Well...i didn't know that was his wager. I was just fishing for something off the top of my head. Should of never used it. Take most of what i say with a grain of salt. Because i'm a very right brain random ADD freak of a good nature. I think right to left simultaneously as my "beautiful" mind{like the dude in the movie} is trying to think from left to right.
Hehe, no problems
Just for your information then, Pascal's Wager is a argument that was put forward by French Mathematician Blaise Pascal back in the 1600's.
Basically he argues:
If God is real:
A belief in God will guarantee you eternal salvation
Disbelief in God will guarantee you eternal torture
If God is not real:
A belief in God is not going to hurt you
Disbelief in God is not going to hurt you.
Therefore he argues it's safest to profess belief in God, as you can't lose... Whereas disbelief has potential consequences.
This argument is actually a very widely used argument by Christians, and one that many use as a reason to keep believing.
--------
The problem is that many people can't see the logical fallacies and contradictions inherent in the wager.
For example:
1) If the Islamic idea of God is real, you will be punished more than a non-believer for worshipping a competing God rather than just straight disbelief. There are thousands of other Gods to choose from, the odds that your God is the actual correct one is an extreme longshot at best. Believing in a false God could be just as, if not more disastrous for you.
2) If God is not real and you choose to believe him, there are some major consequences. For example: The religious influences on society are a complete waste of time and you spend your entire life devoting many hours to worshipping a lie.
3) You're supporting a false system that's actively trying to obstruct science and therefore the progress of many advances. This can be anything from technology to medicine.
4) The religious and holy wars will have far more people backing their causes, resulting in who knows how many senseless deaths.
Furthermore, he makes a logical error in stating the existence or non-existence of God is a 50/50 proposal. Given the fact we have no evidence to show God exists, the odds are extremely unlikely that he actually does exist..... Therefore his premise is based on faulty odds.
On top of that, professing belief is not actually believing. Most Christians say you have to actually accept Jesus to be saved. If you say you accept him and you don't actually accept him... You're not only guilty of not accepting Jesus as Lord, but you have also broken the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" commandment, getting yourself in even more trouble.
Basically, belief is not a choice... You can claim to believe something, But whether or not you actually believe it is outside of your control.
There's more than that wrong with the wager, but I'm sure you get the idea that it's just simply a bad argument.
