Unit 4 AS2- Steel-Botting a God Argument
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ocean County College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
181
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by Lainy423
1
Mulvey
Unit 4 AS2: Steel-Botting a God Argument
Ellaina Mulvey
Professor Griffith
Intro to Philosophy
26 September 2023
2
Mulvey
1. We’re studying two arguments this Unit: the problem of evil, and Pascal’s wager. Which one of these arguments do you disagree with the most?
I personally disagree with Pascal’s wager.
2. Explain your main reason why you disagree with this argument. Why don’t you think it is a logically compelling argument? What is your criticism of it? Focus on only one, main criticism of it.
I personally disagree with Pascal’s wager because for me especially believing in God does not guarantee grace and joy. Therefore, this wager is simply not rational at all. Pascal does not explain if there is a God or not which is confusing and not practical for an argument. But, he does explain that we should wager or bet on whether or not God really exists. This is because if you do you have tons to gain and nothing to really lose which makes little to no sense to me. He explains that this game is the theory shows that the belief in Gid and religion is rational. 3. Now, try to explain this argument you just criticized as fairly and charitably as possible. Just like we did in the Unit 2 Discussion Board, try to steel-man Links to an external site. this argument: figure out the best version of this argument, and defend this argument as much as possible.
Yes, as humans we do not truly know if there is or was a god but we should have the belief that there is one. His wager explains that you should believe in God because that’s the only way to
3
Mulvey
obtain happiness. If you believe in God, you will receive an ongoing reward while the people who do not believe will have the opposite. He says the people who do not believe in God will lose something. I could argue that if you believe in God you are giving yourself hope and something to believe in to send you to the afterlife. Using the bible and going to church also gives people this hope and belief they will make it to heaven. 4. Consider this steel-manned version of the argument. Does your criticism still apply to it? Why or why not? If it still does, consider how a fan of the argument could respond to your criticism. What logically compelling point could they say to defend the argument in response to your criticism?
When considering the Steel-manned version my criticism still applies because of my opinion of God and Pascal’s wager. As humans, we truly do not know what God is if he exists, what he would want, what we would not want, etc. God’s beliefs as I explained are held in the bible and churches but varies through religions and how can we even know that God wrote it? Therefore, no human can state that they know that this God even exists and then whether or not heaven or hell even exists or if there is an afterlife for that matter. To defend this argument anyone could argue that the belief of god or not comes from beliefs and personal opinions. But there is no truth
that someone who believes in God receives happiness and hope from it.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help