While there are many arguments for the existence of God, as well as arguments against His existence, Pascal 's argument is the most basic and relatable. Pascal explains his wager theory as a wager where you’re better off betting that God exists rather than not due to a bigger reward. When you believe that God exists, and you’re right, you gain eternal life; if you’re wrong you lose nothing. In contrast, if you bet against God, and you’re wrong, you miss out on the eternal life that you could’ve had. While further explaining his theory, this paper will explore his theory with different religions and different Gods as opposed to an Abrahamic God which we assume Pascal is talking about; this paper will analyze different Gods and different wagers and decide, if …show more content…
I think for Islam the wager still applies, but I think it’s less of a wager. You do not believe in God just for the sake of reward, you believe because you have faith, and you practice that faith. I don’t think that in Islam there’s a way to fake your belief, you have to have genuine faith in God in order to be rewarded, it’s not as simple as wagering.
I think exploring the religion of Islam and the similarities between it and
Christianity is enough to how the wager can apply to different religions in general. In every religion there’s some sort of path you follow, someone you believe in, someone you praise, a way of life you live because in the end you want what comes with believing.
Not always in a religion is the ultimate goal, eternal life or a God who promises you a paradise. In Buddhism, they’re ultimate goal isn’t heaven or any sort of paradise.
The goal of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana. Although nirvana has become associated with a form of heaven, it means cessation. Through their noble truths, five skandhas, six realms, and eightfold path, they no longer need to manipulate things as they are into things, as they would like them to be. In Buddhism there’s a cycle of birth, death,