He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg.
Blaise Pascal adopts a one of a kind strategy in noting the endless question of God 's presence. Rather than belligerence for or against His reality like all those before him, Pascal strays from the generally accepted way to go and measures the merits against the inconveniences of the decision to accept. His contention, be that as it may, is jumbling, and welcomes the question; can faith in God really be diminished to a bet? Moreover, does this talk on confidence in God fit a bet 's status? Utilizing the thought of interminability for instance, Pascal reminds his gathering of people that there exist thoughts which are outside human ability to understand; however this does not deny their reality.
Pascal uses a peculiar format to argue the practical advantage of believing in God outweighs the disadvantage of not believing in God. Some religious believers argue this way of deciding your faith is an insult to true faith because they believe Pascals over simplify true faith into a simple game of poker. Pascal’s Wager states the possible outcome of being a believer in God and the possible outcomes of not believing in God. With the outcome provided from Pascal’s Wager, people can now decide whether to become a believer or not based on the possible outcomes. In this essay, I shall demonstrate the reasons behind agreeing with this claim.
Rushdie states “ as a result of this faith, by the way, it has proven impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race number from swelling alarmingly”. Basically if we’d follow the spiritual rules we wouldn’t have things like sexually transmitted diseases,in Rushdie's opinion religion is a theory proven wrong. We can say the same about science and evolution and counter argue the reason of God bringing his son down for forgiving our sins. Not everything that is man made, it correct, not saying religion is
For the above objections, a proponent of Pascal 's Wager can refute in such way. For example, Pascal 's Wager is not a complete denial of evidence, but rather that it is not immoral to use practical reasoning without sufficient evidence. Pascal 's Wager has support of decision-making theory to a great extent. Anyway, according to Pascal 's Wager, betting on not believing God is impossible to win. There is a free invitation from God.
In his essay "The Will to Believe" William James tells us that his purpose is to present "a justification of faith, a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced." Page2. I found his arguments also persuasive because he suggests the existence of God cannot be solve by our intellectual means. James argues that intellectual activity is motivated by two goals: to shun error and believe truth. The choice to believe or not is alive, forced and momentous.
In Pascal’s Pensees, the difference between reason and believing are two completely different things. For Pascal, believing in God is good for the heart, but for all the non-believers, reason could be the only way to get closer to God. On other hand, there was a point where Pascal stated that there are somethings that reason does not understand the result, but the only thing that can understand the impossible is God. Thus, in Pascal tells his audience that the impossible reasoning is only understand by having God in their hearts. For most non-believers of Jesus Christ, the idea of God is not understandable, and somethings for believers it is hard to understand their reasoning for it.
Sometimes, we are forced to believe something solely because of our self interest, and others solely because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. “Pascal…was interested in the question of whether it could be rational to believe in God even if you think it is enormously improbable that God exists.” I will attempt to argue along with Pascal using prudential reasoning to validate his statement. I will explain what prudential reasoning is and what evidential reasoning is (II), and whether beliefs
The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
People, especially religious ones may find this appalling but then again God himself is as well, to his own end, standing, foundation, intention and self-amusement and that only by living this way can human beings be said to take part in his life For non-believers the main difference between them and the believers is that the importance and resolve of life lie outside it. But even for believers this isn’t reasonably true. In classical theology, God surpasses the world, but figures as a deepness inside it. In Wittgenstein’s words “if there is such a thing as eternal life, it must be here and now. It is the present moment which is an image of eternity, not an infinite succession of such moments.” Did the book answer the question what is the meaning of life?
The superdominace argument from Pascal 's wager essentially states that we cannot be sure whether God exists, so we have to wager on a side because reason cannot help in our decision on God 's existence, but he supports believing in God. While the argument from expectation states "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal 53). Pascal essentially says that when faced with God 's existence believing that he exists gives you two outcomes these are "you gain all" and "you lose nothing"(Pascal 53). Much less not believing in God can have the outcome of misery or simply status quo. To put it briefly, Pascal suggests one should wager on whether God exists on their own accord.