Blaise Pascal and René Descartes amassed great followings based on their ideas surrounding the existence of God. Both philosophers agreed that God exists, but they each had different reasonings for their individual beliefs. Pascal’s belief in God can be best expressed through the simplistic idea of infinite gain versus infinite loss. If I choose to believe in God, and He exists, then I have gained eternity in heaven. Whereas if I choose not to believe in God, and He exists, then I have suffered an infinite loss and will spend eternity in Hell. Whereas Descartes’ ontological argument states that because God is a perfect being, and to be perfect means to exist, then God exists. Although Pascal and Descartes reached the conclusion that God exists, …show more content…
I will also be explaining Pascal’s Wager as well as Descartes’ ontological and trademark arguments for the existence of God. After dissecting each argument, I will then provide objections to Pascal’s Wager by explaining the many gods’ objections and the problem of inauthentic belief. As for Descartes, I will present the objections of Immanuel Kant as well as explain how conceivability of a perfect being does not mean the perfect being exists. Finally, I will state how Pascal’s wager is the more convincing argument of the two. Pascal’s belief in the existence of God, specifically the God referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is commonly known as “Pascal’s wager.” Now, what exactly is Pascal’s wager? The “wager” is terminology used to refer to the main point of Pascal’s explanation of belief in God. Pascal argues that because of the potential outcome of the decision made on whether to believe in God or not, choosing to believe is the best possible choice. Pascal states that if we bet on the existence of God, and He exists, then we will be infinitely rewarded with an eternal existence in Heaven, because Heaven is a perfect paradise that is the ultimate reward for believing in