|
|
Pascal's Wager was an attempt to justify belief in God. Unlike most arguments for belief in God, Pascal's Wager is an appeal not to evidence for God's existence but to pragmatic considerations; it is in our interests to believe in God, Pascal's Wager suggests, and we are therefore justified in doing so. The suggestion that it is in our interests to believe in God rests on a consideration of the possible outcomes of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, then if he exists we will go to heaven while if he does not we lose nothing. If we do not believe in God, then if he exists we will go to hell while if he does not we gain nothing. As it is better to either go to heaven or lose nothing than it is to either go to hell or gain nothing, it is better for us if we believe. We are therefore justified in believing in God, Pascal's Wager concludes, irrespective of the evidence for or against his existence.
Editor: Haselhurst
|
|
The problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of God. If God exists, then he is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and as such wants to, knows how to, and is able to eliminate evil. Such a God, though, would eliminate evil. The fact that evil has not been eliminated therefore disproves the existence of God.
|
|
The argument that the existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of morality, and so that the existence of moral facts proves God's existence. Morality is prescriptive; it tells us what to do. Commands, though, cannot exist without a commander; there must therefore be a commander of morality. This commander cannot be any merely human institution, however, for the authority of morality exceeds that of any human institution. There must therefore be some greater-than-human authority that is the source of morality.
|
|
The argument that the claim that God does not exist is self-contradictory and therefore is necessarily false. It is a part of the concept of God that God is perfect; to speak of an imperfect God is incoherent. A God that exists, though, is better than a God that does not. A non-existent God, then, is imperfect, and so the idea of a non-existent God makes no more sense than the idea of an imperfect God. God, therefore, must exist.
|
|
The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.
|
|