Three Arguments Against Pascal's Wager

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?, she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

especially from the atheists can be applied to this argument due to its nature in the fact that it’s

Faith is the root of many actions and thereby reactions in our society, and world today. These religious practices must go through many trials and questionings from the always cynical, ever searching individuals. Due to the questioning of God’s existence, St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm devised three arguments as was of explanation for His existence. Ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are put forth to hopefully one day prove God’s existence. We are a people who crave for simplicity, there is nothing simple about the devout in their faith, we will look to find simpler explanations, or Ockham’s razor, for the three arguments put forth by Aquinas and Anselm. Understanding Ockham’s razor, and the three arguments is essential before seeing if seeing if the three arguments can be simplified and will finally lead to better understand a religious person’s acceptance of faith, and all it encompasses.

Are faith and reason compatible? This is the main question that Jeff Jordan attempts to answer in his writing, "Not in Kansas Anymore". Jeff believes that faith or religion is compatible with reason or philosophy, but he argues both sides. Some people believe that they are not compatible because philosophy tends to weaken the dogmatic mindset, attacks conventional wisdom, and takes down widespread beliefs. Jordan takes all of these arguments analyzes them and shows us why he believes they are compatible. His arguments includes religious experiences, existential / affective reasons, and Pascal's wager argument. Jordan shuts down the arguments given by others, and gives his own arguments to prove why faith and reason are in fact compatible.

In this essay I will be writing about Blaise Pascal, a mathematician and French philosopher whose work became very popular due to his "Wager". Pascal's argument in his essay "The Wager" states that any rational human should believe in God. He states that regardless of whether or not God exists, the option of believing yields the greatest benefit and the least loss out of all the possibilities. In believing in God, one can receive infinite gain which is heaven, if God exist, and would only have finite losses if God does not exist. However, he shares that if one was to bet against god, if one wins or loses, the individual would either gain an insignificant finite if God does not exist, or lose everything if God does exist which would lead to going to Hell. He displays his thoughts in

The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God, Thomas B. Warren, Ramer, TN, National Christian Press, 2004, 5th ed. 253 pp.

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.

In the non-fiction philosophical book, Sam Harris, publisher of Letter to a Christian Nation, demonstrates his views of the flaws of Christianity. He contends the many contradictions he finds with the beliefs Christians hold to with their own lives and interactions with others. His goal in the book is to expose these errors to Christians themselves and present the question to them in a challenging tone. Harris does this by painting a vivid picture of the controversies surrounding Christians opposed to non Christians. He goes into great detail about his beliefs against Christianity and covers a broad scope, along with many topics.

Blaise Pascal takes a unique approach in defending the eternal question of God 's existence. "Pascal 's Wager" is the name given to the argument written by himself stating that it is prudent to believe in God 's existence because it is the best bet. Suppose that there is a winning sweepstakes ticket that is worth a new luxurious car and there are only two tickets to choose from. We know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing. We are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning that new car? Pascal argues that "believing" in God will give you the best outcome than to not believe. In the end, Pascal does not

William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” is an essay about justification and how we are morally required to prove our beliefs. Clifford’s theory throughout the essay was “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford thinks that it is a moral obligation for you to confirm each of your beliefs with sufficient proof, no matter how questionable or insignificant the beliefs may be. I believe he thinks this because beliefs have serious effects and consequences on others.

AQUINAS: “This is why faith and reason are inseparable. You must have reason to think about the five ways and you must have faith to know true motives of credibility.”

Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet, as we are able to think and reason. These two abilities have created the most powerful minds ever known such as, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Plato. These abilities have also lead to some powerful arguments one of such being our beliefs. Some philosophers believe that all beliefs must be justified, while others believe that only some of our beliefs must be justified. W.K. Clifford argues that it is morally wrong to act or believe without sufficient evidence. This means Clifford was an evidentialist. William James argues that sometimes it is allowed to believe without sufficient evidence.

A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.