In this essay I will be analyzing Blaise Pascal’s argument that one should bring themselves to believe in God because it is logical to wager or bet “that God is”. I will first outline his three premises of the wager and then I will have a criticism that is held against him.
Specifically, the criticism is towards his second premise which states, “you must wager. It is not optional”. Lastly, I will be responding to that criticism, since I am agreeing with Pascal’s premise. Pascal’s wager consists of the following premises: the first premise is, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”. Pascal is stating that God rather exists or He does not. He says we are not capable of knowing or understanding of who He is. It is impossible to …show more content…
Ones beliefs involve in what their past experiences and their knowledge of what they think is true, what they think is factual. So, the individuals original belief is that the shirt is purple is by facts that they believe is true. By someone offering money to change the persons “belief” does not work as they fake the belief of the new colour shirt to get a benefit out of it. So, their original belief is still in their mind at the time. This helps prove that the facts individuals are familiar with help them in their decision whether they believe in God existence or not. For one to believe in God’s existence, they look at the facts that show he is indeed real. People refer to the Bible where there is compelling evidence proving his existence. If an individuals believes that there is no existence of God then they turn to other sources like discussing with other atheists to prove why God is not real. Either way, we have to decide if we believe in his existence or not. Blaise Pascal conveys a compelling argument of whether we should believe in God’s existence. Questioning what you think is factual helps in your final decision of believing if God is real or not. His second premise of having to choose and it being not optional is challenging to go against as facts and your own knowledge support in your overall belief system.
Specifically, the criticism is towards his second premise which states, “you must wager. It is not optional”. Lastly, I will be responding to that criticism, since I am agreeing with Pascal’s premise. Pascal’s wager consists of the following premises: the first premise is, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”. Pascal is stating that God rather exists or He does not. He says we are not capable of knowing or understanding of who He is. It is impossible to …show more content…
Ones beliefs involve in what their past experiences and their knowledge of what they think is true, what they think is factual. So, the individuals original belief is that the shirt is purple is by facts that they believe is true. By someone offering money to change the persons “belief” does not work as they fake the belief of the new colour shirt to get a benefit out of it. So, their original belief is still in their mind at the time. This helps prove that the facts individuals are familiar with help them in their decision whether they believe in God existence or not. For one to believe in God’s existence, they look at the facts that show he is indeed real. People refer to the Bible where there is compelling evidence proving his existence. If an individuals believes that there is no existence of God then they turn to other sources like discussing with other atheists to prove why God is not real. Either way, we have to decide if we believe in his existence or not. Blaise Pascal conveys a compelling argument of whether we should believe in God’s existence. Questioning what you think is factual helps in your final decision of believing if God is real or not. His second premise of having to choose and it being not optional is challenging to go against as facts and your own knowledge support in your overall belief system.