Essay Sample on Pascal's Wager: Righteous Duty or Infini-rien?

Pascal's wager is a task that aims at confirming the trust in God with the motive of moral duty rather than the interest of God's existence. It is one's benefit to have faith in God of Christianity as suggested in the argument; hence it is right for people to do so. Blaise Pascal is hailed for his theory entitled "Infini-rien." According to his supporters, they argue that the theory is perfect and straightforward than the modern conflict referred to "Pascal's Weger." Despite the critics, Pascal's Weger has gained enough popularity to initiate discussion regardless of his main agenda in Infini-rein. Additionally, Pascal's Weger targets to justify the certainty of Christianity through the contemplating of possible distinctive consequences of conviction together with questions about the God of Christianity.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Trusting in the God of Christianity will result in an argument which will entail if He exists then there is a reward in heaven and if he does not live then there is no reward. Lack of trust in the God of Christianity will continue the dispute of, in case he exists, then the resulting outcome will be a constant pain in hell and if he does not exist then the resulting result will be no gain in anything. The possible outcome of trusting in the God of Christianity will be favorable than the issue of not trusting in Christian's God. It is much better to get an unprecedented surprise in heaven than to get endless torture in hell.

Pascal Weger concludes that trusting in the God of Christianity is the most advisable step to take, regardless of the evidence about his existence. If it is true he does not exist; then there is no benefit of believing or not believing in him. Additionally, if he does exist, then there is much significance in trusting in him. For us to prepare for any outcome, it is essential to believe that the God of Christianity truly exists.

The first protest revolves around the third reason for the argument as communicated beforehand. Pascal's Weger objectively ignored the viewpoint of Christians about the methodology of entering heaven. For example, it is wrong to assume that if there genuinely exist rewards or punishment in heaven, that they will be divided according to one's belief in the God of Christianity. However, there exist various ways by which the punishments and rewards can be the divide. For example, it can be divided depending on the trust in the God of Christianity or the extraordinary deeds. Additionally, they can be distributed depending on the faith in the Muslim God. Lastly, the dividing of the rewards and punishment on either basis appears possible.

It is utterly useless if such rewards and penalties depend on an individual trusting in the God of Christianity for personal interest. In other circumstances, it is possible to distribute the rewards or punishment as a result of disbelieving in the existence of the God of Christianity. In case all the two methods of dividing prize are real, and then the third argument of Pascal's Weger is incorrect. However, it would not be the case if an individual does not believe in the God of Christianity or his existence, then the individual will gain small or even nothing. Also if the distribution method does exist then the individual will endless rewards as a result of questioning the existence of God.

To support the eligibility of the third argument, then the defenders for Pascal's Weger should show that the only way to enter heaven is by trusting in the Christian God. They should also show that the only way to go to hell is by not trusting in the Christian God. The critics of Pascal's Weger argue that if the defenders cannot demonstrate, then the third argument is incorrect. Additionally, according to Michael Martin thoughts, he explains that pragmatism recommends atheism instead of theism

The second protest to Pascal's Weger aims at the fourth principle of the argument as stated earlier. It is the protest of the likelihood of God's existence that the chances of receiving an endless reward in heaven or receiving endless torture in hell, is minimal that these likely outcomes of trusting or not trusting can be ignored.

The decision among conviction and wariness is consequently taken to be a decision between losing close nothing or nothing and growing nothing or nothing. As it is increasingly splendid to work close nothing or nothing than it is to lose for all intents and purposes nothing or nothing, this test presumes that it is betting on doubt, instead of betting on trust in higher powers, that is the typical procedure. It is better, the protest recommends, to take the specific central purposes of wariness (the joys of getting a charge out of transgression and of being free from religious commitments) by betting that God doesn't exist than it is to bet on the unbelievably boundless any longing for a splendid reward and all around likely development nothing utilizing any methods.

The option between believing and disbelieving is considered to be a choice of losing minimal or losing nothing and also an opportunity of gaining minimal or not gaining at all.it is considered better to earn less or nothing rather than lose less or lose nothing. The protest assumes emphasizing on atheism instead of emphasizing on theism is the sensible step to take. Additionally, it is significant that the protest suggests taking specific benefits of distrust such as sin or having no religion, through gambling that God does not exist, rather than gambling on the much doubtful hope of rewards from heaven and gaining nothing.

Lastly, the third protest aims the suggestion from the fifth and a sixth principle of the conclusion.it is unfair that individuals cannot make their own choice concerning their beliefs. Most people form their views based on the information available rather than the desire. Regardless of how much an individual may want to have his or her belief about a given proposal is true, it will be hard for the individual because of ones will. However, for an individual to believe that a proposal is true, he or she will require evidence showing the truth. In spite of Pascal's Weger simply suggesting trust in God, it is not sufficient to support such belief to be true. It only requests us to do the impossible. That is to believe without a cause.