Blaise Pascal argues that there is a mathematical possibility that God exists. His argument is know as Pascal's Wager, and he states that believing in God is sensible and rational even though there is no evidence or objective certainty to believe it. Simply put, he argues that you have more to gain from believing in God than you have to lose. According to Pascal there are essential benefits in believing in his existence. Yet the existence of God has been a question of controversy ever since people developed the capability of thought. Elliott Sober gives rise to several strong objections against Pascal's argument, which should also be taken into consideration when regarding an argument for the existence of a God.
This paper will argue for Pascal's reason why you should believe that God exists. Pascal propositions for theism is what Sober calls a prudential reason. That is it is in your own self-interest that you believe in God, though
ld not possibly hope to understand an all-knowing and powerful God by rational inquiry. In both cases there is a probability that God exists.
Sober makes two objections to Pascal's Wager. First Sober brings forth the decision theory and states that belief is not an action you can choose and perform, at your will. You cannot choose to belief in God because you are given a prudential reason. The second and even stronger objection to Pascal's Wager made by Sober is that Pascal makes a quick assumption of how God would be like if he existed. Pascal referred to a God that is of one particular religious tradition and not others, that there is a heaven and hell, and that atheist would get punished or suffer in some way or another. How could a person know if these assumptions are true? Sober sees no reason why any of the payoffs that Pascal depicts are true.
All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009
Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA Webmasters make $$$$