The irrationality of an infinite GodFew philosophers have had the strength of will and the audacity to assert, like Nietzsche, that “God is dead ". However, there are those who question its properties, and it is in their arguments that we can begin to question preconceived ideas about the characteristics of the Christian God. I will compare the arguments of Blaise Pascal and David Hume to assert that believing in an infinite God without any proof is irrational. First, I will reconstruct Pascal's argument that it is infinitely beneficial to bet in favor of the existence of God despite a clear lack of evidence, then I will reconstruct Hume's argument that belief in a God infinite 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 do not need any evidence to prove the existence of an infinite God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayBlaise Pascal argues in his “Wager” that belief in an infinite God without any evidence is rational. He argues that since you must bet your happiness, it is obvious that you must bet in favor of the existence of God because you have nothing to gain but happiness and nothing to lose at all. 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 to truly understand or simply prove 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. . It poses the first undeniable premise that it is rational to want to achieve the highest possible happiness. He then goes on to claim that betting on the existence of God will reward you infinitely, that “you win it all,” provided certain conditions apply (2). The terms are mathematical: for this argument to be valid, there must be a chance, however small, that God exists. You can't multiply infinity by 0 and get anything other than 0, but multiplying infinity by 0.0000001 gives infinity. You can still achieve infinite happiness even with the smallest chance of God's existence. The second subpremise expands on this point, justifying that this argument is only valid if there is an infinite amount of happiness to be derived from belief in an infinite God. If this is true, there is no point in disbelieving it as long as there is even a small margin with which to bet. Finally, Pascal's third justification for his second premise is that “what you bet is finite” (2). As a limited being with a limited amount of happiness to bet on, it's a no-brainer to believe. Even though a massive amount of happiness subtracted from zero would result in a massive loss of happiness if God did not exist, it is nothing compared to the same amount added to infinity if God exists. The net gain is infinitely great, and this is why Pascal exhorts all his readers to “bet therefore, without hesitation, that it 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 believing in an infinite god without any evidence is irrational, given the way the world currently is. Hume, like Pascal, comes from a more clinical than humanist background, but his empirical demand for experiential proof and his skepticism towards the supernatural lead him toa very different conclusion. Hume presents, in “Dialogue X” and “Dialogue XI” of his Dialogues on Natural Religion, three characters whom he uses to probe different arguments for or against the infinity of God. One character in particular, Philo, serves as Hume's spokesperson, and it is his final argument from Dialogue X and his extension of this argument from Dialogue XI that I will focus on. During Dialogue The next two premises of the argument concern the theoretical infinite existence of God: "Is he willing to prevent evil, but is he not able to do so?" then he is powerless. Is he able, but unwilling? then he is malicious” (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 power but does not want it, he lacks omnibenevolence. Whichever one God is lacking, it cannot be both because there is suffering in the world, and so it is illogical to think that God is infinite. Philo maintains this position throughout the dialogue and continues to develop it in Dialogue XI. Philo creates a two-part hypothetical situation in the eleventh dialogue, speaking of a simple human of "very limited intelligence" and of God, who is "very good, wise and powerful" (232). Philo asserts that if this limited mortal human were informed that an infinite God had created the world and was then introduced into the world, the mortal would never expect to find "vice, misery, and disorder" like those who currently exist (232). The only way to maintain one's belief in the infinite would be to assume that it is too small and too limited to understand God's larger plan, that all this misery is a means to a positive end. In this way, Hume does not outright reject the concept of an infinite God, but questions the belief in an infinite God given current circumstances. God's future plans and ulterior motives cannot be ruled out, but what can be said is that given the way the world is right now, rife with crime and misery , the belief in an infinite God is irrational. Keep in mind: this is only a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay That leaves me with two philosophers who seem to make compelling arguments at opposite ends of the spectrum of this question, but given the right pressure, it becomes apparent that Pascal's argument simply doesn't hold up like the one of Hume. Pascal makes an assumption that weakens his entire argument to the point of rendering it irrelevant – the idea that not only does he not have proof of the existence of an infinite God, but that he does not need. Immediately before discussing the wager itself, Pascal asserts that “reason cannot decide” whether God exists or not (Pascal 2). He defeats himself in his own writings by assuming that all will accept the possibility that God exists without any proof. Pascal does not base his argument on empirical evidence like Hume or even on natural reason like Descartes. His argument is based on some probability, yes, but mostly on conjectures and hypotheses, simply asserting that it is possible that God exists and that it is therefore our responsibility to believe in him. Hume's argument is concrete and based on experiential evidence. He does not lock himself into hypotheses like Pascal – he fully accepts that an infinite God may be possible in certain other,.