History Project 1: A Brief Note On Wagering Pascal

Pascal immediately mention the Christian God in Premise one.” It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.” There are thousands of religions outside of Christianity many of which that have their own Gods, some religions even with multiple Gods. The probability of choosing the correct God is chance at its greatest. It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Another weakness in Pascals wager is that it reflects a bias. Blaise Pascal was a Christian; this immediately is evidently shown through his bias representation of the Christian God in Pascals wager. The wager constantly reiterates the Christian God and constantly accepts anything in favour of the

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.

I find superdominance is a reasonable/logical philosophical argument for the belief of God. Blaise Pascal’s justification of theism and his wager for God is a sound argument. Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher of the 17th century whose book Penésses, a posthumous collection of his work, supports the existence of God through a unique argument. I support the claim that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven so then we must wager that God exists. If he exists and we believe in him then when we die we will get the best outcome whereas the worst outcome will come from wagering against God. Therefore if God does not exist you lose nothing from believing in him.

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’.

Pascal’s wager is indeed 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 actually found it less persuasive in a logic manner and somehow discriminatory from my personal point of view.

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.

French physicist and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, had a set of notes found after his death. These notes would then be collected, compiled, and printed into “The Wager”. “The Wager” is a philosophical argument that aims the reader to vindicate the reasonings of God’s existence rather than not believing in god’s creation at all. Even assuming that God’s existence is improbable, the likely benefits of believing in God are extensive in regards to the benefits and infinite gains that are believed to be achieved, unlike not believing in God. Pascal concluded that it is most rational to take trust and shelter within religious views (r-views) rather than other minor insignificant and lowly views such as Atheist views (a-views) and dumb views (d-views).

In this philosophical paper I will be referencing the works of Blaise Pascal’s, “The Wager”, Simon Blackburn’s “Pascal’s Wager”, and Linda Zagzebski’s “Pascal’s Wager: An Assessment”. I will be comparing Pascal’s beliefs with the beliefs of Blackburn and Zagzebski as they discuss different ways to believe in God and if believing in God is a gamble on ones after-life, or simply just religious preference. I will discuss the works of these three philosophers and explain how their works may correlate and differ. The question presented in Pascal’s work is still relevant, being over 350 years old, and still left unsolved. Even though times are much different and technology is much more advanced than when Pascal presented this work in the mid 1600’s.

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

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.

Pascal created a wager that would taunt people’s mind for years to come. He lived in a time where theistic views were not a priority. The medieval teachings that surrounded society were full of skeptical views and critical opinions about believing in god. He was the anomaly of his time with his beliefs that would cause him to create history and be remembered for his meaningful and philosophical thought about life and what was to come after. His wager is an undeniable logical bet that tells people by believing in God you have everything to gain and nothing to lose- no matter the criticism it may receive from unbelievers.

Pascal's Wager, is a common argument in favor of religious belief. It says "you should believe in God, because if you are right, you go to heaven, and if you are wrong, you lose nothing. But if you don't believe, and you are right, you gain nothing, but if you are wrong, you go to hell. Therefore, no matter how unlikely God's existence may be, you should believe.”

the contention that it is in one's own best enthusiasm to carry on as though God exists, subsequent to the likelihood of everlasting discipline in damnation exceeds any point of interest of trusting generally.

Gambling was present in almost every major, ancient civilization. From the Mesolithic rolling of hucklebones, to the Mesopotamian invention of the six-sided die, and finally to the Chinese invention of the card, not only did gambling survive through countless civilizations of ancient history, it evolved into a global phenomenon. Stakes on these games could range from Quadrans, the Roman equivalent of pennies, to betting an entire estate on a simple throw of the die. Interestingly, as in modern times, ancient peoples and civilizations had varying opinions of gambling. Some ignored it, some outlawed it, and some accepted it. Despite the numerous stances on gambling, one thing held true for all