Blaise Pascal's Argument For God Analysis

In this essay, I will argue that Blaise Pascal’s argument for the wager can be falsified. He says that “one ought to bring oneself to believe in God because it is rational to wager or bet ‘that God is’”. The wager Pascal discusses encompasses the idea of finite and infinite gains and losses. According to Pascal, if you gain, you gain all and if you lose, you lose nothing. This concluding that one must wager to believe or not. I will offer an explanation of why he believes it is rational to wager that God exists. I will then argue that although rational, Pascal fails to perceive the nature of belief thus proving his argument is useless. According to Pascal God is infinitely incomprehensible, meaning that there are no good arguments for whether God exists or not. He says that God either exists or he doesn’t and reason cannot determine whether he does or not. Finite is unable to understand infinite and thus we will never be able to understand the true nature of God. We must wager to believe or not, it is not an option. Pascal says that if one believes in God and he does exist you gain everything, whereas if you believe in God and he doesn’t exist then you do not gain anything and you may even lose some finite good, such as happiness. On the other side, if you do not believe in God and he does not in fact exist you do not gain or lose anything. Therefore, Pascal would conclude that it …show more content…
This paragraph will serve as a rebuttal to the previous paragraph on the basis of Pascal’s argument for the wager. He would say that the bible cannot be a valid reason behind belief because how does one write about a matter that is “infinitely incomprehensible”. Pascal would believe that evidence cannot support one’s belief in God, a belief in God must simply come from the possibility of infinite reward that you could receive from wagering that God in fact