Pascal's Wager

A Critical Discussion of Blaise Pascal's The Wager     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

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

in God. Pascal believed that reason could not show if God existed or not. He proposed that people must “wager” one way or the other on the sides of believing in God. He states God will, reward whoever accepts him, and infinitely punish or abandon whoever rejects him. Pascal’s argument is wise in the aspect that it persuades people to believe in a being, without proof of this being. Pascal’s wager is stout as it appeals to people’s own happiness/self-interest, but displays a weakness as only discusses

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

In this essay, I will argue that Pascal’s Wager gives a good argument and reason to the agnostic for them to believe in the existence of God and become a theist. Pascal’s Wager is based on a decision of dominance and gives the agnostic an option to believe in God and therefore, receive salvation, and the benefits that come with this belief or believe in him and loose nothing. There are a number of arguments and objections that try to prove the Wager wrong, that the argument implies elements of cult

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’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of

Blaise Pascal was the founder of the Pascal’s Wager. Pascal was a French philosopher, an inventor, a mathematician, a scientist and a theologian. Pascal extended a reason to believe in God, even though other people had beliefs that God is not real and his existence is not inconceivable. The Pascal’s Wager was a second-person communication. It showed that Pascal conceptualizes an individual forced to decide between the belief in God and not to believe in him. An example of what Pascal would demonstrate

In 1653, Pascal’s conversion to Catholicism made him more passionate about religious matters. In one of his famous works, Pensées (Thoughts), he talks about a theory on the belief of god using what is called Pascal’s Wager as support. To sum up the argument, Pascal claims that if we do a cost-benefit analysis on whether to believe God or not, it is more reasonable to get ourselves to believe that god exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. From this, Pascal’s argument

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

God, or not to believe in God. Pascal calls this dilemma a wager. It is a wager because there are different gains and losses from the two options, depending on whether or not God exists. If God exists, the believers will have eternal life, and the non-believers will receive damnation. If God does not exist, the believers will have been left out on the material fulfillments, and the non-believers will have reaped those benefits. Pascal’s wager could be used as an evangelism method, because it can be