Convincing My Atheist Friend that Gods Exists

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

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.

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.”

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

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

Pascal spends much of his argument refocusing discussion and putting appropriate context on different situations. The question of God is a much more pressing question in relation to human mortality. We are much more inclined to draw toward or push away from faith when we are facing unfavorable situations out of our control. We tend to look harder at the meaning of life and our moral values when we are found staring death straight in the

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

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

Pascal’s wager is without a shred of doubt a unique piece of philosophical argument and it sure has an enormous impact on countless philosophers as well as believers. Its historical achievement can never be unrecognized. However, after having read through and analyzing his wager, I personally realize that some of his propositions to be less persuasive evidence in a logic manner and somehow discriminatory.

Pascal’s wager is famously one of the most attractive arguments as to why rational agents should believe in God. Simplified, it states that given the advantages and disadvantages of believing or not believing in God, it is better

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.

According to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so he suggests that the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist. The reasoning behind this is that, a life like that has everything to gain and nothing to lose. He believes that, if we live as though god exist, and God does indeed exists, we will have infinite happiness(heaven). Even if the God doesn’t exist at the end, we have not lost anything. Pascal then states, if we live as though God doesn’t exist and God really does exist, we will be in infinite torment (hell and punishments). If we weigh the two options, it is quite clear that the obvious choice would be to live as if the God exists. He essentially concludes that the potential benefits of believing in God outweigh the potential of not believing in God. There are many objections to this argument and the one of the famous one is, we cannot force ourselves to believe in God. This argument denies the Pascal’s Wager, because believing in God isn’t something we chose, and a person cannot make himself/herself to believe in God if he/she doesn’t. This objection

     Pascal goes on to state that once we have made this rational decision to believe in God then we start to act like we believe in this god and from practicing these actions habitually your belief will strengthen Pascal, 78). The problem here lies in the basis of the strength for this belief. To make a decision and then act on that decision seems pretty consistent; but, to make a decision and have that decision become a belief based on habitual actions does not follow at all. Is this belief that your holding to a product of sincerity of habit? If you start to act you