hold to that belief as long as there is no other opportunity that presents seemingly better benefits. Besides, to base a decision on something other than evidence or some supporting material could hardly be considered rational. But if you have evidence, supporting material, something that favors your belief that you can evaluate and reevaluate that belief by, you will hold to that belief more strongly than one based on selfish motives. This is true because the evidence that you’ve been presented with shows more pros than cons for your beliefs so it is sincere. You actions will then follow in accordance to the evidence. Those actions will be deliberate and personal, not based on the actions of someone else. If you choose to change your actions, you will only change in a way that still lets you hold to your belief, a belief that has shown to be beneficial based on evidence not on some yet to be seen reward. To close this paper and stop the what could be continuous rant against Pascal, it is pretty obvious that the issue of God, his existence, and whether or not we should believe will forever be a perennial issue. Pascal, Aquinas, James, or even myself can write essays until we run out of paper and printer ink, but the only thing that would accomplish is further add to the already ample confusion and conflict on this issue. Although Pascal offers a very simple reason of why we should believe in God, it is all to simple. And while I offer nothing but criticisms for his argument, I cannot myself offer a more sound argument that would less susceptible to the same kinds of criticisms I just wrote concerning The Wager. But we are human, created to be flawed, I just try to cover up. Anyone seen my fig leaf?Works Cited1. Pascal, Blaise. “The Wager: Philosophy of Religion Selected Readings.Oxford University Press, 1996: New York, New York.2. Holy Bible. Book of James Chapter 1, Verse 12; First Corinthians Chapter 10 Ver...
