Pascal's Wager
argument that posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pascal's wager is the name for an idea by Blaise Pascal. He said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists and that when it comes to God’s existence, we are taking a big risk. Pascal thought it is better to bet that God exists, and therefore to live accordingly. If God exists, we could gain a lot, like eternal happiness in Heaven, but if God did not exist it would make no difference. For this reason, it would be better to believe in God, Pascal said.[1] Critics say it's impossible to prove God's existence and that true belief should not be based on what we might gain.
Pascal's argument is that reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right, and harm us the least should we be wrong. Accordingly, the options would be :
1. You may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness.
2. You may live a pleasure-seeking life and be denied eternal happiness.
3. You may live a religious and moral life, but it makes no difference because there is no God (or eternal life).
4. You may live a pleasure-seeking life, but it makes no difference because there is no God (or eternal life).
For Pascal, the first option is the most important one, because it represents the maximum gain and [avoids the maximum] loss. Even if it should turn out that there is no God, the risk of deciding against such a possibility means that we should choose that option.