Does ‘Pascal’s Wager’ Provide a Convincing Argument for Belief in God? Essay

Published in 1670 and named after French philosopher and mathematician Blaise dada the philosophical theory of pappas toy originators that to retrieve in immortal is a decision do in a duration of uncertainty. The take on also explains that whether or non graven image exists, we mint estimate the outgrowth an inexhaustible reward or an infinite punishment. This suggests that the intellectual choice to live as if paragon exists is the better of the possible choices yet, by reason al single, champion privy non come to the existledge of beau ideals existence.Mevery peoples beliefs may be in their receive interest to hold, intending, if we plan for the future it get out pay off in the keen-sighted run or in former(a) cases, we explain why almostbody holds a belief by appealing to its causes. This creation said, the idea of the Wager is deciding whether or non to imagine in immortal and to consider the expected outcome for individually of these plectrons. I think that Pascals Wager is supposedly meant to provide reasons which would submit any rational person that they should confide in immortal. However, I dont think it is a valid air, although it is convincing. The wrinkle of Pascals Wager ass be used for any God at all, so what happens if you pick the premature God? Who is to say this God really rewards belief and punishes those who do not guess? If we supposedly were to pick a divinity and it does exist, wont this omniscient divinity know that we exactly believe practiced to be safe? Would our outcome legato be an infinite reward, or would we not be rewarded for our fake belief? I dont think we can be guaranteed any specific outcome, much(prenominal) as an infinite reward or infinite punishment, because if you believed in a deity because you wanted to have play on your side, then the God would know this, and would know that your belief was not real.The belief in God relies on assuming that the beau ideal described is real and has those characteristics. The argument of Pascals Wager begins with an assumption, and then appeals the equal supposition as its conclusion. You have to believe this assumption in order to believe in God and if you do not believe the primary assumption round God already, then the argument should not allure you. Therefore, if there is no God, no afterlife, no continuation and you wasted your period maiming yourself and your kids, eating a restricted fodder or giving your time to faking a belief in God, you have preoccupied a lot in the lonesome(prenominal) life you have. The only certain conduce of Pascals Wager is that one will pretend to believe, which is all one can do if they do not really believe.Yet, if there is a god, he would know that you are faking it so you would go to hell anyway. The Wager gives us an option to believe in God in times of uncertainty suppose your frankfurter who you love dearly lay succeeding(a) to you close to dying, and the vet o ffers to give a new drug to cure the dog, however, could not guarantee treatment. The drug has a 50-50 chance of saving your adored dogs life. Would it be sensible to try it, sluice if it cost a bit of bills? Supposing it was free, it would be unreasonable not to try it and reasonable to try it. This is an example fellow feeling the Wager in a time of doubt and uncertainty to believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists only when because your will pursues happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.In my opinion, the argument of Pascals Wager, is not a valid argument, however, it is a convincing one. When you inaugural hear Pascals Wager, it sounds good, but in fact, it depends on whether an individual chooses to believe.. closely disbelievers, such as me, question the Wager purely because we know of no coaxing evidence or reasons to believe perchance proving the argument or showing some good evi dence might convince unbelievers. To say it is in persons best interest to believe in God is completely unsound, especially considering someone cannot sincerely choose to believe in something, just because it is rationally logical to do so. If you said all the right prayers and go to church on a even basis, that still would not be the alike thing as truly believing, any omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would see straight through that. . I do not think by act of will, that you can wedge yourself to believe that God exists. This argument is logically invalid, but people are shitless of an infinite punishment, or the final outcome of choosing to believe in god, therefore are easily convinced by rationally unsound arguments.