Conclusion

Gathering together all of these points into a single argument. We can think of Pascal's Wager as having three premises: the first concerns the decision matrix of rewards, the second concerns the probability that you should give to God's existence, and the third is a maxim about rational decision-making. Specifically:

1.Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where A₁, A₂, and A₃ are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite.

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

2. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.

3.Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).

4.Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.

5.Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

It is not the task of the Wager argument to constrain actual belief, nor is it to motivate a course of action "as if" one believed. Rather, the Wager argument's task is to show than belief is rationally warranted in the specifically prudential, but not evidential mode of rational warrant.

It is properly conceived as an argument for belief in God rather than as an argument for the existence of God. Pascal’s argument is a demonstration of a practical argument but not a theoretical argument. You should act as if you believed in God, because the expected gain by believing in God was much higher than by not believing.

It is reasonable to make decisions on the basis of considerations of maximum expected utility. The argument is intended to be directed towards people who already hold certain assumptions, and to convince these people that they ought to believe in God as the potential benefits of believing are so vast.

Pascal’s wager is supposed to establish the conclusion is to prove it is rationally warranted to believe the existence of God by the decision matrix and belief of God is a reasonable thing as it is rationally warrant and appropriate. You are well-advised to become a believer but not an order that you must believe in God. You should set out to induce it.

A good gambler's rule is to minimize losses (pain and suffering) while maximizing gains (happiness) in a gambling situation. According to Pascal’s Wager Argument, betting on God is the correct alternative. Pascal’s wager showed that it is a good bet to choose the alternative God exists and act as if the alternative were true. We are justified in putting our life-chips, our happiness on God rather than a belief that God does not exist. So, even if you do not believe that God exists, acting as if He did will produce benefits.

Choosing does not mean that we have to actually think that God exists, only that we act as if he does. Pascal agreed that belief is beyond what you can control. Although you want to believe the existence of God, you will not believe. Pascal suggested that the action and decision is what we can control. You cannot control the belief but you can try to believe it by acting as if you believe until you finally become the believer. We can take various practical steps and do certain types of actions (acting in a Christian way for example, go to church every Sunday, pray to God, be a morally good person, etc.) through entertaining beliefs about God and inducing the belief.

Objections

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