Blaise Pascal's Argument For The Existence Of God?

FINAL THOUGHT PAPER Unlike many philosophers who were interested in the most famous question in the era of philosophy of religion, does God exist, Blaise Pascal focused on a different approach of inquiry. He proposed, should I believe in God? His question makes people think, what are the reasons I should believe in God? Other arguments, such as the ontological argument, concluded that since God is the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, he is the prime creator.

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

The question that was posed in this week’s discussion had me pondering not only what I felt about the statement, “God is good,” but also what the book referred to as a prerequisite that adhered to the statement. First I would like to take a look at what the author of the book refers to as “good” when referencing God. J.L. Mackie’s principle states, “It follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent things exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Davies 209). This statement made by Mackie would suggest that if there was a good omnipotent “thing,” evil would not exist. Mackie believes that since evil exists, then there must not be a God. Mackie also points out a contradiction

The philosopher J.L. Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called “Evil and Omnipotence,” in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

In J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” the author presents an argument detailing why belief in a both omnipotent and wholly good God is contradictory to a God who allows evil to exist. He utilizes this philosophy to show that God doesn’t exist due to the problem of evil. As Mackie’s delineates in his first paragraph, “I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” (p. 100) Mackie discusses

Makie begins with these three points. God is omnibenevolent, God is omnipotent, and Evil exists. A contradiction occurs when two more points are added to this list. If something is omnibenevolent, it is against all evil. If something is omnipotent, it has no limits to what it can do. With these two points being added, it proves an inconsistency within the first three points. Mackie is stating that if God is truly all good, he would wipe out all Evil in the world. This of course would be no great task for a being that is all powerful. If one of these five points were dropped, an adequate solution could be accepted. However, the majority of the people trying to solve the problem of evil will not abandon any of them. In Mackie’s paper, he takes a look at a variety of solutions, all of which temporarily do away with one of the five pretenses.

A universe that contains some evil is better than a universe that contain no evil. While it is hard to prove Mackie’s problem of evil as completely true, it is not hard to understand his stance on counterparts. Mackie explains that every object in life has a counterpart and without that counterpart the object would not exist. The world would not know sweet without sour, or red without blue, etc. They are codependent upon each other for their meaning and purpose. Same goes for good and evil. The world could not have good without evil existing. God cannot be a wholly good God without having some form of evil in the world.

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.

The discussion of the existence of God is one of the most frequently and challenged question in philosophy. Philosophers such as Aquinas, Descartes, Clark, and Paley have all dedicated their lives to providing theological evidence that proves the existence of God. Many of these famous philosophers were also considered theologians and developed these arguments to help persuade and provide atheist with evidence of God’s existence. Although many philosophers developed thought provoking arguments, many of these arguments were viewed as invalid because of contradicting evidence. In reply to all of the arguments for the existence of God, Blaise Pascal developed an argument for the rational belief in God.

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

Now that Mackie has shown that Adequate Solutions will not prove to be sufficient solutions for the problem of evil, he moves to the next section, 'Fallicious Solutions.' This section is where the solutions to the problem of evil will prove applicable but fallacious through argument. Mackie explains that he will be trying to consider whether or not it is possible to arrive at an adequate solution by

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?

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.

Does God exist? This burning, three-word question has been argued over since the beginning of man kind. Everyone has their own opinion about religion, and Martin Luther and Réne Descartes were no exception to that statement. Both men, born in the 15th century and 16th century respectively, had a desire to seek out the truth and answer to that question. Whether it was from diligently studying scripture, or going out into the expansive world, each man found what they were looking for. In Luther’s book, On Christian Liberty, and in Descartes’ book, Discourse on the Method, each author wrote of their findings. While Luther and Descartes both concluded that God did exist, each man had a different means of getting to the truth. Thesis: which was better?