Rene Descartes's Argument For The Existence Of God

Pascal vs Descartes Paper
Pascal’s argument is fallible because he reaches the conclusion that we should “wager” God’s existence, rather than coming up with “proof” by using deductive reasoning like Descartes provides in his argument. These early 17th century philosophers both provided writings defending the validity of the Christian religion and of God’s existence. After the Protestant Reformation of 1517, the Catholic Church’s sanctity was questioned. Different religions sprouted across Europe and citizens of Western Europe began questioning religion itself and the existence of God. Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes each claimed to have a strong belief in Catholicism (or a denomination of), and because of this strong belief, they sought to
Descartes states that he is certain that he is a thinking think. All thinking beings have ideas. These ideas must have a starting point, a place that these ideas were formed, that these ideas came from. Descartes then continues to explain that although people can be deceived by their senses and their ideas, why would God allow us to be deceived by our senses? For it is this God that has given us these senses and has given us this Earth. If the existence of God is false, then how do we know if we are truly being deceived? This matter of deception is something that Descartes constantly relates back too. He does this in order to provide a starting point so that he can then use deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Descartes claims that the cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality (formal reality meaning what something actually is and objective reality meaning how that something appears to us using our sense). Descartes explains how he, and us, all have an idea of God in our minds. This idea must have come from somewhere. This he explains using deductive reasoning. We have an idea of God, let A represent this idea, and we can say that the actual God can be represented using B. The idea of God (A) must be caused by something, which is at least as perfect or real as the actual God (B). The
However, seeing the writings of both Descartes and Pascal, I find it difficult that a person can relate more to Pascal’s reasoning than to Descartes. Although it is obvious Descartes did not prove God’s existence, he put forth an effort that has yet to be matched. His argument asked the reader to delve into his or her own mind and ask themselves questions they wouldn’t normally ask. Descartes forces us, the reader, to precisely follow his method on how he reaches his conclusions to each meditation. He provides an opening statement or question, and then provides us with the logic and reasoning he used to reach his conclusion. Pascal uses probability theory and decision theory to get us to believe in the existence of God. Mathematical theories he uses to explain his belief. Descartes final conclusion is that based on the evidence he finds using deductive reasoning, that there is in fact, a God. Pascal’s final conclusion, is that a person should “wager”, or bet, on the existence of God because there is much to gain by doing so. By wagering on God, people can find eternal happiness and have a purpose in life. Well, I say, even if this may be true, I don’t find myself too eager to “risk” my beliefs on a bet/wager instead of finding true proof, like