Arguments And Arguments Of The Argument From Evil By Pascal 's Wager, By The Cosmological Argument

1405 Words Dec 14th, 2016 6 Pages
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. Blaise continues to explain the existence of these infinite numbers: “Thus it is true that there is an infinite number, but we do not know what it is. Yet it is a number, and every number is even or odd.” Pascal argues that because the nature in which we live is so finite, we are unable to see the infinite. We also cannot know God’s existence or nature because he doesn 't have limits or extension and cannot be adequately recognized in our finite world. It is apparent that Pascal finds god’s existence necessary for the survival of man. He argues that, “Only Christianity makes men, both happy and lovable: The Code of the Gentleman does not allow you to be both happy and lovable.” Here we see an argument for the belief in a god for the…

Related Documents