Pascal Wager was a 17th century French philosopher, theologian, and mathematician he is an argument for believe in god was believing Christians says if we do not know that there is a God if He exists or not, but in the possibility that God exists and that there was a Paradise and Hell, the believer does not lose anything will go to heaven and the infidel goes to hell. This simple mathematical calculation we realize that the insured person lucky more luck unbeliever because whether there is a god or there is no god of the insured person does not lose anything because he lives his life for the life of the CONFERANCE Pascal when he dies, there is a possibility to go or may not find anything while the unbeliever live even if he lived blighting conference when dies there, the possibility of going to the fire of hell or there is no possibility.…show more content… The second problem is that the insured person his life good for whatever the end, of course. I think that the first premise assumes that if a god exists he is one that will not punish the believer for his belief. The second premise needs more substantial evidence provided that there are a lot of restrictions on believers and that their belief, if they believe because of the wager, is only deceiving them. So the first premise is wrong and the second premise needs strong evidence to prove it given the amount of effort and moral differences it requires to preform religious
