Several authors that we have studied have argued for and against the concept of believing in a higher power. It is a debate that has been argued over since the days of Plato and Aristotle, and it continues to be written about today. People have their own views on what happens after life and if it is or is not defined by a god, and these views essentially are the dogmas that define different religions. Blaise Pascal had his own opinion on whether a reasonable person should believe in God. Essentially, Pascal believed that there is no justifiable reason not to believe in God. Despite the counterarguments by several scholars against Pascal’s proposition, his proof still stands as a justification for a reasonable person to believe.
In Pascal’s
…show more content…
Of these scholarly articles, Pascal’s Wager: A Critique, by Simon Blackburn, may hold the most weight. Blackburn argues against two critical points of Pascal’s theory: the concepts of metaphysical ignorance and religious pluralism. In Blackburn’s objection from metaphysical ignorance, he argues that a logical person cannot assume that there is an infinite gain or loss for believing or not believing in God, respectively. Pascal assumes a Christian viewpoint of heaven and hell. No human is in the position to declare his or her own destiny after death based on whether or not they believe. For example, God could have motives to punish those who believe in him by subjecting them to eternity in hell and nobody would know until after death. However, a reasonable person can disregard this theory because the prospect of God rewarding those who believe is much more likely than God rewarding those who do not. Also, believing that God would punish someone for believing is still a belief in God, and therefore, if that person truly believes that that is what God wants, then he should be rewarded if he is true. Nevertheless, he still justifiably believes in …show more content…
This argument simply states that there are too many religious affiliations nowadays to know confidently which one God wants us to believe in, and some of these are in conflict with one another. This prompts the question that any reasonable person would ask: which religion should we believe? In my personal opinion, I believe that God does not discriminate based on religion whatsoever. Similarly to Protestantism, I believe that faith and good works are all that leads to a life in heaven. If this is the case, whatever interpretation someone has of God or religion is not important when discerning whether or not to believe, and therefore is not important when determining the infinite utility of an
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.
On the other hand, you could choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then you are fine. You can sin all you like, you can allow yourself transgressions and forbidden acts, and the only punishments you will face will be those of this life. If, however, you lived thusly and there is a God, then you face an eternity of torture and unbearable misery. So, Pascal reasoned, one would do best to believe in God and act accordingly. That way, if you're wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that you were more pious and caring then you may have otherwise been. If you do not believe in God and you turn out to be wrong, the risks become terrifying.
My goal is to not disprove God’s existence, or to disprove that humankind can live in Union with God. My hope is to argue that our will which wills what it ought not to will is limited. I believe that every day we have the equal opportunity to make choices, both good and evil, and we are able to do this because of our free will. I am not arguing that our defective free wills do not exist, I want to argue that they are restricted.
-Pascal’s wager was meant to show that while not believing in God will only have loss of some things, believing in God will allow you to gain everything.
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
...nough to support the idea of God’s existence, I consider the debate to have no winner, because, the arguments of Dr. Dacey are also strong enough to prove his position. However, in these debates the double answer is not possible, because in reality the existence of God can be true of untrue, without anything in between. In my opinion, God exists, and I strongly believe in His existence. I consider the question “Does God Exist?” to be the issue of faith, and there cannot be true or false arguments, because all the people are willing to decide, whether they believe in existence of God, or not. It is the inner choice of everybody, and sooner or later we will all find out the truth.
Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence. While individually they do not point to evidence together they do. This coherence forms a basis of truth, supporting each other in their claim and not contradicting them. In this manner they establish truth where facts are lacking. If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God.
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 proof for the existence of God is an issue that may never be resolved. It has caused division among families and friends, nations and society. The answer to the question “does God exist?” is almost an impossible one to give with certainty seeing that there is a variety of people, ideas, cultures and beliefs. So how does one know if one’s actions here on earth could have eternal consequences? What is, if any, a “safe bet” to make? Blaise Pascal was a 15th century philosopher and a mathematician who proposed the idea that although one cannot know for certain that God exists, one can make a “safe bet” that it is far better to believe in God than not to believe in God. This is not a proof for the existence of God but rather an idea that suggest that if there is a God, it is in the person’s benefit to believe rather to disbelieve because the odds are in favor of the believer. This gambler-like idea is better known as “Pascal’s Wager” or “The Gambler’s Argument.” Nevertheless, this sort of play-the-ponies idea is not quite precise. Although Pascal’s Wager serves as a stepping-stone for non-believers, it is a rather vague, faithless and inaccurate argument.
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.
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
...This is completely false because God made the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus sacrificed himself so he could redeem humanity and that all their sins would be forgiven. Making such a self sacrifice is good proof that God cares for humanity. The last reason that proves the existence of God is how we look at God. Most of humanity believes that God must look up to humanity, where as the truth is we must look up to God. The best argument that atheists have to disapprove the existence of God is the presence of evil. But their argument is shut down by the Augustinian theodicy. These reasons are great proof that shows the existence of God. Any atheist who reads all ten reasons and the Augustinian theodicy can never disapprove the existence of God.
Religion is a significant aspect of humanity that has existed for centuries and will continue to exist for centuries to come. It’s true significance is based on the fact that it has successfully controlled human actions and beliefs through the use of an invisible God or Gods. What religion one pursues is a game of chance that is essentially dictated by where you are born, your ethnicity and your familial morals and beliefs. Certain individuals have the power to surrender their religious beliefs within the course of their lives, giving them the freewill to decide whether they will capitulate their autonomy or live a life with no given purpose. The real question is, does a higher power truly exist and are these beliefs sincerely beneficial to