Pascal assumes that you can simply force yourself to believe something. Suppose someone told you that they would give you a million dollars if you believe the moon is made out of green cheese. Can we simply will ourselves to believe in God for no other reason than that this belief seems to be the best for bet? Explain your view thoroughly.

Words: 498
Pages: 2
Subject: Uncategorized

Pascal assumes that you can simply force yourself to believe something. Suppose someone told you that they would give you a million dollars if you believe the moon is made out of green cheese. Can we simply will ourselves to believe in God for no other reason than that this belief seems to be the best for bet? Explain your view thoroughly.

In order to complete this assignment, read this paragraph and watch a one video. https://youtu.be/p3ScupIbdkU
Watch Pascal’s Wager video, and think of Pascal’s proposal to believe in God because it is more profitable to do so. Can this self-serving calculation be a real genuine faith?
Pascal’s Wager
“Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single section of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’—it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”.
Anselm’s ontological argument, Aquinas’ ‘five ways’, Descartes’ ontological and cosmological arguments, and so on, purport to prove that God exists. Pascal is apparently unimpressed by such attempted justifications of theism: “Endeavour … to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God…” Indeed, he concedes that “we do not know if He is …”. Pascal’s project, then, is radically different: he seeks to provide prudential reasons for believing in God. To put it simply, we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet.
Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can.
Again this passage is difficult to understand completely. Pascal’s talk of winning two, or three, lives is a little misleading. By his own decision theoretic lights, you would not act stupidly “by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you”—in fact, you should not stake more than an infinitesimal amount in that case (an amount that is bigger than 0, but smaller than every positive real number). The point, rather, is that the prospective prize is “an infinity of an infinitely happy life.” In short, if God exists, then wagering for God results in infinite utility.

Let Us write for you! We offer custom paper writing services Order Now.

REVIEWS


Criminology Order #: 564575

“ This is exactly what I needed . Thank you so much.”

Joanna David.


Communications and Media Order #: 564566
"Great job, completed quicker than expected. Thank you very much!"

Peggy Smith.

Art Order #: 563708
Thanks a million to the great team.

Harrison James.


"Very efficient definitely recommend this site for help getting your assignments to help"

Hannah Seven