Analysis Of Ontological Argument V. Pascal's Wager

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. Without proper evidence, this type of belief can be considered false and invalid. The norms of religious belief contradict ordinary beliefs in that it is unnecessary to provide evidence to back up a claim. Religious belief relies on “sola fide” or faith alone, as justification. One may ask, if religious beliefs are not …show more content…
Anselm bases his argument on the hierarchy of being, at the bottom of the hierarchy is elements and at the top is God. This idea of that than which nothing greater can be thought or simplified as TTWNGCBT, exists in a person’s mind as well as in the world as a tangible item. Existing in a person’s mind is equivalent to existing in their understanding and existing as a tangible item is equivalent to existing in reality. An example of these two existences is a painting, the painting exists in the painter’s mind, and then inevitably it is put on a canvas where it is visible for all of the world to see. Anselm explains that it is better for TTWNGCBT to exist in both understanding and in reality, than in just understanding, but he does not back up this claim. Next, Anselm uses reductio ad absurdum and negation to explain the meaning behind TTWNGCBT. He explains that if TTWNGCBT only existed in understanding and not in reality, a possible super-TTWNGCBT could exist. This super-TTWNGCBT would exist in both the understanding and reality. TTWNGCBT must be the greatest idea, but super-TTWNGCBT would be in this case. Therefore, this version of TTWNGCBT is not TTWNGCBT. Furthermore, for something to be TTWNGCBT, it must exist in both understanding and reality. God is also something TTWNGCBT, so Anselm concludes that god exists in both reality and a person’s …show more content…
Pascal explains that a person should choose to believe in God because they may receive infinite benefits. He does not assume that god exists, but rather asserts that a person should place a bet on his existence. If a person believes in God, and God does exist, they may be infinitely rewarded in the afterlife. But, Pascal also acknowledges that there are drawbacks to believing in god’s existence. Through religious belief, a person is unable to engage in sins, leading to a possible finite cost. On the contrary, by not believing in God’s existence, a person benefits by being able to engage in sin, thus eliminating the cost of believing in God. Pascal concludes by explaining that the benefits of believing in god far outweigh the cost of believing in