What Religious Groups Criticize Pascal's Wager?

Lastly, Pascal’s Wager argument by Blaise Pascal that says that believing in God is not on an appeal that he exists, but based on an appeal to self-interest. We choose if we want to believe in God. If we do believe in God it will make Pascal’s argument a true statement. By believing in God we receive a reward in heaven and by not believing in God we receive a punishment in hell and gain nothing. It is our own decision to choose whether to believe in God. We receive a better reward by believing in God and obtain a loving and long relationship with

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.

there have been reactions throughout the years from different camps. For instance, there is the contention from conflicting disclosures. This contention scrutinizes Pascal's Wager on the premise that there is no motivation to constrain the decisions to the Christian God. Subsequent to there have been numerous religions all through mankind's history, there can be numerous potential divine beings. Another scrutinize originates from skeptic circles. Richard Dawkins hypothesized the likelihood of a divine being that may compensate genuine

The fact that one can believe in something or a statement is based on, among other factors, the available evidence. A range of philosophers have written widely on this topic. Clifford in his Influential essay “The Ethics of Belief” defends the contention that it is always wrong for any human being to believe anything if there is insufficient evidence. He uses two stories to illustrate wrong ways through which people arrive at beliefs. William James, however, disapproves Clifford. Pascal has a different view on belief formation where he argues that reasons for believing and failing to believe in God are indecisive. The three philosophers have varied views on how beliefs are formed. This essay discusses the reasons why Clifford made the above conclusion, the position taken by James in his opposition and how the argument relates to Pascal’s Wager.

A weakness in Pascals argument for the existence of God, believes that God is sufficient for salvation. As seen in premise three of the argument “If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.” Pascal makes the assumption that those who believe in God will be rewarded with heaven as opposed to those who don’t believe in God will be punished with Hell. In Pascals wager, Blaise Pascal was arguing from ignorance. He is arguing the claim that God is sufficient to salvation; this claim cannot be justified. Pascals wager may not be refuted to some as the claim may be justified as there has been nothing proven in the opposition

Points two and three state: “The right thing is not to wager at all.’ Yes; but

Blaise Pascal was a French Christian philosopher and a mathematician. In 1670, he completed his work Pensees where he wanted to make a logical appeal in believing in God. This work shows how believing in God is just as rational not believing in Him. Then he explains how it mathematically makes sense to believe in Him. This logic greatly reminds me of a gambler’s mentality. He points out that we lose nothing by believing in God but we could potentially gain infinite benefits from believing in Him. I believe this can be a useful tool for a believer to justify his beliefs, but he should not only rely on this argument. For example, I do not believe that it can justify his actions. What does God expect from us? How can we know? If mere

In the process of debating on a theist regarding to the existence of God, there are two major arguments are mostly relied on to give last information. These are the Pascal’s Wager and the Ontological Arguments. There has been a notion that neither of the two arguments is completely valid as it has been refuted. Pascal’s argument states that it is better to believe in God and be wrong that to not believe in God and be wrong(Mitchell, 2008).. He is for the idea that believing in God and doing well takes one to the heaven. Failure to believe in god and do good leads to perish and for one who does not believe in god and does not do the good, the hell awaits him. With faith you can obtain everything and as well lose everything in disbelief. A non-believer

Pascal points out that the only thing lost in believing in God would be the finite and material things that are passed up to retain the customs of the church. Though the finite worldly things must be passed up the return is the opportunity at infinite joy in heaven. To this thought out in mathematical terms if the worldly things are negative numbers and heaven is a positive number. Any number, negative or positive, when added to infinity equals out to infinity. Thus, no matter the odds that God exists, it is only logical to believe in him as there is the opportunity at infinite gain with only a finite loss. Pascal properly answers the question of “why not” by laying out the opportunity cost of believing in

I am arguing that Pascal’s Wager is significantly stronger of a rationale when more social factors are taken into consideration. In his time, Blaise Pascal formed the foundation of the Pascal’s Wager we know of today, posthumously in the form of ‘Infinirien’. Though this is more easily defensible then Pascal’ Wager, the modified version has garnered enough popularity and has enough similar that it is the target of most criticisms. Pascal came up with a theory of understanding the consequences of not believing in God versus those that came with believing in him. From his calculations he determined that since believing in God had the same result as not believing when God didn’t exist. When God did exist however, the consequences of not believing were dire and the reward for believing was infinite. Pascal tried to explain that believing in God was the rational decision when such infinite rewards of heaven and such punishment of hell are possibilities. Social implications are crucial to understanding how Pascal’s Wager might apply today and in countries of all different cultures. I will discuss three of the most common objections toward Pascal’s Wager and illustrate how considering just a few social factors make the decision to believe in God more rational then not. Then, I will explain how though there’s not enough evidence toward believing unswervingly, there is still enough positive implications that can warrant accepting your socially acceptable faith.

Gambling, whether for life or money, is risky and success is not guaranteed, even if you ‘win’. Two different tales both involving risk.

According to Blaise Pascal, while questioning God’s existence, we enter the game. We have to bet on God’s existence; even the stakes are too high.

Blaise Pascal makes us think about the question of whether God exists or not. Pascal does not really argue about the existence of God like the other people do, he looks at the choices in whether or not to believe. His argument leads to the question of, “Can belief in God be reduced to a wager?”

Pascal’s wager is basically the belief in God to allow the permission to get into the gold pearly gates, also known as Heaven. Pascal weighs out the good and the bad when believing in God to determine what he should believe. When weighing out the good it way over steps the bad, since the bad is a life long eternity spent in hell. The only down side is that there may have been a little time lost from your life when trying to learn more about God. Believing in God is a simple and a really easy choice to make, so you do not have to spend eternity in Hell. People can look at every argument in the existence of God and wonder if it is true or not, when simply just believing would could potentially benefit you. When god finds you have the knowledge to challenge the arguments that he may not

The negative effects of gambling on one’s life as well as the society he/she lives in are many and have been mentioned by many Islamic and/or non-Islamic