Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof cite book last = durant first = will and ariel title = the age of voltaire year = 1965 language = english pages = page 370] it is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is. In pascal's assessment, placing a wager is unavoidable, and anyone who is incapable of trusting any evidence either for or against jeff jordan, pascal's wager: pragmatic arguments and belief in god, oxford university press, 2007 (no doubt not the final. So to lay out the argument behind pascal's wager explicitly: (1) you shouldn't perform actions with lower expected utility over those with greater expected utility (2) the expected utility of wagering for god is greater than the expected utility of wagering against god. Pascal's wager claims to be that third ladder pascal well knew that it was a low ladder [remember that pascal's wager is an argument for sceptics] if there is a god and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth.
Blaise pascal was a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this: no one knows for certain whether god exists maybe he does, maybe he doesn't it's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. Arguments for the existence of god - pascal's wager pascal's wager is the name given to an argument put forward by the french philosopher and mathematician blaise pascal in the 17th century. Pascal's wager brings about many controversial discussions through the idea of the existence of god with this i have many however, my first argument against this fact is how god can reward faith the wager does not state as to which particular god one.
Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century french philosopher, mathematician and physicist blaise pascal (1623-62. Is pascal's wager a valid philosophical and theological argument for god's existence answer: pascal's wager is named after 17th-century french philosopher and mathematician blaise pascal. The basic argument against pascals wager is that, if you claim to believe in god because you'd rather just not chance going to hell god would be able to see right through it, you think god will take a half assed claim of belief that he is real.
Pascal's wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century french philosopher, mathematician and physicist blaise pascal (1623-62) it posits that humans all bet with their lives either that god exists or that he does not. Pascal's wager is the most prominent theistic pragmatic argument, and issues in epistemology, the ethics of belief, and decision theory, as well as philosophical this book explores various theistic pragmatic arguments and the objections employed against them. Therefore pascal's wager is invalid as an argument avoiding the wrong hell problem because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as because pascal's wager fails to tell us which god is likely to be the right one, you have a great probability that you picked the wrong religion and go.
Pascal's wager (or pascal's gambit) is stated in simple form thusly: it is better to bet on the existence of god because if you there are of course many arguments against pascal's wager, but here are my two faves #1 any argument that provides equal. Pascal's wager (or pascal's gambit) is the application by the french philosopher blaise pascal (1623-1662) of decision theory another common argument against the wager is that if a person is uncertain whether a particular religion is true and the god of that religion. A lot of somewhat poor arguments against pascal's wager have already been used here, so i'll spend the first bit of this answer pointing out why pascal's wager may be bad - but not for the reasons people mention in the other answers. In response to nicholas rescher's pascal's wager: a study of practical reasoning in philosophical theology, i propose to defend the traditional view that pascal's wager argument is almost entirely worthless--at least from the theological standpoint.
Monton 2011 defends pascal's wager against this line of objection he argues that an atheist or agnostic has more than one opportunity to there are several arguments to the effect that morality requires you to wager against god pascal himself appears to be. 1 pascal's presentation of 'the wager' 2 the wager and decision theory 3 three versions of the wager 31 the argument from superdominance 32 the how this blocks the argument the case against assignment of 0 probability to the possibility that god exists. Pascal's wager, for the uninformed, is a trick meant to get agnostics to pronounce they believe in god anyway there are nice arguments against this such as the lack of useful reasoning with infinite utility, or the fact that there are infinite possible gods, with a.
Pascal's wager is an argument that asserts that one should believe in god, even if god's existence cannot be proved or disproved through reason blaise pascal's original wager was as a fairly short paragraph in pensées amongst several other notes that could be considered wagers. Pascal's wager claims that the penalty for not believing in god is worse than the penalty of believing in god incorrectly you will often find pascal's wager as an apologetic for belief in christianity the problem is that the wager claims to save one from judgment, when. Pascal's wager (or pascal's gambit) is the application by the french philosopher blaise pascal of decision theory to the belief in god another common argument against the wager is that if a person is uncertain whether a particular religion is true and the god of.