieving in the Christian God that one receives an everlasting reward. If any of those distributive schemes were the true scheme, then the third premise of Pascal’s Wager would be false as there would be no way to prove it true. The second objection is the existence of God is unlikely. It says that for God to exist the probability of either receiving an eternal reward in heaven or of receiving an eternal punishment in Hell is so small that these possible outcomes of belief or disbelief can be disregarded The Wager sounds atheistic rather than theistic. The third objection is we cannot choose our own beliefs. It says that our beliefs are founded on truth rather than an act of will. Yet, Pascal’s Wager tells to us beliefs in God without evidence to prove such a belief true so it would be irrational to believe without reason. A weakness of Pascal’s wager is that God is never proved to actually exist throughout this whole argument, but instead we are supposed to assume that He is because it is easier to believe He does exist. Another weakness presented in Pascal’s Wager is the fact that the argument presents presents the wager as trying as trying to force yourself to believe something you might think is false. The argument puts a limitation on faith. Instead of believing in God because one genuinely believes in God and his plan, people will only believe in God in order to avoid Hell, which taints faith and its
purpose. The Ontological Argument is another argument for the existence of God. It was written by Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm was an important Christian philosopher and theologian during 11th century. It is given in the context of prayer and in the context of the community of faith. Then upon consideration of Psalm 14 and the “fool who says in his heart ‘There is no God’”. Step 1 for the argument says that Assume that God, who is that than which none greater can be conceived, exists merely as an idea in the mind (siding with “the fool”). Step 2 says Existence in reality is greater than mere existence in the mind. Step 3 says but then we can conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being: namely, that being as existing in reality. Step 4 says but this is absurd/impossible, for we cannot conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being. Step 5 says thus, this being must exist and it is God. The criticisms of the Ontological Argument are that the same argument can be made for a perfect island and it does not it exist. However, we cannot conceive a perfect island therefore the argument does not apply, it only applies to God. The second objection that we cannot can give any definition of God, as it is a minimum definition of God, limiting him. The third objection of the Ontological argument is that the existence does improve the concept of God. I enjoyed reading about both arguments as I learned a lot about God and my relationship with Him. Coincidently, I think that both arguments, Pascal’s Wager and the Ontological Argument both have their share of strengths and weaknesses. The Ontological seemed liked the opposite of Pascal’s Wager as Anselm’s argument lies within the fact that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived”. This notion creates conflict between the hypothesis he presents and therefore proves that it is false succeeding in his purpose of trying to prove that God does truly exist. In Pascal’s wager, he does not even manage to prove that God exists, he is just saying that it is in our best interest to believe in Gods no matter if he does exist or not. I think that I side with Pascal’s Wager on proving God existence although it presents an argument that taints faith and the genuinely purpose for believing in God. I believe this is because people will believe in God for their own self-interest as a way not to go Hell instead of real salvation and grace. Their faith is based in all the wrong reasons. It seems as if one can take the easy way out by believing in him just so that they do not end up in hell. We should believe in God regardless of the outcome because we have unconditional faith just he has unconditional love for us. I think that it is important to question the existence. While I do think that having faith is important, I also think that one should not have blind faith. It is important to question what you believe and challenge yourself so then you can grow out of the struggle it creates. Questioning what we hold true leads new ideas and changes, which disrupts complacency and dated concepts. We as humans would have never been able to create some of the greatest inventions such airplane, cars, and spaceships if we did not question the status quo. In addition, God would not give us the ability to think, infer, reduce and make questions if he did not want us to think or questions ideas and concepts.
The teleological argument says a complex world such as ours could not exist without having an original designer such as God. Since this world is in existence, there must be a God. Pascal’s wager suggests that as humans we do not have the mental capacity to understand the existence of God and so believing in God is our safest bet. These arguments are also both referencing a specific God.
When I was at school in Vermont, one of my teachers explained to me Pascal's Wager. According to this teacher, the philosopher and mathematician Pascal had tried to establish the costs and benefits of believing in God. He saw it in this way: you can either believe in God or not. If you do believe in God, and there is in fact no God, then you will perhaps have spent some extra energy unnecessarily abstaining from certain pleasures and wasting your Sunday mornings in Church, but overall you did not give up too much. And, it could be argued, you may have actually treated your fellow men more kindly then you would have otherwise. If, however, there is a God, and you believed in him, then you get eternal salvation.
Thesis: Pascal’s Wager calls for the need for people to choose to believe in something, to allow them the chance of gaining more than ever, and with that your chances for gain will be higher with the belief of a god, but the highest with the belief in the God of the Bible.
Pascal’s Wager was a major strength of his theory on God and Religion. The argument made in Pascal’s Wager is an example of apologetic philosophy. It was written and published in Pensées by the 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal’s Wager claims that all humans must bet their lives on whether God exists. He argues that rational people should seek to believe in God. If God does not exist the loss is minimal, but if God does exist there is an infinite gain, eternity in Heaven. It was a ground-breaking theory because it utilized probability theory and formal decision theory. Pascal’s Wager is applicable both to atheists and theists. While other philosophies may
Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God, they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God. Pascal begins his argument by stating that everyone must make a wager. This wager everyone places is on whether or not God exists. Pascal believes everyone must make a wager based on two reasons, everyone eventually dies and God is a possible being.
In the year 2012- 2013, though several 3.1 public high school students or 81 percent, graduated on time (Public High School Graduation Rates), how many students in that number truly gain the full education. Nowadays, education is necessary, which becomes a controversial issue between parents and the school. Either Charter or Public school encourages the development or improvement of the educational system to our young, beloved children. There are further charters out there which children can stay home, however, still learn enormous things. “Lottery” documentary film is about the controversy between public and charter schools, which tells the stories of four families who tried to find a better educational
Modern debates over religion, more specifically God, focus primarily on whether or not sufficient evidence exists to either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Disbelievers such as biologist Richard Hawkins tend to point to the indisputable facts of evolution and the abundance of scientific evidence which seem to contradict many aspects of religion. Conversely, believers such as Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith describe the controversial aspects of science, and how the only possible solution to everything is a supreme being. However, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal refused to make either type of argument; he believed that it was impossible to determine God’s existence for certainty through reason. Instead, he suggested that rational individuals should wager as though God does indeed exist, because doing so offers these individuals everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Unfortunately, Pascal’s Wager contains numerous fallacies, and in-depth analysis of each one of his arguments proves that Pascal’s Wager is incorrect.
The Moral Argument for the Existence of God Kant did NOT put forward a moral argument and anyone who said he does is wrong!!!! Kant rejected all attempts to argue from the world to God, he regarded such an exercise as impossible. However he thought that God was a POSTULATE of practical reason. If you share Kant’s assumptions, then it becomes necessary to assume that there is a God.
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I
...ople to come back to Church and to believe in God but not out of self-interest. In order for the argument to accomplish this it must first be rewritten. It needs to define its terms (i.e. the use of the word God), it should not be based on chance or self-interest but rather to make known to the person that it is quite possible that God exists, and finally, it should include a fifth outcome where a person believes in God out of self-interest and is eternally damned anyway for lack of faith, love and for selfishness. Pascal’s Wager calls to mind a famous quote by Albert Camus: “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.” Until Pascal’s argument is solid and fully developed, one should not adopt the argument as a mean for conversion, evangelization or lifestyle.
When looking at Pascal’s arguments that emerge in Pensees; the history, ideas, and people that influenced Pascal must be examined. Many of Pascal’s arguments involve the unity of both religion and science. This can be very controversial at a time where an absolute monarch challenges and tries to destroy other faith practices. Along with introducing scientific ideas others may misinterpret as trying to disprove God’s existence. Pascal was heavily influenced by the Christian church and was a firm believer in God. In fact, Pascal’s discoveries and experiments only solidify his faith even more. Pensees is Pascal’s thoughts on God and some other subjects that tie philosophy and the nature of man.
Lottery" was written shortly after World War II, however it is unknown as to when
The Middle Ages saw a period in time that was deeply rooted in Christianity. Almost every aspect of life was monitered and ruled by the Church. This period in time also saw the emergence of men beginning to question whether the existence of God can be proved by faith , reason, or as Thomas Aquinas insists, by both faith and reason. There were differing opinions of this matter in both scholarly and religious circles. Faith is what all believers must have within them, it is a crucial part of man’s relationship with God. On the other hand, reason is a part of science and some believed that matters of The Divine should not be subjected to reason; there should not be a justification for God.