Pascal’s Wager argues that it is in the best interest to believe that God does in fact exist. Pascal’s Wager holds that if you believe in God’s existence, and follow God’s wishes, then you will inevitably go to heaven. However, if you do not believe in God’s existence you will go to hell. Pascal proposes that it is well worth it to go to church on Sunday mornings instead of sleeping in, if by simply going to church you are spared from going to hell. If you live your life believing in God, and God does exist, then you go to heaven. If you live your life believing God does not exist, but God does indeed exist, you lose the passage to heaven and inevitably go to hell. However, if God does not exist, then nothing is lost as there is no heaven
…show more content…
If it is believed that God does exist but God does not, then though we will have missed out on other pleasures, like getting to sleep in, for example, instead of going to church Sunday mornings, we will have had comfort from the faith, regardless of its falseness. According to the wager, you will have less than infinite happiness, but only marginally. However, believing that God does not exist, when God does indeed exist results in negatively infinite happiness, and believing that God does not exist and he legitimately does not exist, then you only gain a fraction of happiness, not infinite. Therefore, it is in one’s favor to believe in God whether or not Pascal is correct, considering that the expected payoff of happiness that comes with believing trumps the payoff of disbelieving. The fault in Pascal’s Wager is that it presumes to know something about the judgement of God if God exists. The wager does not address the fact that while our interpretation of good is helping the poor, and caring for puppies, God’s interpretation of “Good” can simply be the number of pork rinds you eat, or the number of times you turn …show more content…
Within the objection, it is proposed that the Christian “God,” the one that Pascal indirectly refers to, does not exist and that there is another god who punishes those who believe in the Christian “God” and rewards those who do not believe in the Christian “God.” The payoff for either god would be the same as discussed previously, where each of the possible gods is equally probable, than there is no reason to take the side of Pascal. Because there are many possible gods, there is no more of a reason to believe in Pascal’s God than any other god. There are many flaws in Pascal’s Wager that are identifiable. Such as, Pascal’s Wager only offers the belief in one God, whereas today there are thousands of gods and religions in the world. Following just one may automatically break the rules of another, and even if you get the broad gist of God correct, there can still be finer points that are incorrect in the belief you hold. Pascal’s Wager also fails to take into consideration sacrifice. Religion and belief in anything require some sort of sacrifice. However, Pascal's Wager not only assumes that the payoff for believing in God while God does exist is an infinite pleasure, but that the penalty of losing is an infinite pain. The wager simply assumes that the cost of participation is zero. However, to believe in a religion comes with some form of sacrifice that keeps the religion
If it is believed that God does exist but God does not, then though we will have missed out on other pleasures, like getting to sleep in, for example, instead of going to church Sunday mornings, we will have had comfort from the faith, regardless of its falseness. According to the wager, you will have less than infinite happiness, but only marginally. However, believing that God does not exist, when God does indeed exist results in negatively infinite happiness, and believing that God does not exist and he legitimately does not exist, then you only gain a fraction of happiness, not infinite. Therefore, it is in one’s favor to believe in God whether or not Pascal is correct, considering that the expected payoff of happiness that comes with believing trumps the payoff of disbelieving. The fault in Pascal’s Wager is that it presumes to know something about the judgement of God if God exists. The wager does not address the fact that while our interpretation of good is helping the poor, and caring for puppies, God’s interpretation of “Good” can simply be the number of pork rinds you eat, or the number of times you turn …show more content…
Within the objection, it is proposed that the Christian “God,” the one that Pascal indirectly refers to, does not exist and that there is another god who punishes those who believe in the Christian “God” and rewards those who do not believe in the Christian “God.” The payoff for either god would be the same as discussed previously, where each of the possible gods is equally probable, than there is no reason to take the side of Pascal. Because there are many possible gods, there is no more of a reason to believe in Pascal’s God than any other god. There are many flaws in Pascal’s Wager that are identifiable. Such as, Pascal’s Wager only offers the belief in one God, whereas today there are thousands of gods and religions in the world. Following just one may automatically break the rules of another, and even if you get the broad gist of God correct, there can still be finer points that are incorrect in the belief you hold. Pascal’s Wager also fails to take into consideration sacrifice. Religion and belief in anything require some sort of sacrifice. However, Pascal's Wager not only assumes that the payoff for believing in God while God does exist is an infinite pleasure, but that the penalty of losing is an infinite pain. The wager simply assumes that the cost of participation is zero. However, to believe in a religion comes with some form of sacrifice that keeps the religion