Blaise Paschal's Wager Argument Analysis

799 Words4 Pages
Blaise Paschal was a French mathematician and philosopher who building an argument on why one should believe in God, it is named Paschal’s Wager. According to Paschal’s Wager, it is better to have a belief in God than not believing in Him. God is known for punishing those who go against or do not believe in Him. Therefore, Paschal stated you should believe in God because after death you can be rewarded with an eternity in heaven. However, if you do not believe in God and he does exist you will be damned to the eternal suffering that is brought by hell. There is no way in proving that the Wager will succeed or not because the only way in knowing whether God is real or not is if you die. The only argument a Christian can propose is to just have faith that he exists…show more content…
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Part XI tried to explain why there is so much evil in the world we live in if we have and all powerful God that can stop all evil if He wanted to. So Hume begs the question well, if God cannot stop evil since evil in inevitable to happen, then God is not all-powerful. From this question, since God is all-powerful and does not stop evil from happening, then we have a malevolent God who is evil. But, what if God does not know when evil is going to happen? This means that God would not be all knowing and not omniscient. From these questions, Hume comes to a conclusion that God is indifferent about His creations and allows evil to just happen in the world that he created. The only support the Wager has is the support of Christian belief. There is no evidence that is brought into the claim other than just making the claim if God is real and you do not believe, you will suffer in hell for all of eternity. Where Hume provides evidence by showing how to prevent evil is in our
Open Document