Do You Agree or Disagree with Pascal's Wager

Do you agree or disagree with Pascal's wager

Pascal's "wager" is the most misunderstood bit of writing outside of the Bible, I think. Pascal's point wasn't an argument for belief. Pascal was making a statement about probability and risk. His point was that those who believe in God risk very little (losing some portion of their lives in worship) in return for a tremendous potential gain, but those who don't believe risk nothing (not losing anything to worship) in return for a potentially tremendous loss. Pascal also assumes (related to the above assumption) that belief in God is enough to gain all the infinite happiness. But Pascal's wager makes no account for what a life spent believing in God would mean. Does it mean no more sin? Does it mean discipline and sacrifice? Will I have to die for my belief? I do believe in God, but I found Pascal's wager a small, emotional justification for sharing belief with other believers at best.

I dissagre with Pascal's wager because the real problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is a Fallacy of Presumption. It presumes there is one true faith. In the case of abrahamic religions (Muslims, Christians and Jews) each are absolutely certain that theirs is the only "one true faith". In order to win the wager you'd have to believe in all three (not to mention all other religions). This is impossible. If you can provide absolute proof that one religion is right and all the others are wrong that we wouldn't need the wager.

...