Pascal's Wager has been refuted so many times on so many sites that I feel like I am being redundant here. But, there is always the possibility that someone, somewhere hasn't heard it before.
It comes in many forms too (I don't know if I've ever seen the original version from Pascal), but here's a common one: "If I believe in God and I'm right, I gain everything, and if I'm wrong I lose nothing. If you're right, you gain nothing...but if you're wrong you could lose everything. Doesn't it make more sense to believe?"
Brilliant! When I first heard it, I was floored. Great point. It didn't do much for me, but at least there was a Christian argument attempting to use logic, and using it much better than most Christian arguments. I read it a couple of times, and became more and more insulted by its implications.
There are three things wrong with Pascal's Wager:
1. Which "God" are we talking about? The argument implies two options only: "God" or no god at all. I assume this means the Christian god. Unfortunately, there are an infinite number of possible deities with an infinite number of qualifications. Belief in a deity wouldn't mean much to Allah--into the fire you go, Christians. There are more than two possibilities.
2. The assumption that believers have nothing to lose. I contend that by converting to Christianity I would lose a great deal of time, money, and self-respect. The best example of this loss is Blaise Pascal himself. He was a brilliant mathematician who was vital in the development of Analytic Geometry, Conic Sections, and the Theory of Probability. After a violent carriage accident that almost killed him (his carriage was hanging over a bridge), he spent the last ten years of his life contemplating the universe and the god concept, coming up with this wager. Imagine what contributions he could have made to science and math if he hadn't wasted his time on such garbage. Pascal lived to be 39 and is highly revered in the field of mathematics. One fourth of his life, wasted. Lose nothing? I don't think so.
3. The idea that I can simply change my beliefs. I mentioned this in my introduction, and I think this is where the idea comes from that a person can do such a thing. Pascal's Wager implies that it's a 50/50 chance, and we can just pick one or the other. This is an insult to Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists or anyone at all who has established beliefs about the universe and/or life. This implies that all of these people decided these beliefs (or lack thereof) on a whim, and could change them whenever they want for no particular reason. Garbage.
Besides all that, when you get right down to it, wouldn't the all-knowing "king of kings" know that I wasn't sincere? Would he find it acceptable for someone to change their beliefs and go through the motions just to cover their behind?
I also must mention that I find something inherently flawed in Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief that is spoken of here. It is the notion that an intelligent person who sees insufficient reason to believe is punished forever while a believer who is raised that way and never explores his belief at all receives nothing but rewards. Rewards for ignorance, punishment for honest inquiry. I do not believe that would be the policy of a just god.
That's all I have to say about that. Pascal's Wager is logically flawed and insulting. One can browse around the net and find more reasons why it sucks, but that's up to the individual. I'll admit this: It is the best Christian argument I have ever heard. The ease of refutation speaks volumes for the religion.