Pascal uses a peculiar format to argue the practical advantage of believing in God outweighs the disadvantage of not believing in God. Some religious believers argue this way of deciding your faith is an insult to true faith because they believe Pascals over simplify true faith into a simple game of poker. Pascal’s Wager states the possible outcome of being a believer in God and the possible outcomes of not believing in God. With the outcome provided from Pascal’s Wager, people can now decide whether to become a believer or not based on the possible outcomes. In this essay, I shall demonstrate the reasons behind agreeing with this claim. Pascal’s Wager is an argument that it is one’s best interest to believe that god exist. In this argument Pascal …show more content…
Believing in god and god do exist, hence the result of infinite rewards, if God cease to exist, then nothing happens. Not believing in god and god do exist, hence the result of infinite punishment or eternal punishment, if god ceases to exist, then nothing happens. Therefore, it is more beneficial to believe in god because the possibility of eternal punishment outweighs any advantages of believing otherwise. Pascal assumes we do not have other validating reasons to decide our faith, therefore we only decide solely based on this wager. In this case the subject being must decide between believing in god and not believing in god with only the results of Pascal’s Wager. But Pascal did not restrict other theory from interfering with this philosophical reasoning, thus decision theory is forced into this reasoning. In this sense of the problem, Pascal is forcing the person to become a believer because based on decision theory, one will pick the option that seems
His arguments includes religious experiences, existential / affective reasons, and Pascal's wager argument. Jordan shuts down the arguments given by others, and gives his own arguments to prove why faith and reason are in fact compatible.
Despite that, I know that I’m taking the better “wager” by believing in God. I know this for the reasons stated previously, plus when compared to the alternative, it makes more sense. Who would want to burn forever? The benefits of one are superior to the other, and the consequences are far more severe than the other. This is what Pascal was referring to and I support that belief and ‘’’wager’’ as
He introduces the idea with a game, a simple wager of " heads or tails". However, in his game, one side of the coin represents the belief that God exist, while the other means that God does not exist. What we bet on in Pascal's Wager is also more than your ordinary school yard gamble with higher stake. In this wager, betting our entire lives, as well as the infinite beyond which we live on this
In the rival conceptions of God, Lewis divides humanity into two main groups; those who believe in God or gods and those who do not. Those who believe in God, Lewis divides into two subgroups. The first, Pantheists view God as “beyond good and evil” (Lewis, 1980) as if God and the universe are one. The second, Christians view God as the absolute good Creator, separate from His creation.
In a world where religion represents a crucial role in the lives of countless people, there is no doubt that it influences an individual’s daily decisions. There are numerous religions that have been created, although the most significant ones have been widely practiced for centuries. Each of the world’s major religions have distinctions that set them apart from others. Consequently, these distinctions cause turmoil between religions due to individual biased opinion for their God. Followers of a religion suppose that their faith is designated as the most favorable and true religion of all practices.
Second, he proposes that for any p, if s is justified in believing p and s deduces some q
Argument Against the Argument of Pascal’s Wager In Pascal’s Wager, Pascal pioneered new thoughts and opinions amongst his peers in probability theories by attempting to justify that believing in God is advantageous to one’s personal interest. In this paper, I will argue that Pascal’s argument rationalizing why one should believe in God fails and I will suggest that even if one was to accept Pascal’s wager theory, this will not be a suffice resolution to reap the rewards that God has promised to Christian believers like myself who has chosen to believe in God due to my early childhood teachings, familial and inherited beliefs. Pascal offers a logical reason for believing in God: just as the hypothesis that God's existence is improbable, the
In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.
In this essay, Elbow leans towards the believing game and tries to persuade the reader to leave the doubting game behind. Elbow states rules for each game that are used to form a plausible conclusion. The
Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.
God must be seen to have true meaning and that is what Pascal is pointing
William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” is an essay about justification and how we are morally required to prove our beliefs. Clifford’s theory throughout the essay was “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford thinks that it is a moral obligation for you to confirm each of your beliefs with sufficient proof, no matter how questionable or insignificant the beliefs may be. I believe he thinks this because beliefs have serious effects and consequences on others.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument in philosophy made by seventeenth century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. His argument assumes that individuals wager their lives on the existence or non-existence of God. His argument is based on the Christian conception of God and thus, believes that the most rational and beneficial choice is to believe in God. Pascal’s Wager in the simplest form is, “If you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal). Pascal says that if God exists and one wagers that God exists, he will "win all," so he has an infinite gain, which is defined as eternal life and happiness from God in heaven.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
The superdominace argument from Pascal 's wager essentially states that we cannot be sure whether God exists, so we have to wager on a side because reason cannot help in our decision on God 's existence, but he supports believing in God. While the argument from expectation states "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal 53). Pascal essentially says that when faced with God 's existence believing that he exists gives you two outcomes these are "you gain all" and "you lose nothing"(Pascal 53). Much less not believing in God can have the outcome of misery or simply status quo. To put it briefly, Pascal suggests one should wager on whether God exists on their own accord.