The Existance Of God :: essays research papers

The Existance Of GodEither God exists or He doesnt. There is no middle ground, and any attempt to remain neutral in recounting to Gods existence is automatically synonymous with unbelief. It is far from a "moot" question, because if God does exist, then nothing else real matters if He does not exist, then nothing really matters at all. This is kind of unfortunate for someone like myself, because Ive always lived on that nonexistent middle ground. Until now Ive never been put in a role where it was questioned. The last couple of years Ive referred to myself as a recovering Catholic, but never redefined my religion (or lack in that locationof) since then. When I found out I had to tell apart a stand in this paper one way or another, yes or no, black or white, it was unsettling. At that point it became more than a terminus paper. Can I, with a clear conscience, write a 15 page paper denouncing the existence of God? I kind of cringed as I imagined macrocosm struck down Indi ana Jones style, and in that, I had my answer. So without further adieu, the next 15 pages is me, making my case (I think) for the existence of God. What better place to start, than Pascals bet.Pascals Wager takes this angle You must wager. There is no choice, he says, you are already committed. I liked the example he used of the toss of the coin, he wants us to see this choice as the gamble that it is. Before you put your money on either, examine the odds, says Pascal One on side of the coin, heads God exists and there is an eternal heaven to be gained and an eternal Hell to be avoided. On the flip-side of the coin God does not exist, no heaven and hell to look transport to or fear, no rewards and no wrath. Choose God, says Pascal, If you win you win everything if you lose you lose nothing, though the odds are even, the rewards are not. Choose heads and win, and in the wrangling of Willy Wonka, you win the "grand and glorious jackpot." Is this true? Is it wrong for me to take a theists approach to this paper, and yet still disagree with Pascals logic? Pascal says there is a full and cheerful life to be won, but isnt there also a full and happy life to be lost, depending on your ideas of full and happy?