Wager's Argument For The Existence Of God

For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument.

The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.

The ontological argument states that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so the concept of God entails God’s existence. However, it can be argued that if God is an infinite goodness, then its contrary, evil, should not exist. Alas, there is evil in the world, and, therefore, God cannot exist. The ontological argument also seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of concept alone.

Pascal’s Wager attempts to justify the belief in God with an

The direction the class discussion took was particularly thought-provoking. I found it interesting that they brought science, its theories, and discoveries to disprove the existence of God, specifically using the Big Bang Theory, photons, and the scientific method. Through the discussion, it was found that, although both scientific and religious arguments have logical cases, neither have any definitive proof in the existence, or non-existence, of God. In this scenario, the class separated science from philosophy; however, science can also be a part of philosophy in the view that science answers the questions that philosophy poses. Thus, a change that could be made for the next disputation is to define the term philosophy, or any other terms that can widely