The irrationality of an infinite GodFew philosophers have had the willpower and audacity to affirm, like Nietzsche, that “God is dead”. However, there are those who question His properties, and it is through their arguments that we can begin to challenge preconceived notions about the characteristics of the Christian God. I will compare the arguments of Blaise Pascal and David Hume to state that believing in an infinite God without any evidence is irrational. First, I will reconstruct Pascal's argument that it is infinitely profitable to bet in favor of God's existence despite an obvious lack of evidence, and then I will reconstruct Hume's argument that belief in an infinite God is irrational given the current state of the world. Finally, I will explain why Hume's argument, based on concrete and visible evidence of human misery, is better than Pascal's, which assumes that we need no evidence of any kind to prove the existence of an infinite God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Blaise Pascal argues in his "wager" that believing in an infinite God without any proof is rational. He argues that since you must bet on your happiness, it stands to reason that you should bet in favor of God's existence because you have nothing to gain but happiness and nothing to lose. Pascal opens with the concept that “We are incapable…of knowing either what [God] is or whether [God] is” (Pascal 1). After admitting that we have no way of truly understanding or simply proving the existence of an infinite God, which will prove to be a problem later, Pascal constructs an argument as only a mathematician-turned-philosopher could. He establishes the first undeniable premise that it is rational to want to achieve the greatest happiness possible. He then goes on to say that betting on the existence of God will reward you infinitely, that you “win everything,” as long as certain terms apply (2). The terms are mathematical: for this argument to be valid, there must be a possibility, however small, that God exists. You can't multiply infinity by 0 and get nothing but 0, but multiplying infinity by even 0.0000001 gives you infinity. You can always get infinite happiness from even the smallest possibility of God's existence. The second sub-premise delves into this further, justifying that this argument is only valid if one can get an infinite amount of happiness by believing in an infinite God. If this is true, there is no point in not believing it as long as there is even a small margin to bet with. Finally, Pascal's third justification for his second premise is that “what you wager is finite” (2). As a limited being with a limited amount of happiness to gamble, it's a no-brainer to believe it. While a huge amount of happiness subtracted from zero would result in a huge loss of happiness if God did not exist, it is nothing compared to the same amount added ad infinitum if God exists. The net gain is infinitely large, and so Pascal urges all his readers to “bet therefore, without hesitation, that He exists” (2). His argument suggests that no one has anything to lose by believing in God because God's infinite love is the highest possible net gain in the universe. David Hume, in comparison, claims that belief in an infinite God without any evidence is irrational based on how the world currently is. Hume, like Pascal, comes from a more clinical than humanistic background, but his empirical demand for empirical evidence and his skepticism towards the supernatural lead him to a very different conclusion. Hume presents, in “Dialogue X” and “Dialogue XI” thehis Dialogues on Natural Religion, three characters he uses to probe different arguments for or against the infinity of God. One character in particular, Philo, serves as Hume's mouthpiece, and is his final argument from Dialogue This is the topic of Dialogue XI that I will focus on. Throughout Dialogue The next two premises of the argument concern the theoretical infinite existence of God: “He is willing to prevent Evil, but cannot? then he is helpless. Can, but doesn't want to? then it is malevolent” (Hume 226). In fundamental terms, Hume (through Philo), states that God cannot be infinite: if he wants to prevent evil, but cannot, he lacks omnipotence; if he has the power but does not want it, he lacks omnibenevolence. Whatever one God lacks, it cannot be both because there is suffering in the world, and therefore it is illogical to think that God is infinite. Philo maintains this position throughout the dialogue and proceeds to elaborate on it in Dialogue XI. Philo creates a two-part hypothetical situation in the eleventh dialogue, speaking of a simple human being of "very limited intelligence" and of God, who is "very good, wise, and powerful" (232). Philo's claim is that if this finite, mortal human being were informed that an infinite God had created the world and was subsequently introduced into the world, the mortal would never expect to find "Vice, misery, and disorder" like that which currently exists ( 232). The only way to maintain his belief in the infinite would be to assume that he is too small and finite to grasp God's greater plan, that all this misery is a means to a positive end. In this way, Hume does not completely reject the concept of an infinite God, but he calls into question the belief in an infinite God given current circumstances. Future plans and ulterior motives of God cannot be ruled out, but what can be said is that, given the way the world is at this very moment, full of crime and misery, believing in an infinite God is irrational. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay This leaves me with two philosophers who seem to present compelling arguments at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, but given the right amount of pressure, it becomes obvious that Pascal's argument simply doesn't hold up as well as Hume's. Pascal makes an assumption that weakens his entire argument to the point of irrelevance: the idea that not only does he have no evidence for the existence of an infinite God, but he doesn't need it. Immediately before the discussion of the actual wager, Pascal states that “reason cannot decide” whether God exists or not (Pascal 2). He defeats himself in his own writings by assuming that everyone will accept the possibility that God exists without any evidence. Pascal does not base his argument on empirical evidence like Hume nor on natural reason like Descartes. His argument is based on some probability, yes, but above all on conjectures and suppositions, simply stating that it is possible that God exists and therefore it is better for us to believe in him. Hume's argument is concrete and rooted in experiential evidence. He does not get caught up in “what ifs” like Pascal – he fully accepts that an infinite God may be possible in certain other circumstances, but that this belief in the current world we are living in is irrational. Hume's logic is solidly supported: as he speaks through Philo, he makes sure to revise his argument several times, each time admitting less and less misery in the world, but always ending up concluding that as long as there is a,.