Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Modern arguments over religion, more specifically God, concentrate primarily on whether or not adequate evidence exists to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Disbelievers such as biologist Richard Hawkins are inclined to point to the indisputable facts of evolution and the prosperity of scientific evidence that appear to contradict many facets of faith. Conversely, believers such as Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith clarify the contentious facets of science, and how the only possible solution to all is a supreme being. However, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal refused to create either type of argument; he believed that it was not possible to determine God's presence for certainty through reason. Instead, he implied that rational individuals need to bet like God does really exist, because doing this offers these individuals everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Regrettably, Pascal's Wager contains numerous fallacies, and in-depth evaluation of each one of his disagreements demonstrates that Pascal's Wager is incorrect. Pascal originally proposed his idea in the Pensées, a selection of fragments of his work, primarily composed to defend the Christian religion. Though Pascal clearly supports the existence of a supreme being, he's relatively unimpressed by attempted justifications of a God at the time, and he admits that "we are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is" (Pascal 233). Rather, he formulates distinct arguments, which may be framed as the following: 1. If God exists, belief in him contributes to eternal bliss and happiness (heaven) 2. If God exists, disbelief in him results in annihilation or eternal misery (hell) 3. If God does not exist, belief in him results in ethical advantages 4. If God...