Argument Vs Pascal's Argument

this argument has two important criticisms. The first criticism I would like to bring up is one Pascal refutes himself in the Pensees. The second criticism I would like to bring up is known as the “many-gods objection” this argument Pascal does not even acknowledge.

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, argued that to believe in God, or not to believe in God is a gamble on ones after-life. Pascal believed that we, as human beings on planet Earth are wagering our eternity, after we die, by what we believe during our current, existing life. Pascal implies there is a heaven and hell. He explains that if one believes in God and God exists they are granted eternity in heaven and much is gained. However, if God does not exist and one believes in God, nothing is lost. One would be sent to the same place whether they believed in a God, or not. Pascal explains that if one does not believe in God and God does exist that person is doomed for all of

The wager is neatly-structured and clearly explained, each conclusion is supported by the premises and they all make sense from a structural-level point of view. Yet, it is a bold attempt to clarify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. Pascal’s wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering

Subsequently, he builds his wager argument by assuming four outcomes on the basis of four options since we do not know whether God is essentially in existence. He offers four choices: First, If we believe in God, and God in fact exists, then we will be rewarded by infinite happiness. Second, If we believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, then I will have no payoff. Third, If we do not believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, then we will get infinite pain. Forth, If I do not believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, I will have no payoff too. Pascal is attempt to justify belief in God is not with an appeal to evince God’s existence. But rather, is with an appeal to our own interest by choosing the one what benefits us. From the four options Pascal presents, I presume he does not know What attributes God owns since he starts the position of metaphysical ignorance before framing these options; however, Pascal’s set up for wager indicates he does know something. For instance, he knows God could be either punishing or rewarding people regarding the decision we wager. Considered from this point, I conclude that Blackburn develops stronger argument in which he points of the self-contradictory nature of Pascal’s position of metaphysical ignorance. Accordingly, I conclude Pascal’s wager is a weak argument in this

The argument from evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God. It states that if there was a God with those qualities, then he would know about evil, have the power to stop evil, and because he is good, he would stop evil.

The Wager, as introduced by Blaise Pascal, addresses the hypothesized outcomes for all possibilities regarding God’s existence. I think that following Pascal’s instructions and choosing to believe in God because it may give you the most rewards in return is not beneficial because believing in anything without proper support for the claim is problematic and may lead to unintended consequences. Additionally, I think Pascal’s suggestion should not be followed because the guarantee of a more developed lifestyle and what we know to be certain now should overpower and be viewed as more important than the slight possibility of achieving a rewarding eternal afterlife. In this essay I will first explain Pascal’s general viewpoints expressed throughout

Another attempt to prove the problem of evil is the evidential version of the argument. This argument attempts to show inductively that the existence of God is not likely. This form is much

In John Perry’s “A Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God”, he uses a three character dialogue to debate the existence of God using evil as the main tactic against God’s existence. My goal for this paper is to prove that the theodicy Miller gives as his proof for the possible existence of God is in fact possible using scenarios that I have experienced during my lifetime. In order for Miller to suffice Weirob’s challenge he must convince her that, “The Christian God that Miller believes in – all-perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent – could possibly exist given as unimportant a bit of suffering.” (Perry, p. 99)

The logical problem of evil is often referred to as the inconsistent triad, this being that the following propositions; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists, are inconsistent. Also known as a reduction ad absurdum argument, whereby all three propositions cannot be true together. Theists, like Swinburne, come to the conclusion that the three propositions are compatible with one another, whereas atheists, like Mackie, believe that they are incompatible and therefore God does not exist. I shall be arguing in line with Swinburne’s view, describing the following defenses, indicating that there is no logical problem of evil.

In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.

Both the idea of God and the existence of God play a major role in the writings of Descartes and Pascal. Both certainly appear to believe in him though they argue the case for his existence very differently and they also give Him a very different sort of role in their works. Whilst Descartes claims that he is certain of the existence of God, using a large part of his Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire la raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences to prove the supreme being’s existence, Pascal’s approach to philosophy cannot allow anything to be certain. He instead asserts that he knows God and that, through the use of his famous Wager, it is better for anyone

There are two sides of the problem of evil which are the logical and evidential arguments. The logical side states that as long as evil and suffering exists in this world there is no God. That does not only contradict with the idea of God being “all-good”, but also him being “all-knowing” and “all-powerful” as well. Because, if God only desires good, then how evil was formed unless God was evil. If not, then if God has all knowledge, he should know evil exists and then use his “power” to put an end to it. However, evil can support the idea of the existence of God at the same time specially that it was discussed in most theist religions. The most important concept in those religions is that if evil did not exist, then good would not have existed. If humans could not desire good and evil, then humans will lose our free will. With this in mind, if God created humans as rational beings, then he must create free will in order for humans to have true thoughts and emotions. Otherwise, humans will be considered irrational. So, the logical side mostly does not seem to work, and that is where atheists suggested the idea of the evidential side of the problem of evil. The evidential side

Pascal starts off his essay by stating that, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible…He has no affinity to us.” (Pascal, 78) This already poses a problem with the argument he is about to present in support of believing that God exists. The main question becomes, if there is a god and that this god is incomprehensible, then what is the point in believing whether or not such a being a actually exists? It would obviously follow that we would never come to a full understanding of this god, and any efforts to believe in or worship him would be in vain. Are we just to believe that this god exists and that’s all, or is there a code of conduct that is to follow this belief? How do you act in a manner that is pleasing to being that you do not and never will wholly understand?