Weaknesses of Pascal’s Wager He assumes that everyone believes in the same Abrahamic God of the Judeo-Christian world. There are people who have religious beliefs and philosophies that do not include a heaven and hell which make his wager not even apply to them. He assumes that you can’t be morally strong of are more likely to be morally strong if you believe in God. He does not explain what believing in God is… i.e. if it requires good works or just stating God exists which could also conflict with being moral. Uses scare tactics and reward tactics to create and influence believers
Strengths of Pascal’s Wager He explains that for the odds of a positive outcome are better if you believe compared to not believing. No cost for believing in God That believing in God will make you a morally strong person no matter if he exists or not if you agree with his premises
Pascal’s wager is a suggestion made by a French philosopher stating that one may not be able to have a definite answer to God and existence through reasoning but should still believe because God is good and only positivity is to gain when wagering in belief. To Christians Pascal’s wager makes sense because believers of God view their faith and devotion as a means of spirituality. Pascal’s wager leads us to believe that we cannot trust reason therefore belief in God is in the eyes of the beholder. To non-Christians Pascal’s wager is inconsistent because throughout history there have been many religions that believe in God therefore there must be many Gods and the probability of putting faith into the wrong God is very high which denotes Pascal’s wager.
Weaknesses: Pascal’s wager is just that it is a wager. Pascal expressed his opinion and others may agree or disagree with him but his wager labels everyone the same and says that all people should believe in the same God. Pascal viewed God as an entity instead of a being like most Christians. There would have to be many Gods amongst us since there are many different religions and this would bring up lots of inconsistencies in his wager.
Strengths: Pascal makes a strong point by wagering that belief in God can only bring good to your life because God is good and positive. Believers use spirituality to deal with hard and difficult decisions and allow people to talk out their issues and put faith in a higher being.
Pascal's Wager is pretty much like a bet about god. and what it consist of is that if god does exist and you believe that he does then you get an eternal reward or go to heaven. but if you don't believe in god then you get eternal damnation or hell. the second part is if god does not exist and you do believe then you gain good morals but wasted some time and if you don't believe then there is not reward and no punishment.
the way that its weak is that he based it only on the abrahamic religions and not all worldly religions. not all religions have a heaven or hell or just one god. many have multiple gods and some don't even have a god.
its strength well it help u think that if by believing in god you can become a better person. and morally you will become stronger and that it doesn't hurt to believe in something that can bring positive feed back to your life.
Pascal believed that there is only 2 possiblities for god. He either exist or doesnt exist. He thought it would be safer to assume that god did exist. Assuming there is a heaven or hell. Pascal also assumed that you have to make a decision. He believe's that there is a 50/50 chance he is either real or not real. All of his finding are based on scientific findings. He also assumed that if you did believe that you are more moral. If you didnt believe that there would be eternal punishment.
Strengths of Pascal's Wager: If you play the 'come' line, you're safe either way. The best bet is to believe if there is a "God", heaven and afterlife you're safe. Yet if there is no "God" and afterlife, then no harm, no foul.
Weaknesses of Pascal's Wager: "God" can see through your scam and no ticket in the pearly gates.
Pascal’s Wager is a logical way of explaining and defining who God is. The one weakness is that not every human believes in the same God. Another reason there is a hole in the theory is that the individuals who feel most compelled either way will not observe the thesis. To them it is the way that it is and there is no other way. One of the strengths is that there are two goods for believing in something and the two goods will always be as bad as the best of the lesser. The wager is a good way to define God to individuals who are looking for an answer. If you have to question what you know inside, then maybe you should just take the best odds.
Pascal’s wager makes the argument that believing in God is logical. If we believe in God, we will either go to heaven if he exists or be a better person morally, if he does not. If we don’t believe then we either go to Hell or we aren’t as moral as a person. Pascal claimed that believing in God has more benefits and outweighs the risks of not believing. Therefore, believing in God is logical. The weaknesses in his argument were the assumptions he made. He assumes that people that people assume the existence of God is 50/50, which many people don’t. Also, he assumes that believing in God makes you more of a moral person, this only applies to Abrahamic religions. The main strength of this argument is that he used logic and math. These are the only few things that all philosophers agree on. This was able to make an argument mathematically to believe in God.
Pascal’s attempt to justify belief in God from a real world point of view is a worthy try, though easily foiled. He explains that if one chooses to believe in God, and he turns out not to not exist, nothing happens and you benefit from the positive effect of your conscious moral act. Then, what if God exists? Well, you are greeted at the pearly gates, supposedly. This argument only holds if both parties in the debate have the common belief that the minimal requirement for entrance into heaven is to knowingly believe, and accept God. If one were to present this argument to anyone with beliefs that stray from this one there would be no acceptance. Pascal then presents the possibility of not believing in God, and what according to him, could happen. If he does not exist, you have lived a plausibly immoral life and nothing happens. This is a problem for many as well. This argument implies that one must believe in God to exhibit regular moral behavior. And if you do not believe and God does exist? You are thrown to the fiery pits of hell and simmer in eternal damnation. Again, we encounter a familiar problem; for this this to be true both parties must have the same vision of heaven and hell and reasonably believe that God standards for Holy entry into heaven is simply accepting Him. The strengths for his argument hold when one may agree with him on the generalized Abrahamic view that is so stifling in many cultures. Because many people on this planet do feel that God will let them into heaven for accepting Him, may easily be persuaded to actively believe in God because of these arguments, or in the very least have their beliefs be reinforced. Though, times are changing and rational thought is slowly growing to dominate, therefore rendering Pascal’s wager fairly useless in a real world situation.
The existence of God should not be considered in any form of bet as Pascal’s Wager presents it in a two deal promotion. It cannot solely come from “believing” if God exists or not. There is more works, sentiment and experience to firmly say God is real. The actual fact of believing not necessarily always claims the existence of a Higher Being. The two done-deal presents nothing but a game of darts you toss and wait to see if it’s one way or another. For “believers” it means nothing. For non-believers, it means nothing as well. Sure enough the controversy for many is if God exists or not. It is yes or a no; but the risk is not the same for all. If non-believers follow Pascal’s Wager, at the end of the game, if God exists, lucky them, if not, they can care less on such things as eternal damnation or punishment. Also, if God exists it requires more than “believing”, if that particular coin you flipped, lands on God’s side.
For those who claim the existence of God, it takes perhaps faith to “prove” that indeed, there is a God. Unfortunately, faith cannot be scientifically experience to physically proof such being. We are so accustomed to see everything, to sense, to proof, to explain and in this case, for non-believers, faith is not an option. For believers on the other hand, faith plays a major role in their lives and can blindly tell you without any “proof” that God exists. Many (believers) though, have had “proof” but this Godly experience cannot be transmitted to those reluctant because they would not understand. Thus, faith, you have it or you don’t. As with God, you also have faith of its existence or not.
Pascal’s Wager sure presents that one must choose one way or the other whether God exists or not. Certainly if you follow its belief pattern, perhaps will have a good cause after all and at the end you might “win” for your own good. In the other hand, its weaknesses are far many where believers do not need such chart and non-believers will not change their mind. Also, it is assuming that all of us want heaven and or that we want to gain or lose something. Thus, it cannot be a fifty-fifty proposition in a game where you can gain something and lose everything.
Anytime we hear someone speak for or against God there is bound to be holes in their argument. Since there is no factual basis for or against the existence of God, we are merely wagering whether or not he exists. Pascal’s Wager argues that we have no choice but to gamble on the existence of god, and assumes we have only the choice to believe or not to believe. Throughout Pascal’s argument he makes a lot of similar assumptions. I will break down these assumptions and discuss why I think he is wrong to assume these things. I will start with his thought that when we place this wager it would will be a fifty fifty chance. When we look at his idea of whether or not god exists, we see that his argumentation considers only the god of Christianity. If we added other gods besides Pascal’s omnibenevolent god, we would see the odds change. There are evil and cruel gods; the Greeks had an abundance of gods. In looking at this point, we see that we have more options than just whether god exists or if he doesn’t. We can pick a vast majority of options and thru these options the odds change. When we look at his point that we have to choose the same argument applies. We could simply pick a different option to choose from or simply choose not to wager at all. I believe not wagering is the most logical decision because then you except you do not know. We are constantly getting in our own way when we assume a belief. The great philosopher Socrates realized this when he says, “As for me all I know, is that I know nothing”. The first time I saw Pascal’s Wager was on an episode of the Wonder Years when I was little. Although I did not know that it came from Pascal, It made me think of this argument for quite a while. I do not believe that you can go to heaven merely based on the fact that the odds are better to believe. If you are merely going off odds do you believe at all? I don’t think so. If Pascal’s thought of God is out there, then he knows all and probably wouldn’t like the fact that you picked him because it is a safe bet. That would be like marrying someone because it is safe and not for love. Never the less, it is possible to come to god because of this theory, and then by following his teachings learn to love him. Pascal does make several wrong assumptions thru his argument but I still honor his attempt to define something so undefined thru logical discussion.
Pascal's Wager is the idea that even if a person doesn’t believe in religion and a god they should act like they do, on the bases that if you act like you have faith, maybe over time one will develop true faith, also if you’re wrong when you die and there is a god. You’re not going to hell because at the least you were a good person that lived life according to god’s laws. Over all this kind of philosophy sounds nice at first glance, but the problem with this idea is Pascal’s assuming that every one believes in the same religion and god, the flaw is that not everyone believe in the same god. Take a look at Buddhism, its philosophy teaches peace, kindness, and being free from suffering. If god is all knowing and all powerful, if a person don’t have faith but they going along with his teachings. God will know what’s truly in in your heart, and if faith ant there he will know.
Pascal seems to assume that those who believe in God will be automatically rewarded be attaining Heaven, whereas those who disbelieve in God will automatically spend eternity in Hell. strengths if we believe we will have entrnal life
Posts
12 comments:
Weaknesses of Pascal’s Wager
He assumes that everyone believes in the same Abrahamic God of the Judeo-Christian world. There are people who have religious beliefs and philosophies that do not include a heaven and hell which make his wager not even apply to them.
He assumes that you can’t be morally strong of are more likely to be morally strong if you believe in God.
He does not explain what believing in God is… i.e. if it requires good works or just stating God exists which could also conflict with being moral.
Uses scare tactics and reward tactics to create and influence believers
Strengths of Pascal’s Wager
He explains that for the odds of a positive outcome are better if you believe compared to not believing.
No cost for believing in God
That believing in God will make you a morally strong person no matter if he exists or not if you agree with his premises
Tareney Frank
PHI-101
Pascal’s wager is a suggestion made by a French philosopher stating that one may not be able to have a definite answer to God and existence through reasoning but should still believe because God is good and only positivity is to gain when wagering in belief. To Christians Pascal’s wager makes sense because believers of God view their faith and devotion as a means of spirituality. Pascal’s wager leads us to believe that we cannot trust reason therefore belief in God is in the eyes of the beholder. To non-Christians Pascal’s wager is inconsistent because throughout history there have been many religions that believe in God therefore there must be many Gods and the probability of putting faith into the wrong God is very high which denotes Pascal’s wager.
Weaknesses:
Pascal’s wager is just that it is a wager. Pascal expressed his opinion and others may agree or disagree with him but his wager labels everyone the same and says that all people should believe in the same God. Pascal viewed God as an entity instead of a being like most Christians. There would have to be many Gods amongst us since there are many different religions and this would bring up lots of inconsistencies in his wager.
Strengths:
Pascal makes a strong point by wagering that belief in God can only bring good to your life because God is good and positive. Believers use spirituality to deal with hard and difficult decisions and allow people to talk out their issues and put faith in a higher being.
nathalie
Pascal's Wager is pretty much like a bet about god. and what it consist of is that if god does exist and you believe that he does then you get an eternal reward or go to heaven. but if you don't believe in god then you get eternal damnation or hell. the second part is if god does not exist and you do believe then you gain good morals but wasted some time and if you don't believe then there is not reward and no punishment.
the way that its weak is that he based it only on the abrahamic religions and not all worldly religions. not all religions have a heaven or hell or just one god. many have multiple gods and some don't even have a god.
its strength well it help u think that if by believing in god you can become a better person. and morally you will become stronger and that it doesn't hurt to believe in something that can bring positive feed back to your life.
Pascal believed that there is only 2 possiblities for god. He either exist or doesnt exist. He thought it would be safer to assume that god did exist. Assuming there is a heaven or hell. Pascal also assumed that you have to make a decision. He believe's that there is a 50/50 chance he is either real or not real. All of his finding are based on scientific findings. He also assumed that if you did believe that you are more moral. If you didnt believe that there would be eternal punishment.
Yoseline Castillo
PHI-101
Strengths of Pascal's Wager: If you play the 'come' line, you're safe either way. The best bet is to believe if there is a "God", heaven and afterlife you're safe. Yet if there is no "God" and afterlife, then no harm, no foul.
Weaknesses of Pascal's Wager: "God" can see through your scam and no ticket in the pearly gates.
Pascal’s Wager is a logical way of explaining and defining who God is. The one weakness is that not every human believes in the same God. Another reason there is a hole in the theory is that the individuals who feel most compelled either way will not observe the thesis. To them it is the way that it is and there is no other way. One of the strengths is that there are two goods for believing in something and the two goods will always be as bad as the best of the lesser. The wager is a good way to define God to individuals who are looking for an answer. If you have to question what you know inside, then maybe you should just take the best odds.
Katherine Dicken-Not my account.
Pascal’s wager makes the argument that believing in God is logical. If we believe in God, we will either go to heaven if he exists or be a better person morally, if he does not. If we don’t believe then we either go to Hell or we aren’t as moral as a person. Pascal claimed that believing in God has more benefits and outweighs the risks of not believing. Therefore, believing in God is logical.
The weaknesses in his argument were the assumptions he made. He assumes that people that people assume the existence of God is 50/50, which many people don’t. Also, he assumes that believing in God makes you more of a moral person, this only applies to Abrahamic religions.
The main strength of this argument is that he used logic and math. These are the only few things that all philosophers agree on. This was able to make an argument mathematically to believe in God.
Bethany Henry-Dicken
Pascal’s attempt to justify belief in God from a real world point of view is a worthy try, though easily foiled. He explains that if one chooses to believe in God, and he turns out not to not exist, nothing happens and you benefit from the positive effect of your conscious moral act. Then, what if God exists? Well, you are greeted at the pearly gates, supposedly. This argument only holds if both parties in the debate have the common belief that the minimal requirement for entrance into heaven is to knowingly believe, and accept God. If one were to present this argument to anyone with beliefs that stray from this one there would be no acceptance.
Pascal then presents the possibility of not believing in God, and what according to him, could happen. If he does not exist, you have lived a plausibly immoral life and nothing happens. This is a problem for many as well. This argument implies that one must believe in God to exhibit regular moral behavior. And if you do not believe and God does exist? You are thrown to the fiery pits of hell and simmer in eternal damnation. Again, we encounter a familiar problem; for this this to be true both parties must have the same vision of heaven and hell and reasonably believe that God standards for Holy entry into heaven is simply accepting Him.
The strengths for his argument hold when one may agree with him on the generalized Abrahamic view that is so stifling in many cultures. Because many people on this planet do feel that God will let them into heaven for accepting Him, may easily be persuaded to actively believe in God because of these arguments, or in the very least have their beliefs be reinforced. Though, times are changing and rational thought is slowly growing to dominate, therefore rendering Pascal’s wager fairly useless in a real world situation.
The existence of God should not be considered in any form of bet as Pascal’s Wager presents it in a two deal promotion. It cannot solely come from “believing” if God exists or not. There is more works, sentiment and experience to firmly say God is real. The actual fact of believing not necessarily always claims the existence of a Higher Being. The two done-deal presents nothing but a game of darts you toss and wait to see if it’s one way or another. For “believers” it means nothing. For non-believers, it means nothing as well. Sure enough the controversy for many is if God exists or not. It is yes or a no; but the risk is not the same for all. If non-believers follow Pascal’s Wager, at the end of the game, if God exists, lucky them, if not, they can care less on such things as eternal damnation or punishment. Also, if God exists it requires more than “believing”, if that particular coin you flipped, lands on God’s side.
For those who claim the existence of God, it takes perhaps faith to “prove” that indeed, there is a God. Unfortunately, faith cannot be scientifically experience to physically proof such being. We are so accustomed to see everything, to sense, to proof, to explain and in this case, for non-believers, faith is not an option. For believers on the other hand, faith plays a major role in their lives and can blindly tell you without any “proof” that God exists. Many (believers) though, have had “proof” but this Godly experience cannot be transmitted to those reluctant because they would not understand. Thus, faith, you have it or you don’t. As with God, you also have faith of its existence or not.
Pascal’s Wager sure presents that one must choose one way or the other whether God exists or not. Certainly if you follow its belief pattern, perhaps will have a good cause after all and at the end you might “win” for your own good. In the other hand, its weaknesses are far many where believers do not need such chart and non-believers will not change their mind. Also, it is assuming that all of us want heaven and or that we want to gain or lose something. Thus, it cannot be a fifty-fifty proposition in a game where you can gain something and lose everything.
JUNUEE CASTRO
3/31
Joel
Anytime we hear someone speak for or against God there is bound to be holes in their argument. Since there is no factual basis for or against the existence of God, we are merely wagering whether or not he exists. Pascal’s Wager argues that we have no choice but to gamble on the existence of god, and assumes we have only the choice to believe or not to believe. Throughout Pascal’s argument he makes a lot of similar assumptions. I will break down these assumptions and discuss why I think he is wrong to assume these things.
I will start with his thought that when we place this wager it would will be a fifty fifty chance. When we look at his idea of whether or not god exists, we see that his argumentation considers only the god of Christianity. If we added other gods besides Pascal’s omnibenevolent god, we would see the odds change. There are evil and cruel gods; the Greeks had an abundance of gods. In looking at this point, we see that we have more options than just whether god exists or if he doesn’t. We can pick a vast majority of options and thru these options the odds change.
When we look at his point that we have to choose the same argument applies. We could simply pick a different option to choose from or simply choose not to wager at all. I believe not wagering is the most logical decision because then you except you do not know. We are constantly getting in our own way when we assume a belief. The great philosopher Socrates realized this when he says, “As for me all I know, is that I know nothing”.
The first time I saw Pascal’s Wager was on an episode of the Wonder Years when I was little. Although I did not know that it came from Pascal, It made me think of this argument for quite a while. I do not believe that you can go to heaven merely based on the fact that the odds are better to believe. If you are merely going off odds do you believe at all? I don’t think so. If Pascal’s thought of God is out there, then he knows all and probably wouldn’t like the fact that you picked him because it is a safe bet. That would be like marrying someone because it is safe and not for love. Never the less, it is possible to come to god because of this theory, and then by following his teachings learn to love him. Pascal does make several wrong assumptions thru his argument but I still honor his attempt to define something so undefined thru logical discussion.
Pascal's Wager is the idea that even if a person doesn’t believe in religion and a god they should act like they do, on the bases that if you act like you have faith, maybe over time one will develop true faith, also if you’re wrong when you die and there is a god. You’re not going to hell because at the least you were a good person that lived life according to god’s laws.
Over all this kind of philosophy sounds nice at first glance, but the problem with this idea is Pascal’s assuming that every one believes in the same religion and god, the flaw is that not everyone believe in the same god. Take a look at Buddhism, its philosophy teaches peace, kindness, and being free from suffering.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, if a person don’t have faith but they going along with his teachings. God will know what’s truly in in your heart, and if faith ant there he will know.
Pascal seems to assume that those who believe in God will be automatically rewarded be attaining Heaven, whereas those who disbelieve in God will automatically spend eternity in Hell. strengths if we believe we will have entrnal life
Post a Comment