There has been one philosophical question that has plagued religious thinkers for all of human history. Is there a God? Philosophers have argued for centuries about the existence of God and have yet to provide a convincing conclusion. By no means will I attempt to answer this question, but rather explore the complexities of their arguments. I have chosen to analyze the arguments of Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and Robert Adams respectively. I attempt to discover what these arguments were aiming to show, who they were directed towards, as well as their strengths and weaknesses.
Thomas Aquinas (Introduce)
The first cause argument, also known as the cosmological argument, takes the existence of the universe to infer a being who created it. This …show more content…
He had studied many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, but did not find the arguments persuasive. Therefore, Pascal attempted to formulate an argument, based on chance, that would persuade people to believe in God. After reading Pascal's Wager, Pascal wants you to believe that it would be in your best interest to believe in God. However, William James and numerous other philosophers explicitly reject Pascal’s argument and believe it is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. The argument is presented as follows: if we believe in God, then there are two possible outcomes: if he exists, we will receive an infinite reward in heaven, and if he does not, then we have lost little or nothing. On the other hand, if we do not believe in God, then the possibilities are: if he exists, we will receive an infinite punishment in hell, and if he does not, then we will have gained little or nothing. Pascal argued that "either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing" is clearly preferable to "either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing", so it is therefore rational to believe in God, even if there isn’t any evidence that he does
Thomas Aquinas (Introduce)
The first cause argument, also known as the cosmological argument, takes the existence of the universe to infer a being who created it. This …show more content…
He had studied many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, but did not find the arguments persuasive. Therefore, Pascal attempted to formulate an argument, based on chance, that would persuade people to believe in God. After reading Pascal's Wager, Pascal wants you to believe that it would be in your best interest to believe in God. However, William James and numerous other philosophers explicitly reject Pascal’s argument and believe it is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. The argument is presented as follows: if we believe in God, then there are two possible outcomes: if he exists, we will receive an infinite reward in heaven, and if he does not, then we have lost little or nothing. On the other hand, if we do not believe in God, then the possibilities are: if he exists, we will receive an infinite punishment in hell, and if he does not, then we will have gained little or nothing. Pascal argued that "either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing" is clearly preferable to "either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing", so it is therefore rational to believe in God, even if there isn’t any evidence that he does