The Many Gods Objection And Why It Is A Good Argument Against The Claim

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.

At the beginning of the semester, I wrote: “Religion is the institutional manifestation of feeling and believing in something beyond yourself” (Kelley 2016). Twelve weeks later, I consider this definition incomplete and problematic; nevertheless, it reveals how religious thinkers such as James Frazer, Emile Durkheim, William James, Mircea Eliade, Jeffrey Kripal, and Bruce Lincoln infiltrate our quotidian definitions of religion. In this paper, I hope to develop a new conception of religion, recognizing the impact of such historical thinkers on personal conclusions. In other words, I hope to show that we are

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’.

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.

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.

The wager is neatly-structured and clearly explained, each conclusion is supported by the premises and they all make sense from a structural-level point of view. Yet, it is a bold attempt to clarify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. Pascal’s wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering

Religion is constructed on faith and belief of an individual even though it is the individual choice to follow it or not. It has stirred a lot of debates for years; those who are trying to prove that God exists throughout history and follow to modern day. While, those who are atheist are trying to prove their point of God does not exist. There are still more and more theories and debate over the subject of religious view. It is a matter of theism versus atheism; new and old philosophers have joined the debate and all with different sides to another philosopher’s theory or view on the matter. In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate the reasons given by Louis Pojman of why religion is good or bad, as well as evaluating Bertrand Russell argument about religion. This can define the meaning of life and the creation of life as we know it. It can change views or switch sides for there is always another explanation to exactly what religion is all about and having a superior ruler that created all.

In John Perry’s “A Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God”, he uses a three character dialogue to debate the existence of God using evil as the main tactic against God’s existence. My goal for this paper is to prove that the theodicy Miller gives as his proof for the possible existence of God is in fact possible using scenarios that I have experienced during my lifetime. In order for Miller to suffice Weirob’s challenge he must convince her that, “The Christian God that Miller believes in – all-perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent – could possibly exist given as unimportant a bit of suffering.” (Perry, p. 99)

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.

Pascal Wager is an argumentative mastermind piece by a French philosopher, mathematician and physicist by the name of Blaise Pascal. He believed that, “either God exists, or he does not.” In other words, if you believe in God you get to go to heaven, but if you do not believe in God and he exist, then you are sent to hell in the afterlife. Wager uses logics to back his theory up like, “If we do not know whether God exists than we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry.” Although I do agree that there is a God and that we should all put our faith in him, I do not agree that there is only one God. There are many different types of people in the world and with that being said, everyone in the world thinks differently and has a different mindset in life. Yes I do believe that there is a God, but I disagree with this theory.

     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

The Wager; does He exist or does He not? Pascal uses the Wager as a tool for reasoning into faith. Reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, to Pascal, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. There are four ways to look at the Wager: believe in God, and if he exists, have an eternal life of happiness, or two, believe in God and he does not exist, you do not lose anything. If one does not believe in God, but it turns out that He does exist, that individual loses the ability to gain an eternal life of happiness, but if they do not believe, and it turns out they were right; they fail to gain anything other than contentment.

An argument presented to challenge the existence of God titled “The argument of unbelief,” concludes that because there are people who do not believe in God, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist. The argument is presented as such; God does not exist. If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Yet God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If God was truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then the world would not contain non-belief. Despite all of this, the world does contain non-belief. In other words, not everyone on earth believes in the existence of God, given our definition of God, this becomes problematic.