Pascal's Argument For The Existence Of God

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.

Pascal acknowledges that a belief in God's existence cannot be supported by argument or evidence, but claims that religious belief is a rational necessity. This essay will address how Pascal presents his argument, and how it is in our interest to believe in god. I will argue that Pascal’s Wager has weaknesses due to its reliance on an overly-simplistic judgement, and will contemplate how Pascal may reply to such criticisms. I will conclude with an evaluation that questions why a believer is superior to a disbeliever, and whether one can truly coerce themselves to believe in god’s existence. Pascal’s Wager is the attempt to justify belief in the Christian God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest.

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

Although Blaise Pascal rejects the theological hermeneutic of the Scholastics, who emphasize rational proof and explanation of God, in favor of a theology of blind faith, he nevertheless offers a rational argument for his belief based upon a decision-theoretic analysis of wagering for or against the existence of God. This infamous and incredibly intuitive argument has found itself the object of harsh critique with recent developments in mathematics and philosophy. Despite these numerous critiques, however, I argue that the wager retains its logical rigor and psychological weight, especially in a modern reformulation.

Groups criticize Pascal’s wager and try to argue that it is an insufficient way to believe in god if you are doing it out of self-interest. They believe if an individual chooses to live a spiritual life it should be with pure intentions. Who are these people to judge if the intentions are acceptable? The only qualified being to decide if the reason for believing is adequate enough is the god one chooses to believe in. He explains to people that god is inconceivable, “So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is”

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

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

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.

Descartes arguments drive the existence of a “plain God” while Pascal claims a “hidden God” (Kreeft 246). Pascal would disagree with Descartes in the conclusiveness of evidence. There is enough evidence to make us think there is a God, there is just no conclusive evidence, “he is a truly hidden God, that he will not be recognized, that people will not believe that it is he, that he will be a stumbling-block on which many will fall… ‘there are obscurities, and but for that Jesus would not have caused anyone to stumble’” (Pascal 245).

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?

Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

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)

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.