Blaise Pascal's Argument Essay

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’.

Does God exists? If He does exist, why does he allow evil? Why doesn’t He prevent bad things from happening? Since the origin of the world many people have doubted their faiths. When it comes to answering the question about God’s existence people have been divided into three different groups; theist, atheist, and agnostic. Theists are those who believe in God without doubting. Atheists do not believe in God at all. Agnostics cannot make up their minds because they do not have enough evidence from either side. In his article “Rebellion”, F. Dostoevsky present Ivan who does not understand the reasons for human sufferings and sacrifices in order to go to heaven after people died. On the other hand, in his article “Why Does God

To embark, Pascal’s Wager attempts to show non-believers that “it is in one’s best interest to believe in God” through a cost-benefit analysis. It examines the consequences of believing or not believing in God if he does or does not exist. It states: “If one believes in God and He exists, one will earn eternal bliss. If one does not believe in God and He does exist, one will suffer eternal damnation. If one believes in God and He does not exist, one suffers minimally and finitely (i.e. loss of time). If one does

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.

This paper will analyze Pascal’s wager, which demonstrates that even without empirical evidence of a God, wagering for the existence of God will maximize our happiness. Through his wager, one can use simple reasoning to understand that believing in a God which you cannot see may still be the most logical option to live your life. Pascal states that because there is no evidence that a God exists, nor is there any evidence that no God exists, it is entirely possible that a God exists. Wagering for the existence of an almighty God will either bring you eternal life and happiness, or it simply will not affect you. However, if one were to wager against the existence of a God, they would never be able to experience eternal happiness regardless if they were right or wrong. Some may argue that Pascal’s wager does not take into account the fact that different religions believe in different Gods. The God that a follower believes may not be the “true” God who grants eternal life and happiness. Therefore, the time spent practicing the religion of their God would have been wasted. These followers could have been maximizing their happiness by devoting their time to other activities instead. However, I argue that Pascal’s argument is still persuasive as there is still a chance that a God exists, albeit the chances of reaching eternal happiness would be drastically lower considering this new variable.

    In the gambling world bets are made based on odds, the probability or likelihood that something would happen. In the court of law, cases are decided upon by the weight of evidence presented by the respective parties. The common link between these general scenarios is that decisions are made based on some outside evidential factor. The more probable something is likely to happen, or the more evidence presented in favor or opposed to something, the greater the tendency that a decision will coincide with that probability or evidence. This kind of logic has also been used when arguing about the existence of God. It has been argued that God’s existence is necessary based on the logic

Since there are only two choices a person can make Pascal believes a person should choose to believe in God. Pascal comes to this conclusion based on what he believes are the four possible outcomes of a person’s choice. Pascal believes believing in God is the best possible choice because between placing a wager on God’s existence and placing one on God’s non-existence, placing a wager on his existence offers the best rewards. Pascal explains that if a believer is wrong about God’s existence then they only suffered while they are alive, however, if a nonbeliever is wrong about God’s existence then while they did enjoy their life on Earth they will suffer forever in the afterlife. Since the possible rewards are greater than the possible suffering that a theist can experience it is in everyone’s best interest to believe in God’s existence.

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

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

In this paper, I will evaluate blackburn's objection to how he deems Pascal’s use of notion "metaphysical ignorance" as a problematic starting position to arrive the conclusion of Pascal's Wager argument. In “Metaphysical ignorance”, which refers to the idea that Pascal posits in the beginning of his Wager argument, that we know neither what God is nor what kinds of attributes and properties God has. As a result of this knowing, Pascal sets out four options to wager, which is four possible consequences of belief or disbelief whether God exists or not, by implying us to choose the one which offers eternal happiness and gains; However, the options are flawed since Blackburn thinks Pascal can not assume there is an eternal gain or loss especially

step, because I can take my idea that a perfect being (God) exists. Since this

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

Pascal’s Wager, which is Pascal’s most potent philosophical argument in favor of “reasons of the heart” is based on probability theory , and uses decision theory , to argue that during the process of making religious choice, humans are better off using faith to believe in God rather than using rationality and choosing otherwise. In his book Pensées in which Pascal identify “wagering” with “believing,” Pascal is found to have stated: ‘We discover truth, not only by reasoning, but by feeling; and it is in this latter manner that we discover the first principles;’ and reasoning, instead of helping in matters of faith complicate these simple principles. To confuse humans. Pascal using this argument for faith conclude heart can supplement all

Being confident is one of the most important leadership quality to me. I choose Winston Churchill because he was confident in his opinion to Adolf Hitler, that no one should believe or think that Adolf Hitler was being honest. Winston Churchill said that Hitler will not keep his promise and he will do whatever he thinks is right.

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.