Problems with Pascal's Wager

[Prevaricator]

In my opinion

This is one of the most bullshit arguments for believing in God (judeo-christian god, because the argument forces it to be specific). The argument goes something like this, for those who don't know

1. If you believe in god and you are right, then you go to heaven at the end of your life. (Infinite gain)
2. If you believe in god and you are wrong then maybe you have a little less fun in life, but nothing really happens. (minor loss)
3. If you don't believe in god and are wrong, then you go to hell. (infinite loss)
4. If you don't believe in god and are right then maybe you have more fun in life, but relatively not a lot (minor gain).

Therefore, you should believe in god because you want to avoid 3. at all costs and hope to have a shot at 1.

Besides not giving probabilities of gods existence, or the fact that you cannot just "decide" to believe in something, the structure of this argument is faulty because it could be used for anything. There is no link between believing in god and getting into heaven. You could just as easily argue that a person can only get into paradise by eating ten bananas a day, and use the same logical structure of Pascal's wager to mandate that you do so because of the infinite gain. Of course this banana example is quite absurd, but consider the conflicting world religions. You could use the logic of Pascal's Wager for any one of them, and since they conflict, something must be up.