Week 5 Questions–6th Hour
OK, time to move away from the question of the last two weeks. Thank you for all teachers that responded and gave us your opinions. So, here we go with this week…
Question #1…Blaise Pascal was a French philospher who came up with an proposition called Pascal’s wager. Find a site other than Wikipedia and summarize Pascal’s wager in your own words. No copying and pasting allowed.
Then explain whether you believe Pascal’s wager is appropriate to apply to our belief in God–if we follow Pascal’s wager are we truly beliving in God?
Does it work better for global warming and its implications assuming GW cannot be proven?
Can it be used equally for both or is it better applied to one vs the other.
Question 2…Define electrolysis–in the chemistry sense–not in hair removal. 
39 comments Mr. Holt | AP Chemistry (1st)
Pascal’s wager does not apply to Global Warming. While Pascal’s wager does not prove God exists, it makes a logical case that makes it quite compeling to believe in God.
If God exists, and I believe in God, I will most likely lead a virtious life and get an infinite reward with eternal life.
If God does not exist, and I believe in God, I wil have lead a virtious life and will have no afterlife. I may have missed out on worldly indulgences that I abstained from in my attempt to lead a virtious life.
If God exists and I don’t believe in God, I will gain the pleasue of worldly indulgences but will not go to heaven, suffering an almost infinate penalty.
If God does not exist and I don’t believe in God, I will gain the pleasue of worldy indulgences and have no afterlife like everyone else.
The wager is that the payoff you get from believing in God and there being a God is infinite compared to the loss you would take if you don’t believe in God and don’t get to go to heaven. Logically, you are compelled to make this wager, because the gains far outweigh anything you would gain by not believing in God. Now, substitute GW for God in the above argument. There is no infinite reward (or punishment) associated with a belief in GW, so there is no compeling reason to choose a belief in this based on Pascal’s wager.
Here is another problem I have with GW, it is being treated as a metaphysical concept – not only here but by others especially in the media. GW is supposed to be science!! They have this whole thing called the scientific method for things that can be proven empirically. Science can amply prove whether or not global warming exists, science cannot do that with God.
BTW, this is a ton of fun. I may start this with History!
Pascal’s wager I think makes a lot of sense. He says that there is no real proof in God’s existence. He also says that God does have a possibility of existence so you should live a moral life because that will get you to heaven. If God does not exist then there was no loss in living a moral life. If you live an unmoral life and God does exist then you have an eternity of suffering. Then living an unmoral life and God does not exist then you lucked out. Overall it would be better to live a moral life.
I do not think that is I good idea to apply Pascal’s wager to our belief in God. It is a good idea for people who have no opinion on God, but for Catholics it is not a good idea. If Catholics believed in that then they would only be living a moral life because living a moral life has better outcomes then living an immoral life.
I think it works better for global warming because that has no belief system behind just the fact that it is happening or not. If we slow global warming down and it is happening then that will help the world and if it is not happing then I am sure we helped the world somehow.
It works better for global warming because that does not have to mess with people’s beliefs it just affects what they do. Pascal’s wager does not apply as well with God because of the different things people believe about God.
Question #1:
Pascal’s Wager is basically that if you believe in God and he exists, you gain everything. If you don’t believe in God and he exists, you lose everything. If God exists and you believe, you go to heaven. If God exists and you don’t believe, you go to hell. If God doesn’t exist, nothing happens if you believe or don’t believe. That is the essential message of Pascal’s Wager. This could apply to us because we believe we can go to Heaven if we believe in God. However, if we believe in Pascals wager then we aren’t believing in God. Instead we are believing in Pascals wager.
It does work better for global warming because if you believe it and it exists, the world will become a bad place. If we don’t believe and it does exist, it will still ruin the world. It is easier applied to God, not global warming.
#1
Pascal’s Wager is an argument that was developled by Blaise Pascal, about the belief in God. In this argument, Pascal states that if one does in fact beleive in God, and turns out there is actually a God, then that person would gain everything;(Eternal happiness with God). But, if one beleives in God, (but turns out there isn’t a God), he loses nothing, but he did live a virtuous life. If one does not believe in God, and there turns out to be a God, you are now in eternal damnation, and pretty much screwed. But if you don’t beleive in God and there is not a God, then you’re fine, but you’re life was greedy and not so virtuous. The points made by Pascal were easilly understood, and he made very intellectual supports, and I agree completley with him.
I think that Pascal’s Wager is appropriate, and he is right that we have better chances beleiving in God, rather than not believing in him. Following this Wager is not an automatic belief system, though. If we belive, we have to full out believe in God and truely mean it, and just use this Wager as a guideline.
Yes, I do think this works out for GW, but not as well as it does for God. See if we beleive in GW, and it turns out there was no such thing, than we did work hard to make our earth more efficient, but this whole philosophy I feel makes more sense if it was applied to God exsistance, rather than fighting for the truth of environmental studies. It can be applied to both, but the God version is much more clear with the supports of what would happen.
“A process in which a chemical change, especially decomposition, is brought about by passing an electric current through a solution of electrolytes so that the electrolyte’s ions move toward the negative and positive electrodes and react with them. If negative ions move toward the anode, they lose electrons and become neutral, resulting in an oxidation reaction. This also happens if atoms of the anode lose electrons and go into the electrolyte solution as positive ions. If positive ions move toward the cathode and gain electrons, becoming neutral, a reduction reaction takes place. Electrolysis is used for many purposes, including the extraction of metals from ores, the cleaning of archaeological artifacts, and the coating of materials with thin layers of a metal.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolysis
Pascal’s wager says that if you believe God is real, and in the end He is real, then you are rewarded and you will go to heaven. If you do not believe in God, and in the end God doesn’t exists, then you have lost nothing. If you believe God is real, and in the end he is not, you still haven’t lost anything. Yet, if you do not believe in God and in the end God does exist, then you face eternal damnation.
Although Pascal makes a good argument, and everything he says is correct, I do not think this is a good way to live your faith. You should not believe in God just because it benefits you; I do not consider that truly believing. Dictionary.com states that believing is “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.” Yet, if you follow Pascal’s wager, you do not have confidence in the existence of God, you only hope for the existence of God. God knows all of our thoughts and feelings, and He would know if you only belief in Him because it benefits you. People should believe in God because they have strong faith and love God, not because it is a way to avoid going to hell.
I think that Pascal’s theory works better for global warming than it does for believing in God. If GW is real and we take the precautions to stop it or slow it down, then we have a chance to succeed. If we take good care of our planet and GW is not real, we have done no harm. If we do nothing to stop GW and GW isn’t real, then no harm is done in this case as well. However, if we do nothing to stop global warming, and it is real, there would be horrible consequences. God knows if we belief in Him for our own benefit, but GW does not. Also, if GW isn’t real and we take action to prevent it, we are still improving our environment, whereas if we believe in God and he is not real, we would not advance our position in any way. There would still be no heaven when we die.
Question #1
Pascal’s wager said that if you believe in God, and he is real, you are good. If you believe in God and he is not real, then what did you lose? If you did not believe in God and he is real, you are in trouble, and if he was not real and you did not believe, then what did you lose? I do not think this is appropriate. I believe in God, and do not think that he might not be real. This can be used for global warming because if it is real and you tried to stop it, then you helped the planet. If it is not real and you tried to stop it, what did you really lose? We should try to help the planet without thinking about global warming being real or not.
Pascal’s wager is that if you believe in God and God does not exist, you lose nothing and if he does exist you gain heaven. However, if you do not believe in God and God does exist, you receive eternal punishment, and you gain nothing if God does not exist.
I don’t think Pascal’s wager is appropriate for our belief in God. We should believe in God because of faith not because we are afraid we might go to hell.
I think Pascal’s wager is better for global warming. If we try to prevent global warming and help the environment, then we would have nothing major to lose. Doing things like finding alternative fuel sources would help more than hurt. If we do nothing about global warming and global warming is real, we would be in trouble. It would be better to be on the safe side.
Pascal’s wager was a proposition by Blaise Pascal and pertians to the existense of God. It mentions four different outcomes for different perspectives on God. The examples are (1) if someone beliefs in God the wrong way they lose nothing because the only thing that will happen to them is death. (2) if someone correctly believes in God they gain everything which is eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. (3) if someone correctly doesn’t belief in God then they gain nothing because they die and lose everything. They cease to exist. (4) if someone incorrectly doesn’t believe in God then they will lose everything because their soul goes to Hell.
I believe it’s not appropriate to apply Pasca’s wager to our belief in God. Even though some people believe certain things based on probability and the ability to be safe, I don’t think our belief in God should be one of these examples. Believing in God should be only based off your faith in God, not probabilities or playing it safe. As a result, those who follow Pasca’s wager aren’t truly believing in God because they’re only concerned with the outcome, not about trying to find God in the present.
Yes, Pascal’s wager can be applied to Global Warming as well. It works the same because we can’t prove its existence through facts and data. If we belief correctly we gain the survival of our planet but, if we believe for false reasons it doesn’t matter because the earth will still be cleaner. However, if we correctly don’t believe in GW then we don’t gain any inprovment on the world or new techniques to clean the planet and if we falsely disbelieve GW we lose everything because our planet will be doomed.
Pascal’s wager is the steps Blaise Pascal came up to believe in God written in his Pensees. He said that if you live a good life you’ll go to Heaven; however, you may live a pleasure-filled life and go to Hell. You could live a holy and happy life but in the end find out God doesn’t exist or you live a pleasure-full life but if God didn’t exist then it wouldn’t matter. Pascal said, “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing — but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.”
I do not think it is an appropriate to use in our beliefs on God because reason and intellect cannot decide for us if God exists or not. One man’s opinion cannot change our beliefs. The biggest flaw is it does not even tell us what religion or God to follow so how do we know if it relates to us? No matter how smart someone is, no one can prove God’s existence through this simple of a fact. If we follow his wager, we don’t know what God we believe in, so it wouldn’t work in our beliefs with God.
I would say it does work better for global warming because you may believe in global warming, but if it is not true, then you technically haven’t lost anything. Plus, reason and intellect can prove that global warming is true. People are trying to prove it is or isn’t true daily and our beliefs won’t change its existence or not. If it cannot be proven, then sure, we can follow it because it is a general belief, not plain like his. We don’t know what God he is talking about, but we all know about the GW issue and it would make better sense to follow it in this GW situation rather than with God.
It is better applied to GW because of the arguments above about not knowing what God Pascal is talking about, but we all know what GW they would be talking about. It makes more sense with the GW issue and is better applied there because it can or cannot be proven. If it is saying it is not proven yet, it can be better applied to this situation rather than with God. Including the arguments above, I would have to say that it is better applied to GW more than God.
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/pascal.htm http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page9.html
question 1
Pascal’s wager basically says that if God exists, then if you believe in him then it will have an effect on you and it does matter. But if you don’t believe in him and he is alive then you get nothing from it. You will not gain anything. If God doesn’t exist and you believe he does, then you will stay where you are and gain nothing in return. If you don’t believe in him and he isn’t real, then life is as it is and your life stays the same.
- website:
http://www.marcusknight.com/glossary.html
I do think that this apply’s to our belief in God. It shows that no matter what, God will have some kind of effect on us.
I think this applys to GLoal warming. It is just hte same and will either have an effect on you or it may not, but it still will or not be there. To me, this can be applied to both. God and GW are great factors that we have to take in and consider it and take it seriously.
Question #1
Pascal’s wager was a theory that
-If we believe in God and he does exist, we will be rewarded.
_If we believe God exists and he doesn’t exist, we haven’t lost anything.
_If we don’t believe in God and he is not real, we are not affected.
_If we don;t believe in God and he is real, we are doomed!
I think that this would not be a bad theory to use if you were trying to show someone one of the many good reasons for believing in God, but other than that I don’t think it’s the right reason to believe in God. We would not truly believe in God if we followed this theory because the belief would not be based on faith, it would be based on unsure chance.
I’m not sure if this theory would really work for global warming either. I guess if you don’t believe in it and its real, you will be affected, and if it is not real and you don’t believe in it then nothing will happen. It’s the same if you believe in it. In almost any belief you are affected in some way.
http://www.marcusknight.com/glossary.html
Question #1-
Pascal’s wager is a article written by Blaise Pascal who came up with this proposition. The article basically said that if you believe in God, and he exists, you win, and if you don’t believe then you loose. By winning and loosing I mean that you gain or loose eternal happiness with God. Pascal makes a good point saying that it makes more sense to believe in God. Basically if God exists and you believe you go to heaven; if you do not believe you go to hell; and if God doesn’t exist nothing happens.
I believe that Pascal’s wager is appropriate because I agree with Pascal: it makes more sense to believe in God. On a basic view, not considering the flaws that people find in the wager, it can’t hurt to believe in God. If we believe then we are one step closer to going to heaven than those who do not believe in God. If we follow his wager, and we really do believe that there is a God, then we are truly believing in God. But, if we are just believing to believe then probably not. However, I don’t think that it matters what religion that you follow, as long as you believe in something that you truly consider to be God-like.
I do not think that this works for global warming and its implications assuming it cannot be proven. If you believe in GW, then you believe in GW. There is not really a reward or consequence that you get after you die if you believe that Global warming exists. GW could be out there and it could be destroying the Earth, but then again it could not be. I don’t think that it can connect to the same subject that believing in God, because they are not on the same level and mostly because GW seems to be more of an opinion. Saying this, I do not think they can equally be used for both or applied to one another because they deal with completely different outcomes. The belief is an opinion, and both can (hopefully) be proven as a fact someday, but both consider different outcomes.
Well in Pascal’s wager Pascal is basically the idea that we should believe in God. His argument for this is if We believe in God and there is a God then we basically win, He also says that if we believe in God and there is no God then we loose nothing. Pascal goes on to say the if we don’t believe in God and there is a God we are in trouble, and he says if we don’t believe in God and there is no God then we loose nothing. So he basically says believing in God is good because it is a win-win situation. No matter what we have a 3 in 4 chance of gaining or loosing nothing.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Question 1!
Pascal’s wager was where he argued that the failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything in life with out anything to lean on. There fore, the best thing you can do is to accept the existence of God. He also explains that it is better to just believe in God because you will not loose anything in life. Not believing in God can lead to losing things in life and not living life to the fullest.
I do believe in Pascal’s wager and I do think it is appropriate to apply to our belief in God because if we decide not to believe in God, in the end nothing great will happen and it could make it that we don’t go to a better place like heaven. Also, if we believe in God, then we have a chance to live life to the fullest and end up in a better place when we die. We should follow his wager.
No, I do not believe that it could help in the case of Global Warming. I think this because Global warming cannot affect someone if they believe or do not believe in it. Therefore, it is better to use his wager to God’s existence rather than Global Warming.
Question 1-
In the seventeenth century, Blaise Pascal came up with a preposition for belief in God. The argument in my own words is as followed: If you believe in God incorrectly, then you will lose nothing (there is no good or bad coming out of your belief). If you believe in God correctly, you gain eternal happiness. On the other hand, if you correctly disbelieve in God, you don’t lose or gain anything. If you incorrectly disbelieve in God, you lose everything (like Pascal says-“eternal damnation”).
I don’t think Pascal’s wager is appropriate to apply for our belief in God. We should not consider this to be extremely truthful. If we follow the Bible, we are truly believing in God. This wager is just an argument some person came up with, so I don’t think it is accurate. Pascal’s wager is pretty strict, but not in a way that is encouraging. It gives me the impression that if I don’t follow the correct belief, then I’ll be miserable or unsuccessful.
This does work a little better for global warming. Even if GW cannot be proven, it triggers our mind and makes us think twice about what we believe in (in this case GW). If we believe correctly, then we can put forth an effort to deal with GW in our world.
It is better applied to GW; I say that believing in God is a way larger concept than GW. However, no matter what, it’s not very accurate. I don’t think Pascal’s wager should be taken too seriously.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
Question #1
Pascal’s wager basically talks about the options that people have that could determine their ‘possible’ afterlife. Everyone has the choice of living a morally-righteous or evil life, but everything depends on God’s existence. If someone lives a loving and righteous life and God exists, then they shall receive heaven. If someone lives a loving and righteous life but God does not exist, then they receive nothing. If someone decides to live a sinful existence and there is no God, then nothing is received. However, if they choose to live a sinful life and there is a God, then all they are awarded is hell.
According to this logic, believing in God and living a loving life is a better strategy than refusing to believe in God and sinning. This is because you have nothing to lose if you live a righteous life while you have everything to lose if you choose to turn away from God. If you believe in God, then you at least have the chance of receiving heaven or nothing in the worst situation. However, if you choose to not believe in God or any morals, then the best you can get is nothing, but you can still possibly go to hell.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
I believe that we should apply Pascal’s wager to our belief in God because it seems to make sense. If nothing really bad can result from living a good life, then why shouldn’t we live a good life? If nothing good can result from living a bad life, then why live like that? Therefore, we should believe in God and follow his teachings regardless if he exists or not. Following Pascal’s wager does not necessarily mean the we believe in God, unfortunately. Some people may follow Pascal’s wager just for the chance of receiving eternal life, but they might not truly believe in God. Still, there is nothing wrong with living a good life, even if you have conflicting beliefs.
I wouldn’t say that the wager works better for global warming, but it could still apply to it. Whether or not global warming is a reality, it still makes sense to take care of our planet and keep it clean. This is because polluting and damaging our planet can be risky if global warming does or does not exist.
Salvation is definitely more important for people than global warming is, so I think that Pascal’s wager applies more to believing in God. This is still important in the global warming case, though.
“If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.” Pascal’s wager is Blaine’s belief of how people perceive God. This wager is one of the most common argument online. It is a very strong and compelling argument for theism.
I think Pascal’s wager is a little extreme. This is only an opinion of one philosopher and because this can be debated over and over again, I believe it’s probably not worth it. The statement is powerful but not affective.
GW could be related to this. Just because one or two people believe this and it’s debatable, doesn’t mean it’s true. But it is powerful.
Question #1
The Pascal Wager was an argument that it should not matter weather God exists or not, because it does not hurt to live your life as if God did exist. If a person lived their life as if God exists and he did not they would have lived a good life and nothing would happen, but if a person lives their life as if God did not exist, and he did then they would suffer, and most likely go to Hell. The belief in God, and living a good life could only have a good outcome or no outcome.
I think Pascal’s Wager is a good way to think about God and his existence, but cannot relate to the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith believes in God’s existence, and we live our lives how the Bible and the Church tells us to. God has given us guidelines to live our lives, and taught us right from wrong, but we listen, because we believe and desire Heaven. By following Pascal’s Wager a person does not truly believe in God. The only reason that person is living a virtuous life, is because they want to have the chance to have an eternal life. If a person does not believe in God or the Catholic faith and desires a chance for eternal life, then believing in God and living a virtuous life is the best way.
Yes, Pascal’s Wager works better for Global Warming, because there is no right way to believe. If people change the way they live, because they believe in Global Warming then it can only help the world. If Global Warming does exist and people take action against it, then they will create a better world, and if it does not exist then resources are saved. Pascal’s Wager can be applied better to Global Warming, because if a person uses Pascal’s Wager for the belief in God, then arguments come about. The arguments are that people are only saying they believe so that they can live eternally, but with Global Warming people can only make the world better.
Question #1:
Pascal’s wager basically says that God’s existance cannot be proved through reason. I do think that Pascal’s wager can be applied to our belief in God. Even if we ourselves cannot prove to others that God truly exists, we can still believe in that fact ourselves. If we follow Pascal’s wager, I do believe that we are truly believing in God.
I would say that at the same time, this wager can be applied to global warming. Some people do not believe that global warming is a problem in the world today. Even if it cannot be fully proven, people can still choose to believe in it. I think that Pascal’s wager is better applied to God.
Question #1
According to the website http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html, Pascal’s Wager is the argument of Pascal that if you do believe in God than you either gain nothing or great awards, but if you do not believe in God than you either get nothing, or you go to Hell. The wager is that you are betting your eternaty on this concept.
I do not think this is correct or appropriate in our faith. I highly doubt that God would want anyone to base their belief in Him on a wager. Also, there are really good and decent people that do not believe in God, or the same god that Pascal was talking about. They could follow really good beliefs and standards but do not believe in God. So they can’t go to Heaven? I do not think that is neccasarly true. I think that the entire wager is wrong and incorrect.
if you believe in god and he is there you gain everything because you have believed in what youshould have. if you believe in god and he doesnt exist you wont loose annything because he isnt there to give you a punishment. if you dont belive in god and he does exist you will loose everything when it comes to any kind of afterlife. if you dont believe in god and he doesnt exist there is nothing to loose there either bwecause you didnt believe in somthing that never existed. i think that it is apropriate because it makes sense but if you think about it does it mean thatyou go to heaven by simply believing in god. and doesnt satin believe in god, so why isnt he in heaven too. i dont think that it works for global warming because even if it doesnt exist now it can happen over time. so if you do something to prevent it now you could avoid the situation overall. i think that the wager works best for god than global warming because it couild fit in with our beliefs in god.
I agree with Rebecca, that Pascal’s wager is not appropriate to apply to our belief in God. She is right saying that if we follow the Bible, then we truly believe in God. Also, a person who agrees with Pascal’s wager believes in God, so that they can have an eternal life (their belief is because they want something out of it). I also agree that it works better for Global Warming, because Global Warming is a smaller concept than believing in God.
I agree with Colleen’s response about how Pascal’s wager is a good way to think of God’s existence. Also, her view on the wager apply to GW, I also agree and change my own opinion. She makes a good point saying that it does not matter if GW does exist or not, because if we believe in it and we eventually find out that it does exist, then we still made the world a better place.
I agree with Tom becuase he believes the exact same thing as I do. He explains it well that it is a win-win situation and we will have a 3 out of 4 possibility on this. I agree with what he says and how he explains it.
I agree with Samatha. I agree that it can be applied to God because we can still believe that he exists even if he really doesn’t. But I do not think it can be applied to global warming because GW cannot be a problem in the world and if it exist it cannot hurt us spiritually.
I agree with Colleen because I think Pascal’s wager is not appropriate for our belief in God. If a person followed Pascal’s wager, the only reason they would believe in God would be because they hope to have eternal life. I also think she is right when she says Pascal’s wager will work better for global warming. Believing in global warming and trying to stop it can help the world.
I agree and disagree with Bodenberg’s answer. We both agree that believing in any God can’t hurt in the long run because you still keep the possibility of heaven alive (even if you possibly follow the wrong religion). I disagree about how she does not think that Pascal’s wager should be applied to global warming, however. Even if people do not believe in global warming, I think that they should still keep that topic in mind so that they take better care of our planet.
I agree with Kimmy. She is correct in the sence that just becaue one philosopher says something is true, it does not neccassarly mean that it is in fact true. That philosopher could be wrong for all we know, and probably is.
I agree with Raeanna because she says that Pascal’s wager is reasonable, but it is not good to base your faith around. If your faith is only based on Pascal’s wager, then you do not truly believe in God. I also agree with her on GW because if it’s not real and we take precautions for it, we are still benefiting the environment. The only difference between the wager for God and the wager for GW is that God is a being and is more powerful so he can bring eternal damnation, andGw can only bring temporary suffering.
P.s. This is late because my computer is not working, so I had to wait to use my dad’s laptop.
I have to agree with Josh once again. The main reason for this is because when Mr. Hold, Josh, Tyler, and I talked about this the day the sophomores were gone, i realized that more people could go to heaven. If people have a different religion but still believe in God, does that mean they won’t go to heaven even though they still believe in God? Pascals wager doesn’t seem that accurate to me.
I agree with Kimmy’s answer to this weeks question. I agree with how his statement is powerful, but not affective because it is only one man’s opinion and it can be debated. I agree with her that his wager could be applied to global warming. Pascal’s Wager should not be taken too seriously.
I agree Tiffany for question one. We have the same opinion on when the Pascal’s wager would be appropriate to use. She said that we should believe in God because of faith not because we are afraid we might go to hell. I completely agree with this statement. Also, she believes that Pascal’s wager is better for global warming to be on the safe side. I said this in my first answer as well. If we try to prevent GW and help the environment, then we have nothing to lose. If we do nothing about it, then we would be in big trouble.
I agree with Kaitlyn because she says that the best thing we can do is accept the existence of God. If we do and God is real, you win. If he is not, what did you lose? I did not agree with her logic on Global Warming. She says that it is not affected by if people believe in it. If you do believe in it, you can help to stop it. If you don’t, you let it go on.
I have to agree with Taylor Lascko on question 1. She says that Pascal’s Wager would be good to use in showing people the benefits of believing in God, which I agree with. I also agree that Pascal’s Wager is not good for our belief in God as she says “because the belief would not be based on faith, it would be based on unsure chance.” This is completely true. Our belief would only be based on wanting the best chance of being happy. Therefore, I agree with Taylor.
I disagree with Taylor when she applies Pascal’s wager to global warming. Taylor says that his theory would not apply to global warming, but I think it would be better suited for global warming then for belief in God. If you take care of the earth as if global warming exists, the environment becomes better, even if global warming isn’t real. If you ignore the problem and it is real, the consequences could be very severe.
I agree with Kimmy. She says how the statement is powerfull, because it is. Pascal’s wager is saying a lot about one belief. She also says it is only one Philosophers’ ideas. It cannot be totally true if it was only one person that said it.
I agree with Gary especially How he connects it to global warming it shows how even if something is not proven it is better to plan for it.
I agree with Kaitlyn when she says that Pascal’s wager is appropriate to believe because if we believe in God, we have the opportunity to go to heaven if God does, indeed, exist, and if He doesn’t, by living a moral life, there is nothing to lose. However, I don’t think it is appropriate to apply to a true and honest faith.