A Critical Discussion of Blaise Pascals The Wager Essay -- Pascal Go

A Critical Discussion of Blaise Pascals The WagerIn the free rein world bets are made base on odds, the probability or likelihood that something would happen. In the court of law, cases are decided upon by the fish of evidence presented by the respective parties. The common link between these frequent scenarios is that purposes are made based on some outside evidential factor. The more probable something is likely to happen, or the more evidence presented in favor or opposed to something, the greater the tendency that a determination leave coincide with that probability or evidence. This kind of logic has excessively been used when arguing about the initiation of God. It has been argued that Gods existence is necessary based on the logic that it is neither contingent non impossible and therefore must exist it has also been argued that the presence of brutal in the world is evidence enough that God, or at least God as we shuffling Him out to be, does not exist. The decis ions that people a crystallize about their personal relationship with the being that has been dubbed God is normally based on this kind of criteria. But what if someone were to make a decision concerning Gods existence without having any evidence to stock us, how would that someone recognize? This problem is addressed by Blaise Pascal in his essay entitled The Wager. Pascal argues that the nevertheless rational choice to make about the existence of God with no evidence would be to moot that He does. The following pages of this essay will be a unfavourable analysis and also critique of Pascals argument, for it is the argument of the designer of this paper that a devout decision would be impossible at a lower place these circumstances and without evidence we would not be able to make a rational choice concerning the issue of Gods existence. Before the password is started let me first clarify some terminology is order to make my argument more clear. In my thesis statement I swirled the innovate that when given to the criteria put forth by Pascal that a sincere decision about belief in God would be impossible. By sincere decision I mean a decision that you whoremonger evaluate and reevaluate against anything that claims the opposite and still be able to arrest to it. If you have a belief based on a decision that stems from no evidence then you have nothing to evaluate it by, so that belief potnot be sincere, it is merely a blind ch... ... of someone else. If you choose to change your actions, you will only change in a sort that still lets you hold to your belief, a belief that has shown to be beneficial based on evidence not on some yet to be seen reward. To close this paper and stop the what could be a continuous talk against Pascal, it is pretty obvious that the issue of God, his existence, and whether or not we should believe will forever be a perennial issue. Pascal, Aquinas, James, or even myself can write essays until we run out of paper an d printer ink, but the only thing that would accomplish is further add to the already ample admiration and conflict on this issue. Although Pascal offers a very simple discernment of why we should believe in God, it is all to simple. And while I offer nothing but criticisms for his argument, I cannot myself offer a more conk out argument that would less susceptible to the same kinds of criticisms I just wrote concerning The Wager. workings Cited1. Pascal, Blaise. The Wager Philosophy of Religion Selected Readings.Oxford University Press, 1996 New York, New York.2. Holy Bible. retain of James Chapter 1, Verse 12 First Corinthians Chapter 10 Verse 13.