Blaise Pascal
Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher. He thinks that people are betting on their lives that God exists or not. In Pascal’s view, he argues that a person should live as if God exists and believe in God. If in reality the God does not exist, they still can get the profits in their life. He also developed the theory of modern probability, and believed the reason cannot prove or not prove the existence of God. In his bet, Pascal is of the opinion that the expected utility to trust God is far greater than that expected uses do not trust God. And because of this fact, everyone has a good one cause to trust God. For example, trusting God comes with positive …show more content…
An American analytic philosopher who is known for his major works in logic, justification, epistemology and philosophy of religion. Moreover, from 1983 to 1986, Plantinga also known as a prominent Christian philosopher and served president of the Society of Christian Philosophers. “America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God” is the title that being given to him and it was described by Time magazine. Alvin Plantinga has tried to create a rationality of believe that does not need the evidence of God’s existence. “It is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all.” These words or quote was taken from the quotation of Plantinga. It also can be served as a statement of Reformed Epistemology. The wording of the statement is clearly designed to raise eyebrows as well as questions. Plantinga presents it first in the form of “the evidentialist objection to theistic belief, according to which belief in God is unreasonable or irrational because there is insufficient evidence for it.” His version of anti-evidentialism are been apply generally. Naturally, Plantinga position has already been subjected to careful criticism and yet some useful points remain to be made. His direct examination of the evidentialist objection turns up nothing that weakens it in any way, that his claim to have found the root of evidentialism in classical foundationalism
Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher. He thinks that people are betting on their lives that God exists or not. In Pascal’s view, he argues that a person should live as if God exists and believe in God. If in reality the God does not exist, they still can get the profits in their life. He also developed the theory of modern probability, and believed the reason cannot prove or not prove the existence of God. In his bet, Pascal is of the opinion that the expected utility to trust God is far greater than that expected uses do not trust God. And because of this fact, everyone has a good one cause to trust God. For example, trusting God comes with positive …show more content…
An American analytic philosopher who is known for his major works in logic, justification, epistemology and philosophy of religion. Moreover, from 1983 to 1986, Plantinga also known as a prominent Christian philosopher and served president of the Society of Christian Philosophers. “America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God” is the title that being given to him and it was described by Time magazine. Alvin Plantinga has tried to create a rationality of believe that does not need the evidence of God’s existence. “It is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all.” These words or quote was taken from the quotation of Plantinga. It also can be served as a statement of Reformed Epistemology. The wording of the statement is clearly designed to raise eyebrows as well as questions. Plantinga presents it first in the form of “the evidentialist objection to theistic belief, according to which belief in God is unreasonable or irrational because there is insufficient evidence for it.” His version of anti-evidentialism are been apply generally. Naturally, Plantinga position has already been subjected to careful criticism and yet some useful points remain to be made. His direct examination of the evidentialist objection turns up nothing that weakens it in any way, that his claim to have found the root of evidentialism in classical foundationalism