Pascal's Argument Analysis

In this paper, I will evaluate the effectiveness of Pascal’s analytical wager as a persuasive piece of writing. First, I will explicate Pascal’s argument that believing in God is a bet. Then, I will argue that Pascal was right when he stated that one must choose whether to believe in God by proving that believing in God is a forced and unavoidable belief. In arguing for Pascal’s wager, which I will break down into two groups of assumptions, I will show that believing in God is the best bet independent of the existence of God or an afterlife.
In his argument, Pascal first compares God’s existence to infinity, a theoretical number that has no end. Pascal states that although infinity does not end, the number must be either even or odd like all other numbers we know. Like infinity, God is an unknown being without beginning or end; therefore, Pascal states his existence is possible. After pointing out this comparison, Pascal begins to argue his main point that believing in God is ultimately a wager in which we must choose to believe or not believe. In arguing his wager, Pascal breaks his
In this distinction, there is only a belief and a nonbelief. Noting that there is no middle ground, James addresses that one must choose to believe or not believe in life. His second point states one can avoid to go outside if another asks them to choose between bringing or not bringing an umbrella when going out. However, James states “if I say, ‘Either accept this truth or go without it,’ I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative” (152). Similarly, one either accepts the existence of God or does not accept it. Sure, one can not share their opinion on the matter, however, when Pascal states the reader must choose, the option is forced, unavoidable, and one must choose to believe or not believe. There is no middle