Is it morally permissible to believe in God just because it is to your practical advantage to believe? Why or why not? Use the material in Vaughn's book to help you explain how Pascal argues for belief in God. Explain the strengths and weaknesses of other thinkers have identified in his reasoning. What does the argument against believing in God without sufficient evidence look like? Is it plausible that God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics to because they refuse to believe without evidence? After all, aren't they simply using God's gift of reason to arrive at their decision? 8-10 paragraphs using the books as the only resource. The book is called Philosophy Here and Now by Vaughn