Blaise Pascal’s basic belief was that all people have to just take a 50/50 wager for the existence of God. His claim comes from his belief that there is no reasonable way to support either side of the argument about the existence of God. Although Blaise Pascal was a brilliant French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, his claim that there is no creditable evidence to support a reasonable belief about God is not completely correct. It is just an easy way to completely avoid an intelligent quest of the existence of God. We can see clear proof for both the true existence of God and thus proof that Blaise Pascal was incorrect. One such way to provide rational evidence for the existence of God is the Moral Argument for God’s existence as it
…show more content…
One reason to accept this idea is that without it disagreements about what is right and wrong would make no sense because it would just be based on opinion instead of universal things. Lewis points out that we practice universal moral standard all the time without even knowing it. If someone cuts in line at a CBC lunch, quickly someone will complain “that 's not fair." When the murderers are reported on, it’s easy to say “He is so evil" If it is morally wrong, and everyone knows it. Whenever this standards are held, what the person is doing in that scenario is proving a universal moral law. C.S. Lewis proclaims that do not have to explain why certain things are considered morally good or bad because we just naturally know it. Lewis also went on to explains another reason why there must be moral law. He explains that if there is no moral law then all moral judgments would be meaningless if there was not Moral Law. What does mean when someone says that Hitler was wrong for ordering the Jews to be killed? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If people are not aware of the universal moral law, people could not judge the people who have done wrongs against others because without the known universal law we would have no way to know what is truly moral and what is evil. Lewis believes that all people are bounded to follow this or at least to be …show more content…
Herd instinct mean something developed by human power through evolution and survival of the fittest. This means that we must follow the human instincts, the problem was this that often human’s strongest instincts leads people to something that is not always the right thing to do. For example a crowds have actually stands around to watch an innocent person be beaten without even trying to help her. People are easily capable of turning their back to the Moral Law. Everyone involved knew it was the wrong thing to do, but did it anyway to keep themselves out of harm. Lewis also faced the claims that there might not even be moral law and there is nothing that needs to be explained. The doubters claim that these laws are just false idea that people came up with. The problem with this objection is that if there is no moral law then is impossible to explain human behavior to be good or evil. If someone denies moral law they are essentially making Adolf Hitler and Pope Francis the same amount of good and evil. Since moral law is not herd instinct and was given from God it is impossible to run away from it. People are unable to successfully and logically escape the moral law any more than escaping the laws of gravity or any other mathematical
One reason to accept this idea is that without it disagreements about what is right and wrong would make no sense because it would just be based on opinion instead of universal things. Lewis points out that we practice universal moral standard all the time without even knowing it. If someone cuts in line at a CBC lunch, quickly someone will complain “that 's not fair." When the murderers are reported on, it’s easy to say “He is so evil" If it is morally wrong, and everyone knows it. Whenever this standards are held, what the person is doing in that scenario is proving a universal moral law. C.S. Lewis proclaims that do not have to explain why certain things are considered morally good or bad because we just naturally know it. Lewis also went on to explains another reason why there must be moral law. He explains that if there is no moral law then all moral judgments would be meaningless if there was not Moral Law. What does mean when someone says that Hitler was wrong for ordering the Jews to be killed? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If people are not aware of the universal moral law, people could not judge the people who have done wrongs against others because without the known universal law we would have no way to know what is truly moral and what is evil. Lewis believes that all people are bounded to follow this or at least to be …show more content…
Herd instinct mean something developed by human power through evolution and survival of the fittest. This means that we must follow the human instincts, the problem was this that often human’s strongest instincts leads people to something that is not always the right thing to do. For example a crowds have actually stands around to watch an innocent person be beaten without even trying to help her. People are easily capable of turning their back to the Moral Law. Everyone involved knew it was the wrong thing to do, but did it anyway to keep themselves out of harm. Lewis also faced the claims that there might not even be moral law and there is nothing that needs to be explained. The doubters claim that these laws are just false idea that people came up with. The problem with this objection is that if there is no moral law then is impossible to explain human behavior to be good or evil. If someone denies moral law they are essentially making Adolf Hitler and Pope Francis the same amount of good and evil. Since moral law is not herd instinct and was given from God it is impossible to run away from it. People are unable to successfully and logically escape the moral law any more than escaping the laws of gravity or any other mathematical