Exam 16: Blaise Pascal: Yes, Faith Is a Logical Bet

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal says that by believing in God, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal admits that God may be a being who punishes those who gamble on God's existence.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Like Pascal, others can make a bet on the existence of their god.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -According to Pascal, as finite humans, we are incapable of knowing

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal considers the possibility that nothing people do or believe matters because they are predestined by God to go to heaven or hell.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal proves that there is a 50-50 chance that God exists and will give infinite happiness to believers.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal believes that God favors honest doubters who use their God-given power of reasoning to believe only according to the evidence.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal believes that when it comes to the question of God's existence, reason can lead us to faith.

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -According to Pascal, it would be irrational

Pascal argues that if we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, it turns out that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief. The argument goes something like this: Regarding the proposition "God exists," reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter because not to choose for God is in effect to choose against God and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Because these benefits of faith promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we must take a gamble on faith. -Pascal says that if there is a God, God is infinitely incomprehensible.