This argument is normally labeled as “Pascal’s Wager”. During this argument he explains why any rational being should believe in God, even though said rational being does not have sufficient evidence. Pascal argues that due to the available choices and following consequences the rational being is forced logically to believe in God. The following is an explanation and critical evaluation of this philosophically important argument. One of the first issues that Pascal wants to make sure is covered is that his argument is not for the existence of God, but instead it is intended to argue that it is more logically sound to believe in the God, than to deny his existence.
Pascal for instance thinks that you should believe in God as you will gain more from it when you pass away if he does exist, i.e. going to heaven, whereas if you don't believe in God and it turns out he does in fact exists you will lose more. This is often referred to as Pascal's wager and Pascal is a prudentialist, which means believing in something because it's in your own interests. Another argument for the belief in God is Fideism, this is where you believe in God because it is absurd not to. You take a leap of faith, e.g.
Although Pascal’s Wager serves as a stepping-stone for non-believers, it is a rather vague, faithless and inaccurate argument. Pascal’s wager takes the position of a gambler. It says that it is far more logical to believe in God because the odds are in one’s favor. Pascal lays it down on a diagram like so: if one believes in God and lives a good, moral, and Christian life and in the end finds that God exists, that person has hit the jack-pot, if I may, gaining eternal life in the presence of God. At the same time, if the aforementioned person comes to the end of life and finds out that God does not exist, then that person really did not loose all that much.
Once people learn this, they will wish God’s existence to be true. Pascal claims he does not only wish this for Christianity but for all the religions to come together as one and find an ultimate meaning. The goal is not to determine which God is greater but to show that all Gods offer true
Many people have tried to prove God's existence with rational argument. Like Aquinas, Abelard, Pascal, Anselm and Paley are a few that have attempted this. These approaches are of limited helpfulness, for though we can approach God with our reason and detect him in nature. More importantly, these logical proofs for God's existence miss the point. The design argument is a Christian's view of God's existence that the world around them shows a pattern and therefore it must have been created or designed by someone.
By this approach morality is determined by the commands of God and free from objectivity. However, the theory cannot apply to atheist and possess some skeptical results. In “the Euthypro Problem,” Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Due Socrates’ question, God’s commands conclude to be arbitrary and His goodness as meaningless. The Euthypro problem also causes believers of this theological conception to choose between the goodness of God and a standard independent of God. To avoid this dilemma, Rachels suggests the Theory of Natural Law in the next section.
God’s will is comprehensible and certain. To walk in God’s Will throughout our time on earth, we must deliberately choose to serve God rather than the gods of this world. Joshua had confirmed that it’s possible to follow God and serve Him for a lifetime in the midst of difficult circumstances. Romans 12:2 says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will."
Martel writes that he has a story ‘that will make you believe in God’. He successfully portrays why people choose to live a life with God. Because a life with God is the better story. Yet while the second telling of the story may cast doubt for the reader on the first story, it is not meant to do so for more than a moment. “And so it goes with God” is showing that whether God is real or not, living a life with God will always be better than one without faith.
The Nouthetic approach to counseling has at its core the worthy desire to submit all areas of life to the Word of God. This desire is a core belief for the Christian Integrationist, but the approach is very different. At its base Nouthetic counseling does not appreciate complexity: the complexity of life, wisdom, or the Word. It is necessary to appreciate that God has made man as biopneumapsychosocial being that needs more than proof texts to change and grow. The Nouthetic approach is not robust, but we as integrationists can seek to use some the true content that this branch of counseling creates: for the glory of
This verse is proven in the lives of those who whole-heartedly follow after God; whereas the people who look to fate are caused to question their own existence. Furthermore, serendipity is a nice thought, but it is not a belief, that as a Christian I want to center my life around.