See the attached document
Choice A: Is it rational to form beliefs not based on evidence, but instead based on practical considerations of whether the belief is in your self-interest? Could forming beliefs in this way ever be dangerous? Explain and critically discuss Pascal’s Wager. Does the argument succeed? Explain why or why not in detail, supporting your answers with reasons in detail.
Choice B: Explain the problem of evil. Which of the theodicies discussed in this module (in the readings and/or lectures) do you find most convincing? Explain a criticism of that theodicy, and discuss. Do you think any of the theodicies are ultimately successful? If so, how would you respond to the criticism of the theodicy you chose? Explain and support your answers with reasons in detail.
Choice C: Explain and critically evaluate one of the arguments for God’s existence that we learned about – either the Design (teleological) argument or the Cosmological argument, including discussion of criticisms of the argument. Ultimately, do you think that the argument is successful? If so, how would you respond to the criticism of the argument? Explain and support your answers with reasons in detail.
Guidelines: Your discussion post should be well written and structured (like a short essay – defend a clear thesis, have more than one paragraph supporting your thesis and explaining the ideas), and be at least 300 words long (and you are encouraged to write something longer for a top grade). Then post replies to at least two of your fellow students, discussing the arguments they have presented (at least one reply should be to a student who wrote on a different topic from yours). Replies should be substantive (more than just “I agree” or “I disagree”), and should advance the conversation.