Pascal's Wager Argument

John Harris proposes a hypothetical society where people’s organs are harvested based on a lottery system to save more lives at the cost of a few. The lottery would assign each person a number, and all the numbers would be put into a computer that randomly selects one of the numbers in the system. The person selected would then have their organs harvested for the ones needing transplants.

Paul gave his mother money because he wanted to help her out. He wanted her to know that he was lucky. “I never told you, mother, that if I can ride my horse, and get there, then I'm absolutely sure - oh, absolutely! Mother, did I ever tell you? I am lucky!" said Paul to his mother. In this story Hester’s son Paul ended up being the unlucky one, he wanted to win so badly that he died trying.

Although two different stories, with multiple differences in conflict and setting, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson and “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell bear multiple similarities as well. Both stories demonstrate how humans are portrayed as evil vs. good. Each story depicts a protagonist exhibiting conflict with another human or humans. One ends on a dark gloomy path for the protagonist while the other results in a victory for the protagonist.

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.

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

Trinity is the reporting party (RP). Trinity stated the foster mother's daughter named Michelle called her fat. Michelle also rubbed the side of the RP belly and stated "It's the size of your being pregnant." The RP stated the foster mother's husband (name not provided) visit a few days a week and visit for a few hours. The RP stated the husband makes her feel uncomfortable. The RP did not state how he triggered her discomfort.

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

I disagree with the idea of the people thinking that they are honest yet, take part in some weird town ritual like The Purge. The title leaves me thinking someone going to get rich. The lottery usually means a chance of positive outcome for the wealthy. The lottery system results in winners and losers and the loss of life is crazy. In the end the horrific event is an better outcome for the ones holding on to the stones. The act of taking a life is wrong but the chance to live another day is a celebration.

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

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 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.

Proof Of The Exsistence of God Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. Any attempt to remain neutral in relation to God's existence is automatically synonymous with unbelief. The question for God's existence is really important. Does God exist? Theology, cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments are all have ways to prove the existence of God. With all of these great arguments how can one deny that there is a God. There is a God and with these reasons I will prove that.

The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913)[1] . Also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, which is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] . Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due, and it probably arises from