In this essay I first outline Pascal’s wager to the existence of God and then evaluate his argument. Pascal argues that one ought to wager “that God is” because “[i]f you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,” and that given this, one can bring oneself to believe in God. I argue that one cannot truly bring themselves to believe in God.
Pascal’s argument is set up in three parts. The first part accepts that God is infinitely incomprehensible. To conclude to this, one has to understand the existence and nature of the finite and infinite. We know the existence of the finite because we are finite and have extension and limits. We know the existence of the infinite even though we do not understand it because it has extension like us, …show more content…
The first premise is “If there is a god, he is infinitely incomprehensible, reason can decide nothing here.” This is supported by his first argument that God is beyond our understanding. His second premise is, knowing that God is infinitely incomprehensible, one must wager whether or not God exists. Pascal says, “You must wager. It is not optional.” Pascal then adds, “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,” and explains why this is so. There are two options, either you believe in God or you don’t. The first option is if you believe in God and He exists, then you gain an eternity of happiness, but if you are wrong, and he doesn’t exist, you lose nothing. The second option is if you don’t believe in God and he exists, then you lose all, meaning you lose your chance at eternal life; but if he doesn’t exist, you die and lose nothing. One might try to argue that you can lose truth and knowledge if you believe in God, but Pascal explains that the comparison to what you can lose to what you can gain is so minuscule that it will be no worse than a death where you didn’t believe. His last premise, is “Wager, then without hesitation that He is.” Pascal says wager without hesitation because the decision to believe and gain eternal happiness should be easy when compared not believing and going to
Pascal’s argument is set up in three parts. The first part accepts that God is infinitely incomprehensible. To conclude to this, one has to understand the existence and nature of the finite and infinite. We know the existence of the finite because we are finite and have extension and limits. We know the existence of the infinite even though we do not understand it because it has extension like us, …show more content…
The first premise is “If there is a god, he is infinitely incomprehensible, reason can decide nothing here.” This is supported by his first argument that God is beyond our understanding. His second premise is, knowing that God is infinitely incomprehensible, one must wager whether or not God exists. Pascal says, “You must wager. It is not optional.” Pascal then adds, “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,” and explains why this is so. There are two options, either you believe in God or you don’t. The first option is if you believe in God and He exists, then you gain an eternity of happiness, but if you are wrong, and he doesn’t exist, you lose nothing. The second option is if you don’t believe in God and he exists, then you lose all, meaning you lose your chance at eternal life; but if he doesn’t exist, you die and lose nothing. One might try to argue that you can lose truth and knowledge if you believe in God, but Pascal explains that the comparison to what you can lose to what you can gain is so minuscule that it will be no worse than a death where you didn’t believe. His last premise, is “Wager, then without hesitation that He is.” Pascal says wager without hesitation because the decision to believe and gain eternal happiness should be easy when compared not believing and going to