There have been many arguments formed throughout the history of philosophy in support of the existence of God. Among these arguments is a unique claim known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager was formulated by the seventeenth century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal’s Wager is different than other philosophical arguments in the sense that it is not an evidence based argument. Pascal’s Wager is based solely on reason whereas other arguments, such as the teleological argument, are based on empirical evidence. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t present evidence for why God exists, rather it attempts to prove why we should believe a Christian God exists through the use of logic. The argument is centered around the claim that it is convenient and most
…show more content…
The objection claims that there are many different ways to gain such reward or be punished with such loss and Pascal is wrong to assume he understands God and what he expects from us. This objection does a good job at pointing out the fact that Pascal’s Wager makes many assumptions that could very well be wrong. There could be many ways one gains infinite gain or loss. For example, this gain/loss could be obtained by doing good deeds, by believing in a hindu god, in the greek gods, by donating money to the church, etc. It could be the case that even if one believes in God, but believes in him for the wrong reasons (for personal gain/ infinite happiness in heaven, instead of true belief) they will still punished in the end for the selfish nature of their devotion. There is no way to know the true criteria for obtaining the infinite gain or loss and there is only a small chance that believing or not believing in a Christian God satisfies the criteria. That being said, there is no reason why one should take the wager seriously or get caught up on the fat that believing or not believing in a Christian God will lead to a specific circumstance. The only way Pascal’s Wager holds true is if believing or not believing in a Christian God is the only thing that gets us the infinite gain or the infinite loss. Since there is no way to prove that believing in a Christian god is the only way to gain salvation, Pascal’s claim proves
The objection claims that there are many different ways to gain such reward or be punished with such loss and Pascal is wrong to assume he understands God and what he expects from us. This objection does a good job at pointing out the fact that Pascal’s Wager makes many assumptions that could very well be wrong. There could be many ways one gains infinite gain or loss. For example, this gain/loss could be obtained by doing good deeds, by believing in a hindu god, in the greek gods, by donating money to the church, etc. It could be the case that even if one believes in God, but believes in him for the wrong reasons (for personal gain/ infinite happiness in heaven, instead of true belief) they will still punished in the end for the selfish nature of their devotion. There is no way to know the true criteria for obtaining the infinite gain or loss and there is only a small chance that believing or not believing in a Christian God satisfies the criteria. That being said, there is no reason why one should take the wager seriously or get caught up on the fat that believing or not believing in a Christian God will lead to a specific circumstance. The only way Pascal’s Wager holds true is if believing or not believing in a Christian God is the only thing that gets us the infinite gain or the infinite loss. Since there is no way to prove that believing in a Christian god is the only way to gain salvation, Pascal’s claim proves