Pascal's Wager Argument Analysis

How would you respond to Pascal's wager?

Pascal’s Wager is a hugely significant argument in apologetic philosophy, it relates to Blaise Pascal’s idea that all humans must wager on the existence of God with their own lives; the foundations of this argument are one of the earliest forms of game theory. The assumptions that are made in this argument are that if you do believe in God the payoff is infinite if God does in fact exist and there must be at least a slight chance that God does in fact exist. If in fact these statements are true a rational person should live as if God exists. This is because a person would stand to gain an infinite reward if they do believe in god and he exists. Whilst without believing in god you only stand to gain
One of the central mantras of the wager is that a person is able to believe in something because they want to. I would argue that it is clear that for at least a portion of the population this will not work. Beliefs are very often an instinctive action, most beliefs are based on personal experience, for example we have the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow because of our own experience (i.e. seeing the sun rise every day). However in the case of religion a relatively small amount of people can claim to actually have had any experience of God. For example if someone told you that the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster, it seems impossible that you could believe that to be true, no matter how much you appeared to be inclined to believe it. Clearly people do not have complete free will (i.e. they can’t just choose to believe in whatever they want) so I would argue that Pascal’s wager stumbles (if not falls down completely) at the first hurdle, his effort to give people a reason to believe merely has the power to make people to fake their belief in God rather than actually have any level of real belief. Therefore in order for the wager to hold any sway I would say that one must assume that god does not care if you fake it, as it is impossible to trick an all-powerful God into thinking you believe when you don’t as he knows really what is
Clearly Pascal as a devout Christian made the wager unreasonably biased toward the Judeo-Christian God. The fact that any God one can imagine must have an equal probability of existing due to the wager being not reliant on evidence it means we are unable to give odds to the probability of any God existing and therefore must assign an equal value for any God existing. Also to muddy the waters further there is the fact that there is an infinite Gods that have a chance of existing. This is because there is an infinite amount of attributes that a God could have and changing any one of them by any amount would create a new distinct God. If any God had a tangible level of probability it would enable Pascal’s wager to work. However as Pascal made his wager independent of evidence this falls down. The infinite God argument means that for every God there is an opposite God that punishes people for the same thing that the first God would reward them for. Therefore no matter which God (or no God) you will always get a sum of zero of reward in the afterlife as there will always be the reverse of that God. So overall the wager actually makes no case for any God. Assuming that believing in God takes some small amount away from your life (due to effort of worshipping, etc.) it is actually best to just not believe in any God. This is added