The Limitations of Confirming Spiritual Matters

There are many things in this world that we have no means to confirm. This is especially true when we are talking about things that are spiritual in nature, such as the existence of God. While no living person has claimed that he has seen God using the limits of his sight, there is no way to prove otherwise. Since I don’t believe in God, I would surely be in trouble if Pascal’s wager turns out to be correct.

He states that it is better to believe in God because there is nothing to lose if God exists.

In fact, if it turns out that God does exist, the one who believes will have a reserved slot in heaven. While Pascal has a point, his argument is not in the least bit persuasive. I am an atheist not just because I chose not to believe in God.

It’s just that I can’t see the proof of His existence anywhere.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Atheism

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I can’t imagine that there is an omnipotent God who watches over all of us. But Pascal’s wager suggests that atheists like me should leave their “sinful” ways and start believing in God because it is the most logical and beneficial choice.

Why should I choose to believe just for that reason? Pascal should have provided tangible evidence of God’s existence and cited other convincing reasons to make me believe in God. Thus, I have to disagree with Pascal’s wager because his argument does not provide sufficient reasons to believe in God. In fact, his reason to believe is childish and shallow. Another reason why I disagree with Pascal is that his wager is flawed in many ways. First, it assumes that God is a rewarding or punishing god when he has no basis to state this.

Since nobody has seen God, then nobody can claim that he has seen God award or punish anyone. And if God does turn out to be a rewarding or punishing god, it suggests that reward or punishment would be based on belief alone. It disregards how one spent his life on earth, regardless of whether he believes in God or not. Second, it overlooks the fact that many religions claim that their god is the only god. Therefore, we cannot determine through Pascal’s argument what would happen if there is one true God and we chose the wrong God to believe in.