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.
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
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
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
In Pascal’s Pensees, the difference between reason and believing are two completely different things. For Pascal, believing in God is good for the heart, but for all the non-believers, reason could be the only way to get closer to God. On other hand, there was a point where Pascal stated that there are somethings that reason does not understand the result, but the only thing that can understand the impossible is God. Thus, in Pascal tells his audience that the impossible reasoning is only understand by having God in their hearts.
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
Atheists and thesis have always butted heads with each other on believing if there truly is a God and if so, should you believe in Him? Atheists are people who do not believe in a God or all powerful and all knowing creature, whereas Theists are ones who chose to believe in a God. Choosing to believe in God, being the creator and someone who is all knowing and powerful being, comes with some benefits according to Pascal’s wager. The fundamental idea behind Pascal's Wager is a Pros and con's list as to why one should believe in God and it shows positives and the negatives of believing and not believing. Pascal's Wager by Blaise Pascal is a persuasive argument for whether God exists, but there are many faults with the argument because viewing
Pascal 's Wager Blaise Pascal takes a unique approach in defending the eternal question of God 's existence. "Pascal 's Wager" is the name given to the argument written by himself stating that it is prudent to believe in God 's existence because it is the best bet. Suppose that there is a winning sweepstakes ticket that is worth a new luxurious car and there are only two tickets to choose from. We know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing.
As stated by Blaise Pascal in the argument of Pascal’s Wager, Pascal claims that most people bet on their lives that God either does or does not exist. In providing his reasoning, the probability of the various outcomes pertaining to finite and infinite gains as well as losses is shown, coming to the conclusion that logically one should believe in God. Although some people believe in God and an afterlife of paradise, we cannot truly grasp the extent of God’s existence. Through assessing Pascal’s argument, it is essential to keep in mind that logically, through the use of probability that one should believe in the existence of God. Pascal argues that a rational individual should live as though God does exist and seek a righteous life that pertains to living up to God’s will.
Philosopher William Rowe agrees with Plantinga that propositions — that evil exists, God is omnipotent, and God is wholly good — is not logically inconsistent. Rowe does not believe it is impossible to allow God and his properties to exist along with evil. He takes a different route by focusing more on certain kinds of evil which evidently exist in the world, and not so much on the inconsistencies of the theist doctrines. This certain evil, in Rowe’s point of view, will show that a God who is all powerful and wholly good does not exist after all.
The Design Argument The question of whether God truly exists has been debated between believers and non-believers for centuries. Also known as the Teleological Argument, the Design Argument argued by William Paley states that there are so many intricate details and designs in our world that there must be a creator. In addition, it also argues that this world could not have been created by chance alone due to the characteristics that make it the perfect condition for human life to exist (Pecorino). In this essay, I will be giving a brief overview of what the Design Argument is, then providing evidence and reasoning in favor of the argument, then addressing the criticisms of the argument, then comparing both sides of the argument, then finally
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
A priori argument for God’s existence will attempt to prove that God necessarily exist by examining the idea of God and not by using our senses. A posteriori argument for God’s existence will attempt to prove that God must exist based on what we experience of the world through our senses. If I had to imagine being a mind (A) floating in a world of being and was only able to grasp concepts like forms I may try to explain Gods existence to mind (B) in the following; Using the ontological argument and the mere idea of God and God’s existence, I would explain that God is a being than which none greater can be conceived. God is the greatest conceivable being. God is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought