Objection To Pascal's Wager Argument

However, Pascal tackles the subject of God in a contrasting way. He sets two options, of equal probability, either a- I believe in God or b- I do not believe in God. In addition to that, he provides two sub options, c-

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)

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.

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.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

In Pascal’s Wager I think had to objection raised is to believe in god openly for the reward is the

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

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.

A question that people often ask themselves is, “why?” It is a question that is applicable to all facets of life, from the belief in God to any ethical question. It is a question that attempts to discern the meaning behind an action, whether a hidden meaning exists or not. The question of “why” often is thought provoking as each individual seeks to answer their own individual question of “why.” It is a question so versatile that it can be asked under every single circumstance the universe could ever possibly create. The gambler inside each and every person at some point has asked: “why not.” However, “why not” is a question that has a finite amount of possibilities as it is typically used to justify an action with risky outcomes or to discern the opportunity cost of something. Blaise Pascal, who was a rampant gambler throughout his days, attempts to justify his belief in God through the premise of “what do I have to lose.” Pascal searches to answer what does he have to lose if he believes in God, almost as if he is wagering on whether God exists or not. Pascal’s views on the belief in a God can be taken and applied to ethical decisions. Blaise Pascal, in Pensées, almost in a way poses the important question of “why not,” but that question is limited as it seeks out a better outcome, even one that is only marginally better, however, answers to the question of “why” are infinite, as the meaning changes person to person.

‘The Problem of Evil’ by John Leslie Mackie is a philosophical argument that discusses the logical paradoxes and impossibilities of God’s existence. Written in 1955, it details how Mackie believes that because God is represented as an omnipotent (perfectly-powerful) and omnibenevolent (wholly good) being, evil cannot exist and thus neither can God. I will explain those paradoxes and defend Mackie’s argument, but I shall will question the justification of his claims to God’s existence. I shall also provide and discuss three theistic objections to the problem of evil, both adequate and fallacious.

Philosophy offers multiple theories and ideas on the existence of God. One of Blaise Pascal’s works is titled Pensées; in this work we find a theory known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager explains that believing in God is the wise thing to do since a Christian believer has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Pascal’s Wager can be considered reasonable if one believes God either exist or does not exist, that there are positive and negative outcomes for both beliefs and believing in God is the rational choice if you use the expected value formula, although the Many-Gods Objection and doxastic voluntarism argue this theory is unreasonable. “Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher, who laid the foundation

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 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?

how it is possible that my religious views are right and yet everyone else’s (expect those who believe as me) are wrong