Philosophy: Pascal’s Wager (Religion & Theology Essay)

Pascal argues that one ought to wager “that God is,” because “[i]f you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,” and that, given this, one ought to try to bring oneself to believe in God. Outline and evaluate his argument
Specific Pt to argue with or agree with "If you are an unbeliever, it is rational to wager that god exists"
INTRO:
-about 100 words, concise
-MUST include a thesis statement
-an account of the issue you have chosen to address
-you must say enough that the reader is clear on the essays focus
-an account of the argument that you discuss in the essay
-give some sense of the flavour of the argument
-an account of the critical direction of the paper
THE BODY:
-about 500 words
1) A faithful and clear account of the argument that you have chosen to discuss
-when discussing Pascal's argument, devote space to the main claims that he makes in that argument. You want to explain to the reader the main conclusion that Pascal arrives at and his reasons for that conclusion.
2)A criticism of the argument you discuss or reply to a criticism of the argument you discuss.
-once you have outlined the argument that you address, outline your criticism of the argument or the criticism and reply to the criticism that you want to discuss
-these must deal with some specific element of the argument as you've described it
-you are to focus on just ONE objection or criticism or ONE reply to ONE criticism
-it is very important that your criticism of he argument that you discuss does not simply contradict what the author is saying, your criticism must CONFUTE the author, that is, establish that the author is in some way wrong
-In a paper that aims just to raise a criticism, you just raise one criticism. In a paper that aims to reply to a criticism, the aim of the paper is to defend an argument
-In this case your job is to outline the argument that concerns you, the criticism to which you plan to reply, and your reply
-Your aim must be to show the reader how the position you have chosen to discuss can deflect the particular criticism that you mention
-you must again not simply contradict the criticism u must CONFUTE
THE CONCLUSION:
-about 100 words
-an account of the issue you have addressed
-an account of the argument you have adressed
-an account of what you have argued with respect to the argument. You have to either raised a criticism to it or you have show that a position that you favour is immune to a criticism or is capable of deflecting it
Extra notes...
- In this paper there is not a strict requirement for citation style. No points will be lost for, eg, a misplaced comma. What matters is that you are clear and consistent—and what especially matters is that you give credit where it is due. When in doubt, cite.
You need not give a footnote for every reference to Pascal. You could, instead, give the full citation in a footnote the first time you cite him, and add something like "subsequent references will be in parentheses in the text." And then after that you could just put the page number in the text in parentheses, eg (###), or, if you are citing more than one source, add his name so we know to whom you are referring, eg (Pascal, ###). Here, again, is the citation for the copy I provided:
Blaise Pascal, Thoughts, trans. Trotter, from Trotter et al (eds.), Pascal's Thoughts, Letters, and Minor Works (Collier and Son, 1910).
- 700 words total