Criticism of Pascal's Wager

Proving that God exists can never be solved. It brought about the division between family and friends, the state and society. "Does God exist?" The answer to this question. It is almost impossible to see all kinds of people, ideas, culture, beliefs. So how can you tell if human behavior on the earth has an eternal impact? If so, what is "safe bet"? Bryce Pascal is a philosopher and mathematician of the 15th century and people can not be convinced of the existence of God but doing a "safe bet" that God believes is better than not believing in God I think that we can do it. More

Criticism of Pascal's betting began in his own era from two atheists who had questioned the "kingdom" 's "favors" that intangible things can not understand. Deity and unknown fable. It was criticized because it did not prove the existence of God, encouragement of false beliefs, and which religion and God should be worshiped. Voltaire (another famous French Illuminati), the next generation of Pascal, refused and added the idea that betting is "proof of God" as "indecent and childish". Just because I am interested in some things does not prove the existence of such things. " However, Pascal did not advance as a proof of the existence of God, but as a necessary practical decision "inevitable" for any living person.

Pascal's bet was developed by Bryce Pascal, a mathematician and philosopher of the 17th century. In this bet, Pascal gives a formula on the possibility of the existence of God, and this is a reward for doing so. Below I will explain the betting and decide on strengths and weaknesses. It also explains why Pascal rejects rational and empirical scientific methods. Pascal pointed out in the first discussion that God does not exist, so we have to trust in some way. He said we are trapped between two infinity. These infinities are the beginning and end of human life. Therefore, we do not have any evidence of God nor true thinking. Because humans do not become God 's or end at the same time. That is why reason can not decide which direction we should choose and we can not reasonably defend your choice, but we can not consider possible outcomes.

In the second part, James began to say that he would consider 'actual psychology of human opinion'. Here, James believes in Pascal 's bet that we should not believe it should be believed, and for the most part agrees. In other words, James seems to refuse "foolish autocracy" here, "philosophical principle of voluntary people's control over their beliefs". But in the third part, James can recognize this criticism of Pascal's bet by asserting that "only us died, our nature can not resurrect again". James believes only what we do not believe and can not believe