Pascal's Wager Vs Cosmological Argument Analysis

Superior Essays
In this essay I will be explicating a handful of philosophical theories to determine which one is best. I will analyze the controversies and counter arguments of each theory starting with Pascal’s Wager, followed by the Cosmological Argument, and finally the Argument from Evil. Pascal’s Wager, the belief that people must choose whether or not to bet on God’s existence, is the most sound argument making it superior to the others. Pascal’s Wager begins by examining nature. He argues that “We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that it is untrue that numbers are finite.” This logical theory is supported by the idea that what we do not know can possibly still exist even if we have no proof of it being there. …show more content…
It is human nature to question our existence, and in regard to the Cosmological Argument, humans tend to ask why we are even living, or why we live in the world we do instead of another world. This begs us to question the already existing as to whether or not it is even real, including the birth of our universe and the existence of time itself. The Cosmological Argument tries to prove the existence of a God by observing nature with the initial argument that “things exist.” The state of the debate involves the theory that everything in existence is either being caused as it goes or that everything had to have a cause in the beginning. Let’s argue that all things that once had beginnings, had to have causes as well. The cause of this in turn, is God himself. For example, our universe had to have a beginning at one point, so we can infer that the universe once had a cause. On the flip side, if we argue that God is causing everything as it goes, we see support for one of our main premises which is that “things exist” and God himself must be causing those things to be existing as we speak. Whichever angle one takes, the Cosmological Argument makes the case that “God” is the sole reason for everything that exists …show more content…
The issue arises as we are given a suggestion that there must have been a section of time before the universe’s beginning. One cannot accept this premise as the universe is meant to encompass everything from the beginning of time and nothing can exist before it. Another key point to make is that Thomas Aquinas, a famous Christian philosopher, has been noted for saying that nothing is infinite, but then continues to make the claim that God himself is infinite. He also claims that nothing is the cause of itself, but contradicts himself again claiming that God is the cause of

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    “Contingent beings require a necessary being as their ultimate cause.” (3) There are several objections to this theory. The first argument is the atheistic claim that the universe has always existed. This objection can only go against the temporal forms of the argument though. The non-temporal form of the cosmological argument does not deal with the concept of time, and is able to stand up to this objection.…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The cosmological argument takes the presence of the universe to involve the presence of a being that made it. It is an argument that begins from the presence of the universe, and from endeavors to demonstrate the presence of God. This argument draws on involvement from the material world. It is crucial to know that the most this contention can plan to demonstrate is that there exists a vital being who caused everything in the universe. Nagel’s summary of this argument is as follows:…

    • 1807 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 818 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In William James', “The Will to Believe, James provides a defensive response to religious faith regarding W. T. Clifford's position in his essay, "The Ethics of Belief" (James, 2001). Within his stance, James suggests that his views have a somewhat broader scope that Clifford’s (Princeton University, n.d.). Moreover, that in certain cases, it is not only permissible but inevitable that a person’s passional, non-rational nature will determine that person’s belief (Princeton University, n.d.). In summary, James presents that anything that is proposed for our belief is a hypothesis and that any question about which of the two hypotheses to accept is a person’s option (Princeton University, n.d.).…

    • 1184 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Craig that he is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheist.” In this debate the same will occur for my opponent and all reading. Argument 1: Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA) (Heavily influenced by Dr. Craig’s presentation on the subject) P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause “Nihil fit ex nihilo” That is to say that nothing comes from nothing.…

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Anselm’s Ontological Argument v. Pascal’s Wager In this paper, I will be describing Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Pascal’s Wager and then contrast the differences between the two. These two arguments help to determine the existence of God. There are three norms of belief: ordinary belief, religious belief, and faith seeking understanding. The norms of ordinary belief are based on sufficient evidence to prove it is true.…

    • 730 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although shown to be logically invalid, Pascal’s Wager can definitely be said to leave a haunting thought in the mind of an unbeliever, and although it may not completely change everyone’s mind, it undoubtedly has the power to make anyone, religious or not, truly consider the so called “infinite rewards” theism may offer in the world beyond the one we…

    • 859 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In an effort to argue for the existence of God, Saint Thomas Aquinas provides five cosmological arguments in his piece “The Existence of God”. The second argument he states examines causes and effects and looks to explain these series in regard to their beginning, or first cause (43:1-2). Aquinas says that the chain of causes and effects cannot go back to “infinity” (43:60) because when the first cause is taken out, so is its effect and every following effect (43:61). I find this claim plausible because this would mean that there would be no “caused” things in existence. Aquinas follows to say that “there obviously are such causes” (43:62) in existence, so the first cause must not have been taken away.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sense brute being do not have a cause, they can’t exist through the principle of sufficient reason. The cosmological argument is defended through this…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The ontological argument is different than the cosmological or teleological arguments as it relies on A Priori knowledge rather than A Posteriori. A Priori knowledge is knowledge that you can know prior to any experience; it is known through reason alone. This essay will explore how reliable the ontological argument is. The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of god by St Anselm (1033-1109). Anselm defined god as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The existence of God, a topic discussed in both William Rowe’s and Robin Collins’ papers, but for two very different reasons. The argument of good vs. evil and the existence of an omnipresent, benevolent being such as God is a topic that many find very difficult to find answers for, and will continue to plague mankind for the rest of our existence. After reading the published works of Mr. Collins and Mr. Rowe, one may find it easier to formulate their own opinion. In the publication by Mr. Collins, he addresses the topic of atheism and theism in respect to physics.…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In other words, the cosmological argument is a philosophical argument, which means that everything has a cause for the reason it is there, and that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Some say the cosmological argument is the most logical argument in the eyes of western logicians…

    • 1375 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Ontological Argument and Pascal’s Wager The “Ontological Argument” was created by Saint Anselm; this argument is in support of God’s existence. His argument is one based on observation and reason not on empirical evidence and is spit in to three parts. The parts include why god exists, why god cannot be thought to not exist, and lastly why atheists are able to think that God does not exist. In the first section he begins with a definition of God that he believes everyone would be accepting of and that cannot be disputed.…

    • 1583 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In “Why This? Why Anything?” Derek Parfit provides his demonstration of the fallibility of providing causal answers for the creation of the universe. In light of the fallibility of causal answers, Parfit seeks to incorporate his response to the creation of the universe with the use of non-causal answers which explains something’s existence in virtue of its properties, rather than attempting to follow an infinite chain of reasoning. While Parfit adequately demonstrates an inability to conform our reasoning to causal interactions for the creation and nature of the universe, his understanding of non-causal answers for the nature of the universe provides little insight into the questions he proposes and provides merely a factual understanding, rather than an explanatory one.…

    • 1272 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays