Both Pascal and William James put forward a kind of prudential argument for religious belief and argue that we should make decisions on practical grounds in those cases. Contemporary philosopher Michael Bergmann, on the other hand as a representative of Reformed epistemology, takes a different approach. Instead of arguing that religious beliefs can be justified based on prudential reasons, he instead posits that human beings have a "sense of divinity" that allows us to rationally form basic beliefs entailing God's existence. Are either of these two streams of nonevidentialism reasonable justifications of religious belief in your view? Why or why not?

I forgot about this discussion post and would appreciate anyone that could help with such a short time limit. i need this by no later than 23:00..

Both Pascal and William James put forward a kind of prudential argument for religious belief and argue that we should make decisions on practical grounds in those cases. Contemporary philosopher Michael Bergmann, on the other hand as a representative of Reformed epistemology, takes a different approach. Instead of arguing that religious beliefs can be justified based on prudential reasons, he instead posits that human beings have a “sense of divinity” that allows us to rationally form basic beliefs entailing God’s existence. Are either of these two streams of nonevidentialism reasonable justifications of religious belief in your view? Why or why not?