Say there are infinite Gods with infinite hells to punish us and infinite heavens to reward us. These negatives and positives will all add up to mean that the outcome for any wagerer is that their expected gain from wagering will be 0. But if both the atheist and the person who believes in the God of Toilet Seat Lickers (who has a heavenly reward for all those who lick the toilet seat at least once) both have the same expected gain, there’s ultimately no reason to be an atheist rather than a toilet seat licker.

I see Pascal’s wager as a clever way to get round the atheist who refuse to engage in debate with theists simply by saying “it’s not logical”. Any conclusion can be logical if you argue logically for it.

Believing in something means you find it plausible, not because you get a prize for believing it. For example, if someone hooked me up to a lie detector (assuming these work, for the sake of the argument) and told me he’d give me ten thousand bucks if I said “I believe Elvis is alive” without triggering the lie response, I don’t think I’d get the money.

It also strikes me as shallow. If there is a god, and he knows the only reason I went along with the religious thing was to get a reward (or escape punishment), I don’t think he’d be too impressed.

“Suppose you are right, and God doesn’t exist. When I die as a believer, I have lost nothing….why not hedge your bets so at least you’ll have a chance of getting into heaven?”…