An Affinity for Infinite Infinity: Pascal’s Wager “Pascal’s Wager” is an argument presented by Blaise Pascal in his 1670 posthumous publication Pensees. It proposes that it is in one’s own best interest to wager for God as, while it may be impossible to be certain of what or if God is, the stakes are infinitely high. Unlike the other arguments for God, Pascal’s Wager does not give epistemic reasons for the existence of God, but rather argues that belief is pragmatic as it offers the possibility
Section III of the Pensees is widely recognized as the Pascal's Wager. In this section, Pascal makes perhaps one of the most convincing argument in the history of philosophy. The French philosopher, physicist, and mathematician posited that human beings commonly bet with their lives on whether God exists or not. In paragraph 234, the philosopher notably affirms that if humans must act solely on the merit of some measure of surety or certainty, then they ought not to count on religion because it is
foundation to support this belief. Pascal created a wager that states why it is better to believe in God than to not believe. Although, there are counter arguments to his case, Pascal’s argument has a solid basis to vindicate itself against those arguments. Pascal’s rationalization for someone to believe in God revolves around a wager, which debates between believing in God and not believing in God. There are four outcomes to this wager, which depend on God’s existence. If someone does not
Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to justify the belief in God with no evidence for His existence but to appeal to self-interests. He tries to offer a pragmatic reason even under the impression that God is unlikely, however the potential benefits of believing are so vast that make betting on theism sensible. Although it’s compelling argument Pascal’s Wager raises a number of challenges. After reading his work I’m only left with doubt. To familiarize you to his decision theory, it can be clarified with
believing in science is more of a faith than belief and likens it to Pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager concludes that in the belief or disbelief of God, one would assume either an eternity in heaven or hell, so any sensible person would believe in God for the infinite gain of an eternity in heaven if God exists, or just a finite loss in life if he does not exist. Her argument of why one should believe in science is parallel with Pascal’s wager because one could only suffer a finite
attempts to solidify their answer. Descartes Mediations Three and Five provide a wide take on the question, while Pascal offers a Wager and invites the reader to play a game while lastly Paley discovers a stone in the woods. In the following essay, I will detail each of these philosopher’s proofs of God and provide an explanation as to why I believe Paley’s Theological Argument contains the best explanation to the existence of a supreme being. Meditation Three explains that God must exist because
in order to validate one’s conviction. The class that we are currently in is about faith and philosophy which brings these two arguments to the center. More often we are discussing sacred assurance and devotion in the actuality of what we deem as God. After careful review and extensive reading and research, I have come to the conclusion that the nonevidentialist argument falls most within my faith in God and spiritual conviction. Through this paper, the reader will come to understand
Section: 1 God Question: 1 William Paley articulated an argument for God’s existence in examining the complexity of the world. In his argument he concluded the explanation for why God must exist. He did this by comparing the universe to a watch. Something that we take for a simple item is so complex in many ways. Without one part, the whole thing could not work. He discusses that in order for the watch to be made, the watchmaker had to have made it. Without the watchmaker, the watch would not exist