Teleological Argument vs. Pascal’s Wager
Our purpose in this life is a question that has been asked countless times and answered in various ways. One of the central rational arguments for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This argument focuses in on how intricately designed aspects of life that could not have just fallen into place on their own, they must have had a creator. One of the central practical arguments for the possible existence of God is Pascal’s Wager. This argument is based on weighing the consequences that result from the gamble of believing in God or not believing in God. These arguments can be viewed as comparable and also as diverse.
In scenario one of Pascal’s wager, the individual believes in God and they
…show more content…
The teleological argument says a complex world such as ours could not exist without having an original designer such as God. Since this world is in existence, there must be a God. Pascal’s wager suggests that as humans we do not have the mental capacity to understand the existence of God and so believing in God is our safest bet. These arguments are also both referencing a specific God.
One of the main differences of these two arguments is that the teleological argument has examples to back up its claims and Pascal’s wager does not. Another contrasting aspect is that according to Pascal’s wager, there is a possibility that God does not exist. In the teleological argument, there is no scenario where God does not exist. The teleological argument explains this world was deliberately created and offers only one scenario, that God does exist. Pascal’s wager does not explain a purpose and offers two different scenarios.
After reviewing these two different theories, intelligent design seems to be the more logical of the two. In nature there are endless examples of the complexities that would have required an advanced
-logically, the belief in God is there because the Wager shows the outcomes of each possibility, and only one is good, which is believing in God and he does exist. If that were to come true, then you can gain everything, while believing and the existence being false, you don’t lose too much.
When I was at school in Vermont, one of my teachers explained to me Pascal's Wager. According to this teacher, the philosopher and mathematician Pascal had tried to establish the costs and benefits of believing in God. He saw it in this way: you can either believe in God or not. If you do believe in God, and there is in fact no God, then you will perhaps have spent some extra energy unnecessarily abstaining from certain pleasures and wasting your Sunday mornings in Church, but overall you did not give up too much. And, it could be argued, you may have actually treated your fellow men more kindly then you would have otherwise. If, however, there is a God, and you believed in him, then you get eternal salvation.
Pascal’s Wager was a major strength of his theory on God and Religion. The argument made in Pascal’s Wager is an example of apologetic philosophy. It was written and published in Pensées by the 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal’s Wager claims that all humans must bet their lives on whether God exists. He argues that rational people should seek to believe in God. If God does not exist the loss is minimal, but if God does exist there is an infinite gain, eternity in Heaven. It was a ground-breaking theory because it utilized probability theory and formal decision theory. Pascal’s Wager is applicable both to atheists and theists. While other philosophies may
The Question of God is divided into two parts. The first part, titled: “What Should We Believe” seeks to answer the first half of the questio...
Pascal begins his argument by stating that everyone must make a wager. This wager everyone places is on whether or not God exists. Pascal believes everyone must make a wager based on two reasons, everyone eventually dies and God is a possible being. Of the two choices a person can make there are four possible outcomes that could happen to a person as result of the choice they made.
...nature, presenting the power to co-create with that godly intelligence as a universal essence. When evaluating the critical components of using teleology as a means by which to verify God's existence, it is significant to also look at oneself as but a minute component in the overall structure. "From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it is composed of mind and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception" (Descartes PG). Also important to remember is that in agreement with the teleological argument, one's subconscious mind has the obligation to manifest whatever the conscious mind puts its attention upon. God is an entity of His own inventive creation; thus, His existence is a certainty for the very reason that it was His labors that enabled all other entities to exist, as well.
...n anything at all. Therefore Pascal represents a better argument than Clifford. We live our lives seeking happiness. When someone plays the lottery they play with the intent to win but if they don’t they still did not lose anything. Well living your life for god is the same thing. Refusing to believe in god could only lead to a loss, lose situation. If you live your life with faith that god is watching over you, you will only live a much happier life. In (KJV John 15:7) god tells us: If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. That is gods promise to us that if we abide in him he will supply our needs. If there were anything in the world worth wagering for believing in god should be one of them. We were given the ability to act upon our faith with confidence to hopefully one day to have everlasting life.
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
The proof for the existence of God is an issue that may never be resolved. It has caused division among families and friends, nations and society. The answer to the question “does God exist?” is almost an impossible one to give with certainty seeing that there is a variety of people, ideas, cultures and beliefs. So how does one know if one’s actions here on earth could have eternal consequences? What is, if any, a “safe bet” to make? Blaise Pascal was a 15th century philosopher and a mathematician who proposed the idea that although one cannot know for certain that God exists, one can make a “safe bet” that it is far better to believe in God than not to believe in God. This is not a proof for the existence of God but rather an idea that suggest that if there is a God, it is in the person’s benefit to believe rather to disbelieve because the odds are in favor of the believer. This gambler-like idea is better known as “Pascal’s Wager” or “The Gambler’s Argument.” Nevertheless, this sort of play-the-ponies idea is not quite precise. Although Pascal’s Wager serves as a stepping-stone for non-believers, it is a rather vague, faithless and inaccurate argument.
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
Many people wonder: what is the meaning of life? What is the human purpose on this earth? At least one time in our lifetime, we all look at ourselves and wonder if we are living our lives the way we were meant to live them. Sadly, there is not a definite answer to the principles of human life. Every human comes from different backgrounds and different experiences throughout their existence.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
Modern debates over religion, more specifically God, focus primarily on whether or not sufficient evidence exists to either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Disbelievers such as biologist Richard Hawkins tend to point to the indisputable facts of evolution and the abundance of scientific evidence which seem to contradict many aspects of religion. Conversely, believers such as Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith describe the controversial aspects of science, and how the only possible solution to everything is a supreme being. However, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal refused to make either type of argument; he believed that it was impossible to determine God’s existence for certainty through reason. Instead, he suggested that rational individuals should wager as though God does indeed exist, because doing so offers these individuals everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Unfortunately, Pascal’s Wager contains numerous fallacies, and in-depth analysis of each one of his arguments proves that Pascal’s Wager is incorrect.
23. Why is it important to make a decision about whether to believe or not believe in God? Why is a belief in a merely good life not sufficient to give us real meaning?
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.