Introduction
Throughout history, many philosophers have raised the topic of the existence of God. Each of them has his own special approach and argumentation. Due to this, many theories and philosophical statements have been created, which are further discussed, revised, and interpreted. Arguments for or against the idea of the existence of God are often based on personal experience or perception.
Main body
The philosopher Descartes became one of the founders of the discussion of belief in God. His main causal argument for the existence of God was in the very existence of people on the planet Earth. In his view, this is interconnected and does not require additional evidence or discussion (Slowik 2019). In Descartes’ opinion, God exists in the minds of people as if this idea is originally laid there at birth. God is part of the being and existence of life, and accordingly, the question of the existence or absence of God is not raised the same as that the existence of people is “impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain.” The argument was also based on the difference between existence and essence. While God himself does not exist in physical form, this does not in any way diminish the reality of his presence. God is omnipotent perfection, which also distinguishes him from human beings (Slowik 2019). Thus, the existence of God is embedded in the very principle of the existence of everything in the world, and vice versa, everything in the world exists in parallel with the existence of God.
Pascal was a proponent of positive choice regarding belief in God. Pascal’s wager on God has been a topic of discussion since the 1960s (Rota, 2017). Pascal suggested a hypothesis that is somewhat similar to the idea called agnosticism. It relates to the fact that people at this stage of development cannot refute or prove the reality of the existence of God. At the same time, the philosopher took a principled position that one cannot stay away from the choice of one’s point of view on faith. He also proposed to consider the two sides of faith and their value in the final opposite or similar outcome regarding a person’s faith (Rota, 2017). For example, a non-believer will not receive much with the outcome that turns out to be right, in comparison with the consequences that he will receive in the case of the opposite outcome.
Pascal said that people could not refuse the wager about the existence of God as “there is no choice” since any person is already a participant in events on Earth and not an observer. According to the philosopher, people cannot maintain a neutral position and must accept one of the choices (Rota, 2017). He considered it irrational not to accept the position of belief in God. Moreover, Pascal was subjective in his statements in relation to this matter. His point of view is influenced by a number of criteria, including the fact that in the past, he was a player, as well as the death of his father (Rota, 2017). Philosopher tried to persuade everyone to accept faith in God since he believes that this is the optimal bet. He spoke about the advantages of one option since from the acceptance of faith in God, a person does not receive any disadvantages but has the opportunity to receive benefits after death, as well as a number of values and principles during life (Rota, 2017). At the same time, Pascal did not provide arguments or another point of view in favor of a negative decision on faith in God; therefore, his bias is noticeable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, each of the philosophers provided their arguments and reasons for the existence of God. While both Pascal and Descartes support the idea of accepting faith in God, they do it with different approaches, since one considers it to be a wager and the other, in principle, does not consider the other side, making it initially impossible.
References
Rota, M. (2017). Pascal’s wager. Philosophy Compass, 12(4), e12404.
Slowik, E. (2019). Cartesian holenmerism and its discontents: Or, on the “dislocated” relationship of Descartes’s God to the material world. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 57(2), 235-254. Web.