As Laurent Thirouin writes: The celebrity of fragment has been established at the price of a mutilation.
However, neither is valid because they both have been refuted. If one believes in God and is right, then he goes to Heaven. If he believes in God and is wrong, he simply ceases to exist.
On the other hand, if one does not believe in God and he is right, he simply ceases to exist. If one does not believe in God and is wrong, then he faces an eternity in Hell. Pascal believes it is better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong; you have everything to gain with faith, and everything to lose with disbelief.
This logic is flawed. Pascal asks you to claim you have belief in God in order to save your self from the possibility of Hell. This is a selfish thing to do: God, if he did exist, would see through the non-believers claim of belief; he is an omniscient god, after all.
And what if one really did believe, anyway, truly, but they believed in the wrong god? What if, when Pascal died, he was greeted by the goddess Hel, or the god Anubis? The ontological argument makes the lofty claim: This mystifying piece of logic seems impossible to defeat at first, but it is not.
It also does not seem true that because we imagine something to be perfect it follows that it is perfect. Anselm assumes that existence is more perfect than non-existence. A philosopher named Douglas Gasking makes a good point against the ontological argument, albeit an amusing one: The Creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable; 2.
The merit of an achievement is the product of a its intrinsic quality, and b the ability of its creator; 3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive is its achievement; 4.
The Most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence; 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one that could create the world without existing; 6.Background Need for demonstration of the existence of God.
Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly, therefore God's existence is . I. If you are American, SSC endorses voting in this presidential election. Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin calculate the chance that a single vote will determine the election (ie break a tie in a state that breaks an Electoral College tie).
It ranges from about one in ten million (if you live in a swing state) to one in a billion (if you live in a very . Religious Epistemology. Belief in God, or some form of transcendent Real, has been assumed in virtually every culture throughout human history.
The issue of the reasonableness or rationality of belief in God or particular beliefs about God typically arises when a religion is confronted with religious competitors or the rise of atheism or . Pascal’s Wager vs. the Ontological Argument Essay Pascal’s Wager vs.
the Ontological Argument Pascal’s Wager was a groundbreaking theory posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal. Criticism of Pascal's Wager Essay Words | 7 Pages. to believe rather to disbelieve because the odds are in favor of the believer.
This gambler-like idea is better known as “Pascal’s Wager” or “The Gambler’s Argument.” Nevertheless, this sort of play-the-ponies idea is not quite precise.
Pascal’s Wager Essay - In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God.
I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument.