In reading chapter 4 in the book Roots of Wisdom, I found Pascal’s Wager to be very interesting. It is a simple argument that is supposed to show it is basically smarter to believe in God existence rather than risk the possibility of eternal punishment in hell. It states that there either is a God or there is not, and one can either chose to believe or not (p.171). The next part to this solution is that there are four possible outcomes. The first outcome is if there is a God and you believe, the reward is eternal life. Next, if there is a God and you do not believe, you risk consequences like the rest of eternity in hell. Then, if there is no God and you believed there was, you might have missed out on some things trying to be good in God’s eyes. Lastly, if there is no God and you still choose not to believe, then you just die (p.171). After reading all the outcomes, it seems that believing is a safer bet. Although this argument makes sense and seems very simple, it makes me wonder if proving God’s existence could possibly be that straightforward. We are talking about God who is supposed to be this all mighty power. One would think there is more to it. Even though it should probably be more complex, Pascal’s Wager made sense to me at first because I like to think of things simply so it is easier to understand and apply to my life. I think if God exists, you do good, and believe than you will have eternal happiness. I also think that if there is a God, you do not believe, and do not do good than you will not go to heaven. Since this wager is so simple, it basically infers that anyone who believes in God is just automatically rewarded. According to Christianity, we are taught that we need to earn heaven, it is not given to us and I agree. Heaven and eternal happiness should be worked for and be a real reward. If someone does not do any good throughout their life but says they believe in God, they should not be rewarded with heav