Pascal's Wager Vs Cosmological Argument Analysis

1405 Words 6 Pages
In this essay I will be explicating a handful of philosophical theories to determine which one is best. I will analyze the controversies and counter arguments of each theory starting with Pascal’s Wager, followed by the Cosmological Argument, and finally the Argument from Evil. Pascal’s Wager, the belief that people must choose whether or not to bet on God’s existence, is the most sound argument making it superior to the others. Pascal’s Wager begins by examining nature. He argues that “We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that it is untrue that numbers are finite.” This logical theory is supported by the idea that what we do not know can possibly still exist even if we have no proof of it being there. …show more content…
It is human nature to question our existence, and in regard to the Cosmological Argument, humans tend to ask why we are even living, or why we live in the world we do instead of another world. This begs us to question the already existing as to whether or not it is even real, including the birth of our universe and the existence of time itself. The Cosmological Argument tries to prove the existence of a God by observing nature with the initial argument that “things exist.” The state of the debate involves the theory that everything in existence is either being caused as it goes or that everything had to have a cause in the beginning. Let’s argue that all things that once had beginnings, had to have causes as well. The cause of this in turn, is God himself. For example, our universe had to have a beginning at one point, so we can infer that the universe once had a cause. On the flip side, if we argue that God is causing everything as it goes, we see support for one of our main premises which is that “things exist” and God himself must be causing those things to be existing as we speak. Whichever angle one takes, the Cosmological Argument makes the case that “God” is the sole reason for everything that exists …show more content…
The issue arises as we are given a suggestion that there must have been a section of time before the universe’s beginning. One cannot accept this premise as the universe is meant to encompass everything from the beginning of time and nothing can exist before it. Another key point to make is that Thomas Aquinas, a famous Christian philosopher, has been noted for saying that nothing is infinite, but then continues to make the claim that God himself is infinite. He also claims that nothing is the cause of itself, but contradicts himself again claiming that God is the cause of

Related Documents