Blaise Pascal's Argument For The Existence Of God

Moreover, philosopher William Clifford states in his piece, The Ethics of Belief, that "it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation." The Wager provided no confirmation on God's existence or that believing in him is the right way of life. Since God is all knowing, he will know that the basis of your belief is exclusively "not going to hell." Pascal took no account of God's power in knowing of and about his beings. In this case, it is useless to believe that he exists since he will know that deep down in your heart, you do not believe in him for the right

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.

There are three arguments for the existence of God, and it is important that we should learn, understand, and use these arguments. The first argument is the cause and effect argument. The cause and effect argument uses the principle of cause and effect. The principle of cause and effect is that every measureable effect has a cause.

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and experimenter, and he was the voice that still protested against the new science and the materialism of Descartes. His investigations of probability in games of chance produce his very own theorem, and his research in conic sections helped lay the foundations for integral calculus.

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

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

Blaise Pascal argues that the existence of God cannot be determined by reason. Therefore, one should believe in god based on self-interest. He argues that people have the choice to either believe or not believe in god. Pascal argues that if one believes in God and they are correct, they are rewarded with heaven. If they believe and are wrong, they only miss out on some finite goodness. He then says that if God does exist, but someone does not believe in Him, they will het infinite badness and suffer eternal damnation. If God does not exist, and one

This shows that Lewis highly values reason and doesn’t want people to just believe something without having proved it to themselves first. W.K. Clifford is a bit more extreme in his belief that it is not okay to just believe without proof or reason as Clifford sees doing this as not just incorrect but ethically wrong. This relates to our class discussion on the connections between faith and reason and what roles each play in people’s

Blaise Pascal was a French scientist, philosophe, and mathematician during the early 1600’s. He made many contributions to science and math. In 1653, Pascal’s conversion to Catholicism made him more passionate about religious matters. In one of his famous works, Pensées (Thoughts), he talks about a theory on the belief of god using what is called Pascal’s Wager as support. To sum up the argument, Pascal claims that if we do a cost-benefit analysis on whether to believe God or not, it is more reasonable to get ourselves to believe that god exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief.

The true course is not to wager at all.”. He responds to this question by saying that you must wager, that it is not optional to not take a stance on the matter at hand. If you wager that God does exist, but turns out that He does not, you lose nothing. If He does indeed exist, you gain all. If you do believe in God, you will receive infinite reward, if He does not exist, you will receive finite loss. If you do not believe in God, and he does exist, you will gain nothing. If He does not exist, you will have finite gain. Not believing in God has a finite gain, but believing in God has a much higher expected utility. A weakness to this position is that this may not be true, and if it is, it is not something that Pascal has any right to claim. Another weakness is that we should not adopt beliefs on the basis of

Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.

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

    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