Pascal's Wager

I've a feeling some monkey wrenches have been found in this already, but I pride myself in throwing some twisted curve-balls. On that note:

Pascal's Wager presupposes the presence of God as a gain. What if God is a prick?

 

They appeal to it because an appeal to logic is better than an appeal to emotions, but as you say, it assumes too many things to be a valid argument.

 

Does it matter? You don't believe in something because you want to believe in it, or because it would have the most beneficial outcome. You believe in something because you think it makes sense and the alternative doesn't.

 

Hm... So, going by that, there would be both loss and gain at stake, regardless of the wager. The gain of being right and the loss of being wrong. That is, if it's considered a loss to be wrong. I don't, personally, but on a basic level it makes sense.

 

Well not much of a believer myself but if I was wrong I think I would gain something, even if it meant going to h*** then at least I would still have a conscious being. But that is just me and I believe this is actually pretty solid logic but also pointless logic. I mean does it matter, you won't find out until you are dead and then you can't come back and be like it's true he does exist or if it's wrong well you wouldn't be able to come back anyway.

My final thought on this is it is pretty pointless logic, sound though it may be. Your just gonna believe what you believe no matter what the risks are and if you change your belief based on that risk factor you aren't truly changing. So is it sensible? Yes. Is it Logical? Yes. Is it necessary? No.