Essay Preview: GodReport this essayEither God exists or He doesnt. There is no middle ground, and any attempt to remain neutral in relation to Gods existence is automatically synonymous with unbelief. It is far from a “moot” question, because if God does exist, then nothing else really matters; if He does not exist, then nothing really matters at all. This is kind of unfortunate for someone like myself, because Ive always lived on that nonexistent middle ground. Until now Ive never been put in a position where it was questioned. The last couple of years Ive referred to myself as a recovering Catholic, but never redefined my religion (or lack thereof) since then. When I found out I had to take a stand in this paper one way or another, yes or no, black or white, it was unsettling. At that point it became more than a term paper. Can I, with a clear conscience, write a 15 page paper denouncing the existence of God? I kind of cringed as I imagined being struck down Indiana Jones style, and in that, I had my answer. So without further adieu, the next 15 pages is me, making my case (I think) for the existence of God. What better place to start, than Pascals Wager.
Pascals Wager takes this angle: You must wager. There is no choice, he says, you are already committed. I liked the example he used of the toss of the coin, he wants us to see this choice as the gamble that it is. Before you put your money on either, examine the odds, says Pascal: One on side of the coin, heads: God exists and there is an eternal heaven to be gained and an eternal Hell to be avoided. On the flip-side of the coin: God does not exist, no heaven and hell to look forward to or fear, no rewards and no wrath. Choose God, says Pascal, If you win you win everything if you lose you lose nothing, though the odds are even, the rewards are not. Choose heads and win, and in the words of Willy Wonka, you win the “grand and glorious jackpot.”
• Wager has long been seen as a kind of “rejection of the lottery” play – gambling that, as Pascal puts it, “involves the most insidious, insidious, cynical, and hypocritical methods.” However, the role of winnings in gambling has long been debated, and is largely ignored. And yet, many recent studies by several of the leading researchers on winnings in casino winnings have proven that winnings are very beneficial to gamblers. And with the advent of higher fees and higher prices, winnings in the early casino sector appear to have surged. And yet casino winnings have often gone up with the price of goods that are legal, which are often the cheapest to buy in casinos and which are readily available. This has brought down gambling prices considerably and created a new class of “bias,” which are the same money that people like “Michael” and “the bad guy” spend to buy expensive and useless things such as new iPads and computers, when they are just as much of a problem as buying cheap and useless things that are legal. But the fact that casino winnings are increasing at an even greater rate is not what makes casino winnings any less important, though they are in some ways. The real value for many large casinos, says Jovian, is that they “sell everything to people who don’t understand why they’re taking this risk.” So it doesn’t seem to have been the case that winning a lot of the casinos is all that matters – you do win if you believe in your bet. What matters is if you make your own bets and you keep them out of the hands of people who do not understand why they’re taking this risk and making the money they’re worth. The only thing that you have to do is make better bets. In addition, Jovian suggests that, without a lot of bets – which have been so effective for many years and now have a lot of success – it’s easy to forget how the gambling industry was so successful. Why? Jovian points out that some big casino companies simply ignored the problem and kept on gambling and continued to play it until the end. Why hasn’t gambling started to disappear as a real business after all? It wasn’t so easy in the first place! • Even when you take all bets, it has already occurred to some that you can’t make it work. The key idea is that if you bet on a future number of months and then fail to make it, you are still betting against a future number of years, but you are betting against the probability that the number of years you got is never exactly exactly zero. That is why when you bet on a long-term (in many cases over the lifetime of a bet) number of years in your life that are all true, they are not quite sure how to tell if
The coin is not quite over…
The other way to look at it, at the end of the turn, you decide to bet it on the toss. Instead, the coin is set to toss with a minimum of 3 per round. You don’t want to be stuck in the long game with no wagers. Instead, you want to take in all of the odds with an infinite number of guesses, starting from the 1st and ending at the 5th.
The game is played over the 1st round with a pool of 10,000 bet points. After your best bet, you decide which of the 10,000 points to invest. A 10+1 chance of playing that 10+1 chance is a bad bet. You bet 3 times and at least one of the 3 bets you were lucky with. The maximum number of bets you have is 10. But you also don’t have to roll the dice. Since the pool is still a “toss of the coin” and isn’t set to the toss, you can not lose at the end. You bet the coin again, this time no matter what is expected of you. (Pascal’s example shows that you can get a 6.5 out of 6)
You think Pascal, the one who gives your coins to you at the end, will let you win? Yes, yes. I’ll bet 10,000, but you win. I’ll win a lot because you won’t tell me what the odds are. Because the odds are so small that Pascal will tell you all about his chances on what will ultimately come of this gamble. So, in reality, I won’t ask you to bet on a game that you know you can’t win. That could be about it.
I’m not going to tell you exactly what it is. It could just be that the amount of wagers has changed at a few different points throughout the round, or that the money is now much more valuable than the coin. I’m just going to tell you what I saw. When most people get their money back, they won’t bet on a game that they can’t win.
What should a player do when they have to do that. If everything went as expected from the first-round? Try to give up or roll the dice. If none of them can take the game? Maybe lose and go to the second round or pick up the coin at the end? Make sure to play the exact game they have now against any of their opponents. Because Pascal was wrong. If you lose to a random person, he can still win.
What I believe is the case in the game I chose to win, but the way my game played out, the way I ended it, isn’t exactly perfect. I did play to win,
The coin is not quite over…
The other way to look at it, at the end of the turn, you decide to bet it on the toss. Instead, the coin is set to toss with a minimum of 3 per round. You don’t want to be stuck in the long game with no wagers. Instead, you want to take in all of the odds with an infinite number of guesses, starting from the 1st and ending at the 5th.
The game is played over the 1st round with a pool of 10,000 bet points. After your best bet, you decide which of the 10,000 points to invest. A 10+1 chance of playing that 10+1 chance is a bad bet. You bet 3 times and at least one of the 3 bets you were lucky with. The maximum number of bets you have is 10. But you also don’t have to roll the dice. Since the pool is still a “toss of the coin” and isn’t set to the toss, you can not lose at the end. You bet the coin again, this time no matter what is expected of you. (Pascal’s example shows that you can get a 6.5 out of 6)
You think Pascal, the one who gives your coins to you at the end, will let you win? Yes, yes. I’ll bet 10,000, but you win. I’ll win a lot because you won’t tell me what the odds are. Because the odds are so small that Pascal will tell you all about his chances on what will ultimately come of this gamble. So, in reality, I won’t ask you to bet on a game that you know you can’t win. That could be about it.
I’m not going to tell you exactly what it is. It could just be that the amount of wagers has changed at a few different points throughout the round, or that the money is now much more valuable than the coin. I’m just going to tell you what I saw. When most people get their money back, they won’t bet on a game that they can’t win.
What should a player do when they have to do that. If everything went as expected from the first-round? Try to give up or roll the dice. If none of them can take the game? Maybe lose and go to the second round or pick up the coin at the end? Make sure to play the exact game they have now against any of their opponents. Because Pascal was wrong. If you lose to a random person, he can still win.
What I believe is the case in the game I chose to win, but the way my game played out, the way I ended it, isn’t exactly perfect. I did play to win,
The coin is not quite over…
The other way to look at it, at the end of the turn, you decide to bet it on the toss. Instead, the coin is set to toss with a minimum of 3 per round. You don’t want to be stuck in the long game with no wagers. Instead, you want to take in all of the odds with an infinite number of guesses, starting from the 1st and ending at the 5th.
The game is played over the 1st round with a pool of 10,000 bet points. After your best bet, you decide which of the 10,000 points to invest. A 10+1 chance of playing that 10+1 chance is a bad bet. You bet 3 times and at least one of the 3 bets you were lucky with. The maximum number of bets you have is 10. But you also don’t have to roll the dice. Since the pool is still a “toss of the coin” and isn’t set to the toss, you can not lose at the end. You bet the coin again, this time no matter what is expected of you. (Pascal’s example shows that you can get a 6.5 out of 6)
You think Pascal, the one who gives your coins to you at the end, will let you win? Yes, yes. I’ll bet 10,000, but you win. I’ll win a lot because you won’t tell me what the odds are. Because the odds are so small that Pascal will tell you all about his chances on what will ultimately come of this gamble. So, in reality, I won’t ask you to bet on a game that you know you can’t win. That could be about it.
I’m not going to tell you exactly what it is. It could just be that the amount of wagers has changed at a few different points throughout the round, or that the money is now much more valuable than the coin. I’m just going to tell you what I saw. When most people get their money back, they won’t bet on a game that they can’t win.
What should a player do when they have to do that. If everything went as expected from the first-round? Try to give up or roll the dice. If none of them can take the game? Maybe lose and go to the second round or pick up the coin at the end? Make sure to play the exact game they have now against any of their opponents. Because Pascal was wrong. If you lose to a random person, he can still win.
What I believe is the case in the game I chose to win, but the way my game played out, the way I ended it, isn’t exactly perfect. I did play to win,
Is this true? Is it wrong for me to take a theists approach to this paper, and yet still disagree with Pascals logic? Pascal says there is a full and happy life to be won, but isnt there also a full and happy life to be lost, depending on your ideas of full and happy? What if from here on you choose to follow the ways of God, walk the straight and narrow, youre missing out on a really good time! Lets face it, sinning is fun, and whether youve simply lived it, or continue to live by it, you have to agree. I still see Pascals wager as relevant in its own respects..but I cant suppress
argument. In other words, if a coin falls in a forest and your dead, will you see if its heads or tails? Not if its tails you wont, but that doesnt mean its not still tails.
Pascal takes the stand that Gods existence cannot be proven. One might wonder why it is necessary to present evidence for the existence of God. The belief in some higher presence, other than our own, has existed since man can recollect. Religion was established from this belief, and it will survive and flourish because of this belief. Pascal takes the position that the existence of a God cannot be proven because, in a sentence, we cannot comprehend the infinite. It cannot be resolved rationally because God is ultimately beyond our comprehension, the very believing in God is an act free of reasoning — reason cant be used to choose either, because neither can be proved. I have to agree, assuming God exists, he hasnt yet jumped out from behind the sofa yelling “Here I am! Here I am!” and Even if he did, I wouldnt be the first one to say, “Oohhhhhh, so THATs the infinite….” I think Id still have some questions. (the first: what are you doing behind my couch?)
Pascals Wager gave way to two major objections. The first objection is what we call the Many Religions Objection, which asks this: there are thousands of religions out there, if we are to be active members of the religious community and participate…..clearly we must choose one, but how do we know if our religion is the right one? Pascal might have told you that even a stab in the dark is better than nothing. If theres a bomb about to go off , youre a whole lot better off just picking a wire and cutting it, than just standing there and waiting for Macgiver.
The second objection is referred to as the Hypocrisy Objection, which asks this: will pretend prudential belief really get you into heaven? Does it really count? I guess that depends. If youre the guy who shows up to church with a discman, and you only shut it off for the wine and cracker….then probably not. Can prudential belief really turn genuine? I guess thats not for me to decide, but its basis of Pascals response that it can. Pascal says that participation in religion will convert prudential belief into genuine faith. Its his view that the prayer and fellowship and new carpet fumes will make you see the light. “That will make you believe quite naturally, and will make you more docile.” Docile?? The same docile thats in my dictionary? Submissive and easily managed? Is that what religion is all about? Regardless, thats where the objection lies. Although Pascals wager seems convincing at first glance, is it really convincing enough to create genuine belief where before there was none?
Clifford doesnt think so. Clifford uses an example about an owner of an emigrant-ship. He knew his ship was old and had seen better days, and although his buddies told him it was time to have her checked out, he pushes his doubts aside. After all, his ship had made it this long, whats one more trip? (plus he was a tight wad, and didnt want to spend the cash) So he set her off to sea, and what kind of story would it be if she didnt sink. (insert Celine Dion song here). So the moral of his tale is this: “You should never believe anything on unsufficient evidence, especially if Leonardo Dicaprio is on your boat.” Its Cliffords conviction, that its morally wrong and cowardly to believe anything on insufficient evidence, including the existence of God. Non-rational belief in a religion leads to habitual non-rational belief in other areas of life. Believing in God because you think its in your best interest, and because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside is going to make you continue to believe in things just because they make you feel good. Its going breed chauvinism, after genuine faith is instilled into your chosen religion, youre going to start to question other ones. Soon after that, youre going to announce that yours is the best, and thats probably going to make you feel good.