3rd Argument

You decide whether or not to bet on God or decide whether or not to believe in God is to consider the expected utility for each of these four options. The decision matrix is as the following.

	God exists	God does not exist
Bet on God exists	Infinite	A1
Bet against God exists	A2	A3

The calculation of the expectation for the each outcome is its utility multiplied by the probability of its happening.

Considering the probability of the existence of God. A rational person will not deny there are finite probability that God exists no matter how small is the probability. The probability of God's existence is non-zero.

The bet on God’s existence will alter one's life to certain degree in the reduction of ease or happiness. You would have to give up you desires to do wrong things and the presumed benefits associated with wrong actions and it may also involve abstinence, devotion, sacrifice, etc. The reduction of certain degree of happiness is the cost of betting on God’s existence.

The Wager is often presented as follows:

1. If you believe in God and God does exist then your payoff is immeasurable. You will enter heaven and know eternal happiness

2. If you believe in God and God does not exist then you have lost some pleasure but you have led a decent life. You have forfeited a high amount of pleasure but your existence was not miserable.

3. If you do not believe in God and God does exist then your penalty is immeasurable. You will suffer eternal displeasure.

4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist then you will have a high measurable amount of pleasure. Your pleasure will end once your life ends.

Although "4" does pay well, it does not have as high a potential return as "1". Considering the consequences of "3" and the potential return of "1" Pascal concludes that the most reasonable wager is to place your money on the existence of God. Even if you are wrong, the potential loss is minimal (see "2").

It is supposed that the cost of making the bet is C and the probability assigned to the claim that God exists is P.

The following is the structure of choice in Pascal’s Wager Argument

Believe God exists Does not believe God exist

God exists God does not exist God exists God does not exist

(P) (1-P) P (1-P)

+Infinity-C - C little or nothing 0

The expectation for a given action is the sum of the expectations for each possible associated outcome.

Considering the bet on God’s existence first.

The expectation (bet for God’s existence)

=P ×(infinity- C) + (1-P) ×- C

= Infinite number

The probability of God exists is unlikely that it is exactly one-half, but this does not matter. The bet on God exists has the infinite value of expected utility, if God exists has any finite probability so that the expectation for believing in God will be infinite. The potential gain of the bet on the existence of God is infinite, this standard favours the gamble as long as the probability of winning is non-zero.

The expectation (bet for God does not exist)

= P ×A2(little or nothing) + (1-P) ×0

= finite number

If you choose not to believe in God, then you place our bet on lesser odds. If God does not exist, you will never know you made a mistake. If God does exist, and you gamble your life on God's non-existence, then you will give up an eternal thing lose eternal Heaven, happiness and life.

According to decision theory, the action of believing God has the higher expected utility. It is reasonable to believe in the existence of God because, if we don't, then we risk eternal suffering in hell if we are wrong. The safer bet is on God's existence, the odds are in favor of God.

According to Pascal's Wager argument, it is reasonable to conclude that our expected utility is infinite in the case that we bet on God, and little or nothing in the case that we do not bet on God. A rational person will always prefer and therefore choose that life which provides for his own greatest happiness and hence it is reasonable to conclude that one ought to bet on God.

There are two assumptions which are required by this argument. It is reasonable to assign a finite value to P that is the probability of the existence of God. It is reasonable always to act so as to maximize expected utility.

Conclusion

Reference:

1.http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager

2. N.Warburton, Philosophy: the basics,( London, Routledge,1999).P31-33

3.R.Nicholas,Pascal’s Wager: A study of practical reasoning in philosophical theology, ( Notre Dame,University of Notre Dame Press,1985)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws