Three Arguments Against Pascal's Wager

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.

This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error

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.

To conclude, in a Rotter I-E test I would be considered a external locus of control person because my beliefs of someone more powerful than anyone which is God is in control. But I do not considered myself of external locus because I do believe I’m the one responsible for the choices I made God has given us free

Because eternal happiness is wanted, people should do what makes them happy and acceptable to God as well. Loche brings up the point; what if the magistrate commands something that an individual thinks is wrong. Loche says that this won’t happen because the civil magistrate is concerned with the public good. This only is not concerned until the last day with God of judgment so if one does not think the magistrate is right then they should do what their conscience believes to be right without destructing others. Loche believes that anyone would do not believe in the existence of God should be

Furthermore, when observing the nature of the will, it is seemingly less contradictory to having one that is truly free than the church supported position of Augustine. When we look at Augustine’s theory, it is not difficult to wonder exactly how our will is free; for if we are incapable of performing anything that is inherently good on our own, then either the act of allowing God to come into our hearts and change them so that we can act according to his will is not good (a position no Christian would claim to be true), or the act of allowing God to convert our hearts is not something we have any control over; if the conversion is forced, then our wills are not truly free, and the we have lost one of the primary aspects of what separates humans from the rest of creation (the other part being in the image and likeness of God). However, since the teachings of the church must be in accordance with the catechism and the bible, then Augustine’s perspective does not depose us of having free will, and we turn to Anselm for further clarification as to how this is

Believing in god and god do exist, hence the result of infinite rewards, if God cease to exist, then nothing happens. Not believing in god and god do exist, hence the result of infinite punishment or eternal punishment, if god ceases to exist, then nothing happens. Therefore, it is more beneficial to believe in god because the possibility of eternal punishment outweighs any advantages of believing otherwise. Pascal assumes we do not have other validating reasons to decide our faith, therefore we only decide solely based on this wager. In this case the subject being must decide between believing in god and not believing in god with only the results of Pascal’s Wager.

The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.

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.

Arminian believed that because of free will, people choose God not vice versa. That means that opposed to Calvinists view of unconditional election, the Arminianists hold the view of conditional election. With that being said, they think that God chose his people based on his ‘foreknowledge’ which is Him looking into the future and seeing who responds to the gospel (Colie, 2006). The teaching of Arminianism is basically a direct opposite of Calvinism. To explain, the Arminianists believe that the grace of God can be resisted due to free will and it’s not God’s decision to save us.

One of Freud’s primary arguments to disprove the existence of God was based on the premise that religious beliefs were formed from wishful thinking and that God is simply a representation of parental authority. In this case, Freud believes that since children think of their parents as superheroes, they create God as an image of their parents.6 While this analysis does seem relatively reasonable, God is actually even more understanding and compassionate than parents are and he longs to be with us. Therefore, God simply cannot be just a representation of parents. Believing in God is also not wishful thinking because as Lewis points out, living a religious life involves a great deal of despair. When someone believes in God, they learn there is always room for improvement within themselves, which for most people can be hard to accept.

the cosmological argument seems to be successful in both its first and second stages that the cosmos exists and it has a first cause. Its third point the first cause is God is more contentious, but it is far from easy to decline. Aquinas ' appreciation of God is a practical one God is not just an appropriate thing that might or might not exist. God is existence in its accomplishment or completeness. accepting that our compassionate accessible us on to such an existence is a common aspiration for do we not all want to know a more perfect reality?

Also, this illustrates the reality that NASA is not even utilizing the money they get wisely or efficiently, and that is one of the main causes science is not advancing: NASA not using their money sensibly. Others may insist that science will advance at some point, and that people just need to be tolerant. But is it worth the millions of dollars for something that likely will not happen? A lot of people would oppose. Even though space exploration has a lot of hopeful attributes, it is undeserving of being funded by the American people for the price of space exploration is too much money, and because science is not progressing at all at this point.

that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence.

Reason can adequately attain certain conclusions, but it should not be treated separately from faith because faith can help prevent mishaps in judgment. As Pope John Paul II outlines in Fides Et Ratio, during the Fall “man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil,” (Paul II 14). Man needed God to assist him in making the right choice but instead acted prideful and tried to use solely reason. Sin enables reasoning to become distorted, which ultimately impairs the truth when man attempts to avert himself from God. When this occurs, man ultimately becomes “the fool” (Paul II 12) by attempting to avoid the assistance God can provide.