There are many conclusions to where I feel I do not have enough data, information, direct evidence, or intelligence to make or assert a conclusion.
As Laurent Thirouin writes: The celebrity of fragment has been established at the price of a mutilation. The unbeliever who had provoked this long analysis to counter his previous objection "Maybe I bet too much" is still not ready to join the apologist on the side of faith.
He put forward two new objections, undermining the foundations of the wager: The conclusion is evident: Voltaire hints at the fact that Pascal, as a Jansenistbelieved that only a small, and already predestined, portion of humanity would eventually be saved by God.
Voltaire explained that no matter how far someone is tempted with rewards to believe in Christian salvation, the result will be at best a faint belief. Argument from inconsistent revelations Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many conceptions of God or godssome assert that all of them need to be factored into the Wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations.
This, its proponents argue, would lead to a high probability of believing in "the wrong god", which, they claim, eliminates the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager.
Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Romebut perhaps that of the Anabaptists or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin.
If a certain action leads one closer to salvation in the former religion, it leads one further away from it in the latter. Therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion could be negative.
Or, one could also argue that there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive religions which is a subset of the set of all possible religionsand that the probability of any one of them being true is zero; therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion is zero.
They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose.
But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc.
Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us. Pascal says that unbelievers who rest content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism has seduced them into a fatal "repose".
If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine "in detail" whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered.
This discussion is in reaction to Robin Collins' essay "The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God," but I do not think you need to have read it to engage with the ideas (any quotations below come from that essay). I'd like to take issue with the notion. He advances the idea more as a necessary decision one must make when living to address the issue of god’s existence. Let’s define what Pascal’s Wager is so we’re on the same page. that for me renders this entire discussion pointless, is this: I can’t choose to believe in any god. Pascal’s Wager vs. the Ontological Argument Pascal’s Wager was a groundbreaking theory posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal. Pascal, who is said to be the father of modern probability, felt that that religion should be approached as a gamble.
If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter "in detail". In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on "other religions".Pascal’s Wager vs. the Ontological Argument Pascal’s Wager was a groundbreaking theory posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal.
Pascal, who is said to be the father of modern probability, felt that that religion should be approached as a gamble.
Sep 18, · And as stated many posts prior, God would also know that all received their needed proof of mere existence, and some chose to instead deny, reject, rebell, etc Again, knowledge in existence does not tamper with free will/free choice. Pascal’s Wager only works if the only possible criterion for entrance into heaven is belief in the Christian God and the only possible criterion for entrance into hell is disbelief in the Christian God.
Pascal assumes that his God is the only God, and that other religions have just been backing the wrong horse, so . Ideas that are clear and distinct are reliable, properties of ideas are properties of the things themselves. Properties of God are perfection, etc. One dimension of perfection is existence, and existence in mind and reality is more perfect than just existence in mind.
If perfection is a property of God, then existence is a property of God. God exists.
God is a precondition of the innate ideas and connection with the surrounding world. There's no doubt in the mind of Descartes that God exist.
Hence, he is claiming that faith/religion is . Arguments for the Existence of God: Reason: Section 7.
The Pragmatic Argument: Blaise Pascal, - , was both a mathematician and a philosopher. He had studied many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God but did not find the arguments persuasive.