Arguments Of Pascal's Wager

Others point out that you cannot get into heaven based upon good works alone; if you could, then Christ’s sacrifice would have been meaningless. To gain salvation, you must receive God’s grace,

Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of

Most philosophers saw their work as contributing to a deeper knowledge of the divine; therefore, most scientific thinkers supported religious belief. Many people believed the most important thing about the scientific revolution was to tie it in with religion to understand nature more (Doc. 3). This effort of synthesizing both religion and science was a major fundamental factor in the spread of science and its widespread acceptance in Europe. Blaise Pascal was one of the most influential men who tried reconciling faith and the new science. For Pascal, religion was not the domain of reason and science. He saw two truths in the Christian religion, which were that God exists and human beings are unworthy of God because they are corrupt by nature. To Pascal, reason alone was not enough to resolve the problems of human nature. Pascal also believe he was not losing anything if God didn’t actually exist, but if God did exist he would gain

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God.

If He did not exist, then you could still think of an even greater being (one just like God that you said did not exist, except this one would exist). Existence must be one of God's attributes because to remove it, you would still be able to fathom a greater God (one which does exist). The problem most have with this argument is that it seems to simply list existence among God's attributes, rather than show it. The argument appears to say whatever you can imagine should be true in reality.

Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of

Pascal doesn’t understand that the atheist or the believer would be persuaded by his argument. Instead, he handles the Wager to the curious and unconvinced. I have a choice to either believe in god exist or believe that doesn’t exists. First, if I believe in God, and God exist, then I will gain happiness; but if I don’t believe in God, and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. Second, if I don’t believe in God exist and God does exist, then I will gain pain; but if I believe God doesn’t and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. So, I have everything to earn, nothing to lose by believing in God, and I have everything to lose and nothing to earn by not believing in God. Pascal’s wager is at first intent for believing, but not a proof. Yet, the wager assumes many conditions for the wager to fit a rational theory.

James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence. He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions

Descartes forces the idea that God exists on his readers with the grounds of clear, distinct, and mathematical ideas. Pascal claims that because of the obscurity and ambiguity in God we are not forced to believe in Him but instead have the freedom of choice to do

Ernest Nagel, born in 1901, was a bona fide prominent atheist of his time. At Columbia University, he was a Philosophy professor. One of his many works was an essay that considers the existence of God. In his essay, Nagel gives his readers three basic arguments presented by Blaise Pascal on the existence of God. One altercation stated is, since we have an interpretation of God as an impeccable being, God must exist.

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.

Darius Sabau Professor Seok Philosophy 30 April 2018 Pascal’s Wager During the sixteen hundreds a great mathematician, physicist, and most importantly philosopher named Blaise Pascal was born. Even though Blaise Pascal was a true genius and inventor of many great inventions, one of the most important inventions that he created was his wager, which was later termed Pascal’s Wager. Contrary to popular belief Pascal’s Wager is not actually an argument that says that God exists, but rather it focuses on why it is more mathematically rational to believe in God than not believing in God, rather than trying to prove whether or not God exists or does not exist.

Descartes makes an attempt to prove God’s existence throughout his third meditation. In his first premise he states that he has an idea of an infinitely perfect being. He uses the Principle of Sufficient reason to advance his argument; it states that everything must have a reason or cause. This put forth his second premise; that the idea of god must have a

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?